MP's Pay - Don't they Learn from History?

Foxholer

Foxholer

Blackballed
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
24,160
Visit site
The IPSA was charged with setting an appropriate in the wake of the Expenses scandal!

It's almost certain that that scandal was caused buy the suppression (by Thatcher) of a pay rise, but the introduction of those expenses!

So why in heavens name can they not learn from history and accept the (not altogether unreasonable imo) elevation of salary and pretty much compensating reduction on the other areas of 'income'!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33003782

No problem with them, especially the 'higher levels' donating their increase to charity of course!

What should happen though is some proper examination of their expenses and severe sanctions for those found to be breaching the rules! Accommodation and 'office running' expenses particularly are still very much open to abuse, though honestly employing a family member at an appropriate rate is fine by me.
 
CheltenhamHacker said:
I think for what they do, they're actually quite underpaid.
Click to expand...

£74,000 minimum annual salary each
£158,000 AVERAGE annual expenses each
Family member wage increased to a potential £50,000
£7.1m in second incomes (Over 20MPs declaring in excess of £100,000 per year as second incomes)

Potential AVERAGE income £293,000.

Most recent figures show that MPs are now claiming MORE than they did when the expenses scandal broke...£103m
 
Expenses are not salary though. Two very different issues.

This pay body was set up to be independent of MP's and to take away these awkward moments. They need to stop playing politics with this and let the pay body do its job.
 
CheltenhamHacker said:
I think for what they do, they're actually quite underpaid.
Click to expand...

Most backbench MP's "do" very little and are often nothing more than lobby-fodder.

Real executive power and control over general issues lies in the hands of unaccountable Civil Servants.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
Expenses are not salary though. Two very different issues.

This pay body was set up to be independent of MP's and to take away these awkward moments. They need to stop playing politics with this and let the pay body do its job.
Click to expand...

...and as part of setting up IPSA the rules say that MPs cannot vote on any award - be that to accept or not. Gets MPs completely out of the equation.

And yes - keep expenses discussions quite separate. When I am asked to work away from home my company will expense me for each day away and pay for a hotel for me. If I am to be away for an extended period they will find a decent little flat for me a pay all of the costs of that and give me a half decent daily unreceipted allowance.

That's just how many, if not all, large corporates work with their employees. And I took the job knowing that my contract requires me to work away from home as required by the company - so I was fully aware of what I was letting myself in for. Really not very much different at all from the lot of an MP.
 
MetalMickie said:
Real executive power and control over general issues lies in the hands of unaccountable Civil Servants.
Click to expand...

And your proof of this is?

I have a very close relative who is reasonably well up in the Civil Service, and I can tell you that the power very much lies with the Minister for whichever dept the Civil Servant works in. They arrive after an election or Cabinet reshuffle with a mandate to turn policies into laws, and that is what the Civil Service action.

You couldn't be less accurate with your statement if you tried. Programmes like Yes Minister aren't real.
 
I dont have an issue with their salaries being increased in line with the IPSA recommendations. I just feel the timing is not good at the moment and MPs should wait for their increases along with other Public sector groups.
 
Hobbit said:
And your proof of this is?

I have a very close relative who is reasonably well up in the Civil Service, and I can tell you that the power very much lies with the Minister for whichever dept the Civil Servant works in. They arrive after an election or Cabinet reshuffle with a mandate to turn policies into laws, and that is what the Civil Service action.

You couldn't be less accurate with your statement if you tried. Programmes like Yes Minister aren't real.
Click to expand...

Well I also have relatives in both the Civil and National Health Services and they paint an entirely different picture, as too did a somewhat disillusioned backbench MP.

As one said "Ministers come and go but Principal Secretaries (I believe that was the term) are in it for thelong-term, and the knighthood.."
 
I have no objection with them accepting a pay review bodies recommendations if they accept them all, but they have in the past rejected other pay bodies recommendations.
 
Rooter said:
Why shouldn't the people in charge of running our country be among the highest earners?
Click to expand...

MPs do pretty well. Their basic salary is supplemented by money for all sorts of other stuff, including alternative accommodation, from which many have profited, staff costs, which often go to family members, and they can and do earn money in other jobs at the same time, in most cases entirely due to their role as an MP or minister and which may dwarf their MP salary. Then when they lose their seat, they get generous payoffs and a good pension that would cost you £45k a year to match. Then many go on to lucrative directorships, and the odd one to bringing peace to the Middle East.

I think they are doing just fine.

The body which sets doctors and nurses pay often argues that pay need not be increased much because there are plenty of people who want to do the job. Funny they don't apply that notion to MPs too. I seem to remember quite a few applicants for each job a month or so ago.
 
I wonder if those people making the decisions on MPs pay ever benefit (financially or otherwise) from MPs decisions?

Methinks FIFA are rank amateurs in comparison.
 
Hobbit said:
And your proof of this is?

I have a very close relative who is reasonably well up in the Civil Service, and I can tell you that the power very much lies with the Minister for whichever dept the Civil Servant works in. They arrive after an election or Cabinet reshuffle with a mandate to turn policies into laws, and that is what the Civil Service action.

You couldn't be less accurate with your statement if you tried. Programmes like Yes Minister aren't real.
Click to expand...

You 2 are actually saying the same thing! Or at least both halves of the circle!

Ministers set the policy. The Civil Service 'executes' that policy. And they do that whichever government is in power!

Of course, there's plenty of 'negotiation' between the 2 groups about how that policy is implemented!
 
Rooter said:
Why shouldn't the people in charge of running our country be among the highest earners?
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
They also have to hire and pay staff, run an office, accomodation travel etc all as expenses. The chap quoting £158,000 average annual expenses appears to think that's a benefit! staff salaries NI income tax office and travel expenses all add up very easily.

If they can secure other jobs based on the experience they get as an MP isn't that what everyone else does to get on in life.
 
alexbrownmp said:
I agree with this.
They also have to hire and pay staff, run an office, accomodation travel etc all as expenses. The chap quoting £158,000 average annual expenses appears to think that's a benefit! staff salaries NI income tax office and travel expenses all add up very easily.

If they can secure other jobs based on the experience they get as an MP isn't that what everyone else does to get on in life.
Click to expand...

You are obviously correct.. It's been proven many times that the expenses system is most definitely not open to abuse and should in no way be considered a benefit.....


Oh, hang on a minute.. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top