Crosswords1 min ago
Mps Pay Rise
It has been suggested that MPs should have a thirty two percent pay rise,bless them , They deserve every penny of it .They all work very hard for us. They are not selfish ,and they only want to look after the plebs.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BayBoy1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
trigger...depends....now...certainly not.
When I was in my 30's and 40's....yes i would.
Between my 40's and retirement ......no I wouldn't.
There are weakness in both public and private sector pay inducements and perhaps to an extent it depends upon one's personality.
In life, generally, not always, one gets what one pays for.
When I was in my 30's and 40's....yes i would.
Between my 40's and retirement ......no I wouldn't.
There are weakness in both public and private sector pay inducements and perhaps to an extent it depends upon one's personality.
In life, generally, not always, one gets what one pays for.
It's not a race to the top but what they're asking for still wouldn't take them to the average.
If MPs are paid too low you risk getting too many who already have private income that means they spend a lot of time on their other careers
Personally I'd give them what they want but their other jobs should go
If they want a full time salary let them have it but we want full time MPs in return
If MPs are paid too low you risk getting too many who already have private income that means they spend a lot of time on their other careers
Personally I'd give them what they want but their other jobs should go
If they want a full time salary let them have it but we want full time MPs in return
There should be fewer of them, better paid, with corruption properly policed instead of actively encouraged by the fees office as it used to be.
I'd drink to that, Ludwig; but it appears they are only demanding the second element.
However, I'm unpersuaded by the argument that you'd get a better class of MP by paying more money. Parties choose the best ideologues/local identities/celebs/brown-nosers as candidates, and just hope that enough with actual ability get through to form a cabinet. Increasing pay won't make this happen. Able people tend to want proper jobs, not ones where they're likely to be put on the opposition benches, or sacked, every five years for reasons that are out of their hands. Candidates do the job for power, not money.
I'd drink to that, Ludwig; but it appears they are only demanding the second element.
However, I'm unpersuaded by the argument that you'd get a better class of MP by paying more money. Parties choose the best ideologues/local identities/celebs/brown-nosers as candidates, and just hope that enough with actual ability get through to form a cabinet. Increasing pay won't make this happen. Able people tend to want proper jobs, not ones where they're likely to be put on the opposition benches, or sacked, every five years for reasons that are out of their hands. Candidates do the job for power, not money.
true, but not all of them achieve power anyway. There's none in the opposition. Government backbenchers can't do much. Only cabinet members get really rich and that's what, one MP in 30 or so? And a lot of those turn out to be incompetent anyway. So it's a gamble, and most able people don't really want to spend their lives gambling, they'd sooner have a career that works.
jno
\\\So it's a gamble, and most able people don't really want to spend their lives gambling, they'd sooner have a career that works.\\\
True....but that is where personality comes in......many people are willing to "shoot for the moon" and all the financial rewards that go with it, but others would rather play it safe.
But......there must always be a "moon" to shoot for and reap the rewards and those rewards are power and money.
\\\So it's a gamble, and most able people don't really want to spend their lives gambling, they'd sooner have a career that works.\\\
True....but that is where personality comes in......many people are willing to "shoot for the moon" and all the financial rewards that go with it, but others would rather play it safe.
But......there must always be a "moon" to shoot for and reap the rewards and those rewards are power and money.
"Double the salaries and cut the house by two. Why the blazes do we need 650 MPs for 60 mln people"
Absolutely agree.
We should cut the house in two just so they could all fit in in the first place!
Also means we could have an election when MPs we're trying to "knock out" opponents from neighbouring areas - which would be great fun!
Absolutely agree.
We should cut the house in two just so they could all fit in in the first place!
Also means we could have an election when MPs we're trying to "knock out" opponents from neighbouring areas - which would be great fun!
"...wouldn't get out of bed for £86k..."
well, the skills minister couldn't be bothered getting out of bed the other day http://
well, the skills minister couldn't be bothered getting out of bed the other day http://
I still have not seen any convincing argument as to why MP salaries should be raised.
I imagine those favouring an increase are not in favour simply because they think these 600 or so individuals are especially deserving, so what is the argument ,and where is your evidence that increasing the pay to the levels suggested will somehow be transformative to the quality of politics we get in this country?
I do not believe that politicians, from any part of the political spectrum, engage with politics because of the financial remuneration it offers. They are motivated principally by notions of public service, or changing the nation for the better, or for power - increasing the salary will not change this motivation, nor change the type of candidate we get for the role, in my opinion.
And frankly, they are taking the proverbial when they state their desire to keep a final salary pension.
An MP currently has a salary of £65K a year, non-taxable unreceipted allowances to the tune of around £5K a year. Average Expense claim, covering virtually all travel and other associated expenses, is around £35K per year, with some claiming nearly £90K.
All MPs get around 100K a year in allowances to run their parliamentary office. Many employ spouses/ kids as assistants, further increasing the household income.
If an MP becomes a junior minister, that salary goes up to around £80K a year; if they become a cabinet minister around £140K a year.
All their travel, all their cost of living expenses whilst in parliament are all effectively reimbursible - they scarcely need to put their hand into their own pocket to cover any day to day expense, unlike most people - all of this at the taxpayers expense.
And if they do elect to spend their own money - well, if they do that in the rather well appointed bars and restaurants within the House, its all subsidised for them - again at the taxpayers expense. Should an MP lose their seat at a general election, once every 5 years, they are given a resettlement allowance of anywhere between 50% and 100%
What the US pays its members of congress, or Japan pays its representatives is irrelevant.
Given the average wage in this country, and all the allowances, perks, pension benefits and expenses an MP can claim, I see no justification at all for increasing their salary.
I imagine those favouring an increase are not in favour simply because they think these 600 or so individuals are especially deserving, so what is the argument ,and where is your evidence that increasing the pay to the levels suggested will somehow be transformative to the quality of politics we get in this country?
I do not believe that politicians, from any part of the political spectrum, engage with politics because of the financial remuneration it offers. They are motivated principally by notions of public service, or changing the nation for the better, or for power - increasing the salary will not change this motivation, nor change the type of candidate we get for the role, in my opinion.
And frankly, they are taking the proverbial when they state their desire to keep a final salary pension.
An MP currently has a salary of £65K a year, non-taxable unreceipted allowances to the tune of around £5K a year. Average Expense claim, covering virtually all travel and other associated expenses, is around £35K per year, with some claiming nearly £90K.
All MPs get around 100K a year in allowances to run their parliamentary office. Many employ spouses/ kids as assistants, further increasing the household income.
If an MP becomes a junior minister, that salary goes up to around £80K a year; if they become a cabinet minister around £140K a year.
All their travel, all their cost of living expenses whilst in parliament are all effectively reimbursible - they scarcely need to put their hand into their own pocket to cover any day to day expense, unlike most people - all of this at the taxpayers expense.
And if they do elect to spend their own money - well, if they do that in the rather well appointed bars and restaurants within the House, its all subsidised for them - again at the taxpayers expense. Should an MP lose their seat at a general election, once every 5 years, they are given a resettlement allowance of anywhere between 50% and 100%
What the US pays its members of congress, or Japan pays its representatives is irrelevant.
Given the average wage in this country, and all the allowances, perks, pension benefits and expenses an MP can claim, I see no justification at all for increasing their salary.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Who's Been Running The United States?
News7 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Only The A F D Can Save Germany
News11 mins ago
