More evidence that double digit wage rises are back :(

vivatifosi

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

I don't know what the metrics should be, but they are measured, so could be paid by results. This website has some metrics for MPs, you can put in your postcode and see how your local one comes out..

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

It's quite a neat website.

patanne

If they moved parliament out of London they could actually make large savings (the further north or west they moved), they would be able to cut pay. Then all they need to do is cut the number of MPs, after all they didn't always have 625 did they? I am pleased to see that some have actually come out against it, but will wait to see if it is only the ones with large incomes from other sources!

chewmylegoff

But those sort of stats don't measure performance or effectiveness - I would say they measure participation not results. To some degree they measure productivity but high productivity does not necessarily equal high performance. Aren't things like satisfactory resolution of constituents' problems; practical and effective input into legislation; and holding the government front benchers to account more relevant? They aren't really measurable in any objective way so you would need to introduce a subjective assessment of each MP's performance which would need to be moderated by an indepedent body, otherwise the leader's cronies would just get the highest rating and highest pay and it would incentivise backbenchers to toe the party line and not be a "trouble maker".

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

You could always run for parliament yourself if you think you would do a better job.

That is true but I can enjoy my time. Sadly 646 seem happy to waste theirs at vast expense with little noticeable effect other than self agrandissment.

purch

vivatifosi wrote: »

My local MP is great and deserves a rise.

Well in the interest of balance

My MP is a moron and deserves to be shot

Loughton_Monkey

purch wrote: »

My MP is a moron and deserves to be shot

Mine is Eleanor Laing, who avoided £180K CGT by 'flipping' her home. She repaid £25K as a 'moral gesture'.

Nice to know she has 'morals'.

.... but then again so do tapeworms I expect.

CLAPTON

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Mine is Eleanor Laing, who avoided £180K CGT by 'flipping' her home. She repaid £25K as a 'moral gesture'.

Nice to know she has 'morals'.

.... but then again so do tapeworms I expect.

and you don't minimise your tax bill in any legal way what so ever?

so ISAs, no pensions?

Loughton_Monkey

CLAPTON wrote: »

and you don't minimise your tax bill in any legal way what so ever?

so ISAs, no pensions?

I take every appropriate (and legal) measure I can to reduce tax. Yes I use ISA's. Yes I contribute to Pensions. Yes I put assets in the name of Mrs LM to avoid Higher Rate Tax.

But when I was working, I didn't fiddle my expenses.

Nor will Eleanor Laing (again) I expect.

CLAPTON

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I take every appropriate (and legal) measure I can to reduce tax. Yes I use ISA's. Yes I contribute to Pensions. Yes I put assets in the name of Mrs LM to avoid Higher Rate Tax.

But when I was working, I didn't fiddle my expenses.

Nor will Eleanor Laing (again) I expect.

I know nothing of your MP

however, if some-one genuinely has two homes then the law says you can nominate which one is your PPR and you can change that nomination to minimise tax.

Why is that different to using ISAs or swapping assets to Mrs LM to minimise tax?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I didn't fiddle my expenses.

I'm generally of the opinion that MP's are underpaid for what they do, and increasing the pay rates would attract a better standard of MP.

The expenses 'scandal' I thought was a bit of a distraction really.

We all know that senior politicians from every party have repeatedly tried to hold down MP pay for political reasons, and the expenses system was allowed to get so slack to partially compensate.

But the thing that really gets my goat about it was all those tiny claims, for a plug, or a fuse, or something equally ridiculous.

How the hell did they have time to do that when they were supposed to be running the country?

I wouldn't dream of claiming for a cup of coffee, or a pack of biro pens, or whatever, as although I technically could in most cases the time it takes to type up the form is worth more to me than the few pence I'd get back.

That so many of them had the time or inclination to do so says more about the dire state of MP renumeration and the calibre of people it attracts to the profession than anything else IMO.