Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
Page 1
  • The_Hurricane
    • #2
    • 11th Jul 13, 11:00 AM
    • #2
    • 11th Jul 13, 11:00 AM
    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.
  • ValHaller
    • #3
    • 11th Jul 13, 11:19 AM
    • #3
    • 11th Jul 13, 11:19 AM
    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.
    Originally posted by The_Hurricane
    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'
  • The_Hurricane
    • #4
    • 11th Jul 13, 11:44 AM
    • #4
    • 11th Jul 13, 11:44 AM
    I'm for them getting 150 k per year and all other benefits removed.
    • JimmyTheWig
    • By JimmyTheWig 11th Jul 13, 12:10 PM
    • 11,860 Posts
    • 11,398 Thanks
    JimmyTheWig
    • #5
    • 11th Jul 13, 12:10 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Jul 13, 12:10 PM
    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.
  • Soubrette
    • #6
    • 11th Jul 13, 12:12 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Jul 13, 12:12 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by ValHaller
    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?
    • Idiophreak
    • By Idiophreak 11th Jul 13, 12:40 PM
    • 11,636 Posts
    • 15,175 Thanks
    Idiophreak
    • #7
    • 11th Jul 13, 12:40 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Jul 13, 12:40 PM
    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.
  • thestub
    • #8
    • 11th Jul 13, 1:13 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Jul 13, 1:13 PM
    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.
    • JimmyTheWig
    • By JimmyTheWig 11th Jul 13, 1:44 PM
    • 11,860 Posts
    • 11,398 Thanks
    JimmyTheWig
    • #9
    • 11th Jul 13, 1:44 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Jul 13, 1:44 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by thestub
    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.
  • ValHaller
    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?
    Originally posted by Soubrette
    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'
    • theblagger
    • By theblagger 11th Jul 13, 2:02 PM
    • 1,940 Posts
    • 2,502 Thanks
    theblagger
    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.
  • ValHaller
    It's not the "low wage" that is preventing, say, a bus driver from becoming an MP.
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    I don't think that the low wage is preventing the bus driver becoming an MP in the first place. It is the low wage which is encouraging the barrister to continue as a barrister.
    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'
    • Rafter
    • By Rafter 11th Jul 13, 2:13 PM
    • 3,837 Posts
    • 1,366 Thanks
    Rafter
    Hard to see how being an MP is more stressful or onerous than the head teacher of a school - although I accept the argument that there isn't the same job security.

    My main gripe is those who have outside earnings but still receive payment for their 'full time job' as an MP.

    Personally, I think if you have any outside earnings (other from investments) that require you to devote less than 100% of your working time to your MP role, then that income should be deducted from your MP's salary.

    I also question, based on reports of prime ministers question time earlier this week, the poor representation by my own MP and the fact that getting elected an MP doesn't necessarily mean you have the qualifications to run the country means we need a different system.

    Maybe 1/2 the MPs should be constituency MPs with local responsibility and the balance drawn from a pool selected by their party (in proportion to number of votes received) who are both representative of the country and have the skills necessary to make (and challenge) new laws and run government departments.

    So experts on health, education, transport, defence, tax, international aid etc and not just a lot of lawyers and ex advisors with politics degrees?

    Just a thought.

    R.
    Smile , it makes people wonder what you have been up to.
  • dandelionclock30
    In real terms they dont just get 66K though do they. They get free travel, a second home paid for in London.( Even when they have one already down there, they rent it out and still claim for another). Subsidized meals.
    Being invited here there and everywhere and being schmoozed by big buisnesses. Doing after dinner talks etc and getting grands for it.
    Also they are offered things like directorships of huge companies which come with perks.
    In real terms what they get is a least double or even treble the actual paid salary. Plus once they have been a senior M.P a lot seem to sort themselves out working for The European Parliament,or The House of Lords. Both the ultimate gravy train.
    So basically there well sorted.
    • JimmyTheWig
    • By JimmyTheWig 11th Jul 13, 2:25 PM
    • 11,860 Posts
    • 11,398 Thanks
    JimmyTheWig
    I don't think that the low wage is preventing the bus driver becoming an MP in the first place. It is the low wage which is encouraging the barrister to continue as a barrister.
    Originally posted by ValHaller
    Do you think more ex-barristers as MPs would result in the diversification in the House of Commons that we need? Or do you think more ex-bus drivers would?
    Personally, I'd go for the ex-bus drivers.
    • Cycrow
    • By Cycrow 11th Jul 13, 3:13 PM
    • 2,601 Posts
    • 1,474 Thanks
    Cycrow
    maybe if the wages were lower with less perks you will get more that actually want to be there rather than doing the job simply for money
  • ValHaller
    Do you think more ex-barristers as MPs would result in the diversification in the House of Commons that we need? Or do you think more ex-bus drivers would?
    Personally, I'd go for the ex-bus drivers.
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    I would go with the busdrivers. My point is not about diversification, it is about MP's moonlighting. That should be stopped.
    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'
  • The_Hurricane
    It's not the most pleasant role in the world but it is vital - therefore it should have a salary to match this.
  • princessdon
    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.
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    I think it depends on the sector - my OH earns approx 90k, pretty average for his field and like myself is from a working class background as are most work friends. I'd never get that salary in public sector unless top brass with private education etc.

    I do think MPS expenses should be what we can claim though, that is what I object to, not their salary
  • ILW
    What is all this stuff about getting the "right" people?
    The main qualification for the vast majority, is just getting accepted as a candidate by the local party. I would rather see someone with commitment to help rather than some pro politician who cannot do anything else.
    Double a bus drivers salary should get the "right" types in and discourage the chancers.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,058Posts Today

7,866Users online

Martin's Twitter