A disgrace in my opinion

I had a look online at Nurses salaries and they are quite complicated, so many roles and grades. Their pay does incease as they get more senior and with years of experience. I think it's similar to other front line staff. Not suggesting it couldnt be better but it's difficult to make comparisons to MPs.
 
Is £64k a year for, potentially, spending a good number of nights away from home excessive or is it partly a reflection of that?

Personally, I think £64k for a back bencher is a bit high, but it isn't far away from being ok. Expenses; I don't know the details of how they claim, or what is exceptable to claim for? However, I always thought that it is a claim for money spent AND that claim has to be approved for them to be paid. If they're employing staff, and have a Constituency it'll pretty easy to run up a big expense. Rent for the office, material etc for the office, staff for the office.

Comparing nurse's salary to that of an MP... why? Its two different jobs in two very different spheres. If it was a discussion about are they paid what they are worth, or why haven't they had the same % pay rise that MP's have had, I can see the sense in having the discussion.

Personally, I think anyone employed by the State should get the same % pay rise - none of the 1% for nurses and 3% for MP's.
 
When I joined the fire service my salary was 28,800. 14 years later its £30.700 (I think). The fbu where in the process of negotiating a pay rise for us. We can kiss that goodbye now!!!!!
 
thing i have the biggest problem with is all the talk of the last 10 years of "we are all in this together" yet MP's have given themselves a few big rises where most others have paid the price with no wage growth and MP celibrating the bill to stop wage increase, yet still gave themselves one
 
Leftie said:
Errm. Possibly the NHS planners, managers and/or procurement staff?? :unsure:
Click to expand...
Yes they are responsible, but I heard lots of politicians delibaretly mislead us into thinking we had enough.
When we clearly didn’t.
Just like being led by the science!
It’s a well known fact Scientists make lots of mistakes while experimenting and don’t get everything right first time.
Bet your life politicians will lay part of the blame on them!
 
My issue with MPs is, why have so many if all they do is voting along party lines? Why pay expenses for 650 people if 325 would do? Or even 65?
Not a lot of people use their local MP anymore, they all start petitions on every matter.

Someone before wrote that moat cleaning is over now so expenses are now justified. There are just too many of them.
 
clubchamp98 said:
Yes they are responsible, but I heard lots of politicians delibaretly mislead us into thinking we had enough.
When we clearly didn’t.
Just like being led by the science!
It’s a well known fact Scientists make lots of mistakes while experimenting and don’t get everything right first time.
Bet your life politicians will lay part of the blame on them!
Click to expand...

Surely if the scientists have got things wrong or made mistakes then they deserve to have part of the blame laid at their door?
 
Hobbit said:
Is £64k a year for, potentially, spending a good number of nights away from home excessive or is it partly a reflection of that?

Personally, I think £64k for a back bencher is a bit high, but it isn't far away from being ok. Expenses; I don't know the details of how they claim, or what is exceptable to claim for? However, I always thought that it is a claim for money spent AND that claim has to be approved for them to be paid. If they're employing staff, and have a Constituency it'll pretty easy to run up a big expense. Rent for the office, material etc for the office, staff for the office.

Comparing nurse's salary to that of an MP... why? Its two different jobs in two very different spheres. If it was a discussion about are they paid what they are worth, or why haven't they had the same % pay rise that MP's have had, I can see the sense in having the discussion.

Personally, I think anyone employed by the State should get the same % pay rise - none of the 1% for nurses and 3% for MP's.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think you have nailed that, we all start off as novices and work our way up. It does seem like they start high and get higher. I also think it should be as you say work for the state you all get the same percentage. I also think it’s a bit crazy they vote for their rises. I was going to suggest they have performance reviews like the private sector, which then reduces the increase because no one ever performs at the highest level ?.

I would also point out in all of this, if you are doing the job you love the wage will not be a primary motivator.. the worse the job the higher the pay as you need to attract people to do it. I always believed that a good balance was 70 :30, 30% pooh and 70% of what you enjoy and you’ll keep people and get reasonable performance. If this 30% criteria was higher, you would have a high turn over of staff and a disaffected work force. So everyone who enjoys their job needs a wage cut ??
 
Personally I’d rather see MPs given larger salaries. They have a lot of responsibilities and would probably earn very well as solicitors, doctors etc which they had as previous jobs.
I would however prefer that they couldn’t earn from other sources (Davis getting paid by JCB etc). Also I wouldn’t allow expenses.
Just a large salary which covers all costs and should therefore keep them out of the pocket of businessmen and lobbyists.

Journalists such as LK are massively overpaid imho.

Nurses massively underpaid.
 
harpo_72 said:
Yeah I think you have nailed that, we all start off as novices and work our way up. It does seem like they start high and get higher. I also think it should be as you say work for the state you all get the same percentage. I also think it’s a bit crazy they vote for their rises. I was going to suggest they have performance reviews like the private sector, which then reduces the increase because no one ever performs at the highest level ?.

I would also point out in all of this, if you are doing the job you love the wage will not be a primary motivator.. the worse the job the higher the pay as you need to attract people to do it. I always believed that a good balance was 70 :30, 30% pooh and 70% of what you enjoy and you’ll keep people and get reasonable performance. If this 30% criteria was higher, you would have a high turn over of staff and a disaffected work force. So everyone who enjoys their job needs a wage cut ??
Click to expand...
I think MPs have a “ independent review board” for pay rises but not sure if it’s the same one that gave everyone else employed by the tax payer 1%.
 
JamesR said:
Personally I’d rather see MPs given larger salaries. They have a lot of responsibilities and would probably earn very well as solicitors, doctors etc which they had as previous jobs.
I would however prefer that they couldn’t earn from other sources (Davis getting paid by JCB etc). Also I wouldn’t allow expenses.
Just a large salary which covers all costs and should therefore keep them out of the pocket of businessmen and lobbyists.

Journalists such as LK are massively overpaid imho.

Nurses massively underpaid.
Click to expand...

Good point on the second income. I did mean to include that in my post but forgot. For example, how did Gordon Brown earn £996,000 if he has a full time job as an MP? And that's my gripe. They have a full time job as an MP but some find the time to rake in a lot of money.
 
Hobbit said:
Good point on the second income. I did mean to include that in my post but forgot. For example, how did Gordon Brown earn £996,000 if he has a full time job as an MP? And that's my gripe. They have a full time job as an MP but some find the time to rake in a lot of money.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that they always “work” for the money. Possibly just vote the correct way, ask the correct questions and get paid in exchange, but call it payment as advisors or for speeches.
 
hovis said:
When I joined the fire service my salary was 28,800. 14 years later its £30.700 (I think). The fbu where in the process of negotiating a pay rise for us. We can kiss that goodbye now!!!!!
Click to expand...
According to the .GOV site Firefighters are paid average between £23.5k as a starter to £38.5k as an experienced Firefighter.
https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/firefighter
You are suggesting a Firefighter starting 14 years ago earned £5,300 more than one starting today. Maybe you should recheck those numbers.
 
Last edited:
clubchamp98 said:
Yes they are responsible, but I heard lots of politicians delibaretly mislead us into thinking we had enough.
When we clearly didn’t.
Click to expand...

I just wonder where they get their info from. :unsure: After all, they can't know everything, can they? :rolleyes:

Just like being led by the science!
It’s a well known fact Scientists make lots of mistakes while experimenting and don’t get everything right first time.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why and how science has developed over the centuries. Observe, theorise, experiment, observe, review, etc etc... Easy to blame them, that's how they work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top