We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
More evidence that double digit wage rises are back :(
Comments
-
chewmylegoff wrote: »Well in the interest of balance, the increase will no go through until the next parliament. Pay was increased to its current level in 2010 - so by the time this goes through MPs will have had no payrise for 5 years. It is roughly equivalent to getting 2% per annum (if they get reelected of course). If you don't think your MP deserves a payrise then don't vote them back in.
Does this mean that Doctors, nurses, police, firefighters etc can expect a 4-6% pay rise in 2015?0 -
vivatifosi wrote: »My local MP is great and deserves a rise. It's everyone else's MP that I don't want to have a payrise. Unfortunately I have no influence over their rise.
In all seriousness, I have no problem with their having a payrise, but I think part of it should be performance related as it would be in many other jobs with a similar salary. Those targets should not be related to party metrics, but others such as answering correspondence from their constituents and holding sufficient surgeries, maybe turning up for x number of sessions per year. We all know that there are MPs that don't achieve this, so they should be hit in the pocket. The metrics may need some finessing - I don't know what would be appropriate - it's more about the concept.
I do agree that those are all things which MPs should do but it would be difficult to justify pay increases on the basis of them simply turning up to do their actual job and just because they were there doesn't mean they did their job well. It would seem more appropriate to dock their pay for not turning up enough.
Whilst in an ideal world everyone would receive performance related payrises, I think it would be almost impossible to introduce a performance related pay system for MPs which rewarded good and outstanding performance in any objective way without extreme expense being incurred.0 -
it's not entirely clear how increasing the number of voters per MP will enhance democracy or accountability
If voting changed anything they would abandon it.
There is little real accountability unless they are completely reckless or incompetent.
Even rank stupidity seems acceptable. Allowing this kind of increase through being just one example.
Most governments these days appear to be run by a small inner circle (some haven't even had that)."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: ». If you don't think your MP deserves a payrise then don't vote them back in.
Won't stop the next lack lustre wooden top picking up the same."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »If voting changed anything they would abandon it.
There is little real accountability unless they are completely reckless or incompetent.
Even rank stupidity seems acceptable. Allowing this kind of increase through being just one example.
Most governments these days appear to be run by a small inner circle (some haven't even had that).
I believe in democracy and voting does change the world.0 -
I believe in democracy and voting does change the world.
Within a democracy little changes perhaps it because we only dress up plutocracy."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »Well in the interest of balance, the increase will no go through until the next parliament. Pay was increased to its current level in 2010 - so by the time this goes through MPs will have had no payrise for 5 years. It is roughly equivalent to getting 2% per annum (if they get reelected of course). If you don't think your MP deserves a payrise then don't vote them back in.
Also in the interest of balance, it's not the MPs themselves making this proposal but the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Within a democracy little changes perhaps it because we only dress up plutocracy.
Some would say it is impossible to have true democracy with anything like our current system. All we do is vote for one or other from 5 or 6 self-interested, politicised, greedy individuals.
True democracy would be something a little bit more like Jury Service. A random selection - in each of 650 areas - of adults who would be 'forced' to serve for the next 5 years..... save only for those with significant impairments that would prevent them serving.
I assume PM and Cabinet would be chosen at random by lottery from the 650.
A rather interesting concept.....0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Won't stop the next lack lustre wooden top picking up the same.
You could always run for parliament yourself if you think you would do a better job.0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »save only for those with significant impairments that would prevent them serving.
Socialists and teetotallers?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards