MPs overpaid by £11,000 already according to the public

edited 11 July 2013 at 11:49AM in Employment, Jobseeking & Training
56 replies 4.3K views
"There is widespread opposition to pay rises for MPs, according to... "
Read the full story:

"MPs overpaid by £11,000 already according to the public"


OfficialStamp.gif
«13456

Replies

  • I'll stick my neck out and say I'm in favour of the pay-rises provided it attracts better caliber candidates to the role.
  • ValHallerValHaller Forumite
    5.2K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    I'll stick my neck out and say I'm in favour of the pay-rises provided it attracts better caliber candidates to the role.
    I agree. There is something quite barmy about attitudes to the way we pay MPs - sooner or later if we let their salaries erode, it will become a choice for some of going on Jeremy Kyle or becoming an MP. At that point we will decide to do without them and become some kind of dictatorship.

    I did read too that there is a move to cut their severance allowances for when they leave parliament.

    I think we should be paying them more and restricting their scope to earn outside parliament. And we should be more ready to kick them out individually. I would happily see them on over £100000 if they were doing a good job.
    You might as well ask the Wizard of Oz to give you a big number as pay a Credit Referencing Agency for a so-called 'credit-score'
  • I'm for them getting £150 k per year and all other benefits removed.
  • JimmyTheWigJimmyTheWig Forumite
    12.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Glad you quoted the median average (rather than the mean of £139k!).

    Presumably where you have said "Prominent was the view that for them to get a pay cut when the public sector pay rise is capped at 1% is hypocritical." you mean rise.
  • SoubretteSoubrette Forumite
    4.1K Posts
    ValHaller wrote: »
    I agree. There is something quite barmy about attitudes to the way we pay MPs - sooner or later if we let their salaries erode, it will become a choice for some of going on Jeremy Kyle or becoming an MP. At that point we will decide to do without them and become some kind of dictatorship.

    I did read too that there is a move to cut their severance allowances for when they leave parliament.

    I think we should be paying them more and restricting their scope to earn outside parliament. And we should be more ready to kick them out individually. I would happily see them on over £100000 if they were doing a good job.

    I too agree with a sum of £100,000 a year but I would like to see all expenses cut to only those allowable to the rest of us.

    But a serious question. If you offer a lot of money for any position, does it attract the best calibre candidate or just the greediest?
  • IdiophreakIdiophreak Forumite
    12K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hate to say it, but I'm not really convinced that's a valuable outcome from the poll, to be honest...being an MP is a full time job, so they're entitled to minimum wage. If you discount the option that doesn't permit this, even the median suggests that they're being paid just fine...

    Not quite as striking a headline, though, I'll admit.
  • thestubthestub Forumite
    9 Posts
    The current low salary attracts the wrong people to the role of MP - people looking to make money once they are done through their new contacts, or those who are independently wealthy (and therefore out of touch).

    These guys have to live in London and the constituency, plus have working hours that are anything but regular.

    I wouldn't consider it for only £66k.

    Want to attract high quality people from diverse backgrounds (our MPs are anything but diverse) you have to compete with the tops of other professions. £100k and we will start seeing decent calibre people coming through, rather than career politicians.
  • JimmyTheWigJimmyTheWig Forumite
    12.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    thestub wrote: »
    Want to attract high quality people from diverse backgrounds (our MPs are anything but diverse) you have to compete with the tops of other professions. £100k and we will start seeing decent calibre people coming through, rather than career politicians.
    Are people at the tops of other professions, are people earning £100k a year, from diverse backgrounds?
    I don't think so. I think most of them were born to the same sorts of parents, educated in the same sort of schools, belonged to the same sort of clubs, etc.

    It's not the "low wage" that is preventing, say, a bus driver from becoming an MP.
  • ValHallerValHaller Forumite
    5.2K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Soubrette wrote: »
    I too agree with a sum of £100,000 a year but I would like to see all expenses cut to only those allowable to the rest of us.

    But a serious question. If you offer a lot of money for any position, does it attract the best calibre candidate or just the greediest?
    I think that expenses was part of the problem in the first place. They were allowed generous expenses to paper over the cracks of their pay being restrained by too much for too long - "Never mind, you can make it up on expenses nudge nudge"
    You might as well ask the Wizard of Oz to give you a big number as pay a Credit Referencing Agency for a so-called 'credit-score'
  • theblaggertheblagger Forumite
    2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    I feel they should get around £150,000 , to attract a decent MP, but take all expenses away ...they already get alot of subsidies ...i.e meals in parliament ,train travel etc
    I refer to my byline below ...

    Ad hominem
    An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest News and Guides