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

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...

I have heard the same from Civil Servants about the power than Iain Duncan Smith wields at the DWP - and when the senior Civil Servants have to report on slippages/cost increases etc - they are rather 'quaking in their boots'
 
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.
Click to expand...

So paying a member of your familly £50,000 a year isn't a benefit?
Claiming £150 a night to stay in London when you already own a house in London (paid by the taxpayer) isn't a benefit?
And being able to claim for everything else.
As for travelling expenses.......what do think everyone else does when they go to work?

alexbrownmp said:
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...

So when we are told how hard MP's work with long hours, how do they find time to hold down a second job.
Maybe they do it during their 6 weeks off in the Summer.
 
I think the 10% pay rise is ludicrous. I don't mind people getting pay rises - but in other public sector areas, pay has been capped since the start of the recession in 2008.

Astonishing really.
 
Foliage Finder said:
The taxpayer won't be paying any extra towards the MP salary pot (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32981549) and their income is being cut in another way via pensions and expenses. Given the workload and demands of being an MP I think it's a fair move.
Click to expand...

After all the cuts the ISPA introduced to curb the excess in expense claims, MPs claimed more in 2013/14 than they did when the scandal broke in 2008/09
When one door closes...........
 
pistol99 said:
I think the 10% pay rise is ludicrous. I don't mind people getting pay rises - but in other public sector areas, pay has been capped since the start of the recession in 2008.

Astonishing really.
Click to expand...

Well I think the only MPs who should get the 10% are those of the SNP and the Greens as they opposed increasing austerity - the pain and lack of wage rises being suffered by the public and public service workers is nothing to do with them so why should they be blamed. Labour and the Tories - well they stood on the cuts so they should blinking well suffer

I am only half joking.
 
Hobbit said:
No, even if I was offered 10%. In this case though, how can an MP spout about cutting back and being sensible, and then accept the pay rise?
Click to expand...

Because the 10% rise is also associated with 'compensatory' reductions in other areas!

All it's doing is realigning salary and expenses to the equivalent of what it was before Thatcher's change of balance - which turned out to actually cause more cynical disrespect of politicians morals - if that;s actually possible!
 
Hobbit said:
No, even if I was offered 10%. In this case though, how can an MP spout about cutting back and being sensible, and then accept the pay rise?
Click to expand...

It's not their decision what rise they get and they don't even vote on it anymore.

I think the timing is terrible though and maybe there is a way the rise could be put off for a more suitable time.
 
SocketRocket said:
It's not their decision what rise they get and they don't even vote on it anymore.

I think the timing is terrible though and maybe there is a way the rise could be put off for a more suitable time.
Click to expand...

Was the timing any better when it was proposed - in December 2013!!?

Would any other 'industry' faff about for more than 18 months about a salary increase (and reduce other 'benefits') that only affects 650 people? http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/pages/default.aspx

If they can't make this sort of decision, what hope is there for the really hard ones that they are actually paid to make!
 
Last edited:
Foxholer said:
Was the timing any better when it was proposed - in December 2013!!?

Would any other 'industry' faff about for more than 18 months about a salary increase (and reduce other 'benefits') that only affects 650 people? http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/pages/default.aspx
Click to expand...

Did I suggest it was? The timing is no better now than it was then. If the Public sector have pay restraints around 1% imposed on it then it should apply to those setting that rate as well.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that the timing was perfect really. They've managed to delay and delay the issue until the exact moment when it would have least effect - the point furthest away from a General Election. I'm sure it's a coincidence though...
 
SocketRocket said:
Did I suggest it was? ...
Click to expand...

Did I suggest you did? :rolleyes: I certainly don't believe I did!

Remember that while the salary is increasing - to the level deemed appropriate by the independent body - the 'benefits' are being reduced as per that link I posted.

So it's a restructuring - back towards before Thatcher (for once) didn't have the courage to approve the recommendation and created the situation that led to the Expenses Scandal!

And there has been (a little) restraint since the review anyway, as the values have not changed.

SocketRocket said:
... The timing is no better now than it was then....
Click to expand...

We agree then! Though, as Bluewolf posted, any bad feeling will be 'forgotten' by the time voters get involved again!

SocketRocket said:
... If the Public sector have pay restraints around 1% imposed on it then it should apply to those setting that rate as well.
Click to expand...

Totally agree! And that is likely to be reflected in the 'linked to their constituents salaries' used by the IPSA and stated in that link!

In fact, as it appears that you didn't read the link, I'll quote the relevant section!

<Start Quote>

In December 2013, following two public consultations, we proposed a modern, professional package for MPs’ remuneration.

There were six main elements to our proposal:

- to make a one-off adjustment to MPs' pay from £67,060 to £74,000 a year, to reflect that it had fallen behind;

- thereafter, to link changes in MPs' pay to their constituents' pay across the country;

- to reduce MPs' generous pension benefits;

- to scrap resettlement payments for MPs which had been worth up to a year's salary;

- to tighten MPs' expenses further; and


- to call on MPs to produce an annual account to help constituents to understand their work​

As a whole, this package of reform would not cost the taxpayer a penny more. It would bring MPs’ pensions into line with others in the public sector, it would get rid of generous and out-of-date benefits and, after a one-off pay adjustment, it would permanently link MPs’ pay to the pay of the people they represent.

<End Quote>

Note the 2 bits I've highlighted!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top