MP's Pay Rise.

[Mikey09]

10%!!! Brilliant!! I am actually speechless.... :eek:

[Future17]

The thing about this is, the pay rise is being implemented by IPSA - an independent panel set up after the expenses scandal - so there's literally nothing MPs can do about this other than to scrap IPSA.

The fact that IPSA exists (at least partly) because of a lack of trust in MPs, but has granted them a pay rise at a time when even some of the more disingenuous ones wouldn't have supported it, is an irony which I'm sure will not be lost on most people.

Having said that, there has to be an element of protection for MPs as well to ensure they are being paid at a level commensurate with their role. Otherwise, if it were left to the court of public opinion, they would probably never get a raise!

Personally I don't have a problem with the increase as I'm sure the vast majority of MPs fully earn their salary and are extremely open about how they do so. Also, for those interested, it's becoming increasingly easier to check various aspects of the work they carry out on our behalf.

[Mikey09]

The thing about this is, the pay rise is being implemented by IPSA - an independent panel set up after the expenses scandal - so there's literally nothing MPs can do about this other than to scrap IPSA.

The fact that IPSA exists (at least partly) because of a lack of trust in MPs, but has granted them a pay rise at a time when even some of the more disingenuous ones wouldn't have supported it, is an irony which I'm sure will not be lost on most people.

Having said that, there has to be an element of protection for MPs as well to ensure they are being paid at a level commensurate with their role. Otherwise, if it were left to the court of public opinion, they would probably never get a raise!

Personally I don't have a problem with the increase as I'm sure the vast majority of MPs fully earn their salary and are extremely open about how they do so. Also, for those interested, it's becoming increasingly easier to check various aspects of the work they carry out on our behalf.


i agree with some of what you say. However it sticks in my throat that they are getting this huge pay rise when thousands of workers have to fight like **** to get a tenth of that kind of rise. It's a simple argument I know but a bloody valid one.

[Geo_1875]

As the PM often says..."We're all in this together."

I don't believe the ****.

[Beefster]

I'm obviously going to be in the minority but IMHO MPs are underpaid. If an independent body decides to rectify that, fair enough.

[Future17]

i agree with some of what you say. However it sticks in my throat that they are getting this huge pay rise when thousands of workers have to fight like **** to get a tenth of that kind of rise. It's a simple argument I know but a bloody valid one.

I understand that but that's only a valid point if MPs aren't underpaid to begin with.

What salary do you think they should receive?

[Geo_1875]

I understand that but that's only a valid point if MPs aren't underpaid to begin with.

What salary do you think they should receive?

They used to be paid the equivalent of my grade in the civil service. That link was broken and they now receive more than twice as much as I do, plus a very generous pension package, severance payments should they not be good at their job and let go, the more than generous expenses which allows them to maintain a second home and first class travel between their homes. They get a 10% rise and I get nothing for the 3rd year in a row.

Pay them decent money but don't take the piss.

[Just Alf]

I'm obviously going to be in the minority but IMHO MPs are underpaid. If an independent body decides to rectify that, fair enough.

I agree with you :D

The expenses "scandal" is a result of previous under payments ..... I think it was around Callaghan or Thatchers time that MP wages were deliberately held back a bit to look better to the UK populace but to compensate, more stuff was allowed to be claimed via expenses. We all know how that need up :-/

[Gus]

As the PM often says..."We're all in this together."

I don't believe the ****.

Heehaw to do with the PM + he has stated already he doesn't agree with it

[Geo_1875]

Heehaw to do with the PM + he has stated already he doesn't agree with it

I know he has said he doesn't agree with it and that ministers pay will be frozen. That's hardly a hardship when you (or your wife) are a millionaire.

[Mikey09]

I understand that but that's only a valid point if MPs aren't underpaid to begin with.

What salary do you think they should receive?


£68,000 is a bloody good salary that they can obviously live off comfortably. This is why the ordinary Person gets pissed off. So to then give them a 10% pay rise is ridiculous to me. Ask someone who's benefits are being cut, or is paying the bedroom tax. That's who I mean by ordinary people. So no I don't think being paid 68k a year is underpaid.

[liamh2202]

£68,000 is a bloody good salary that they can obviously live off comfortably. This is why the ordinary Person gets pissed off. So to then give them a 10% pay rise is ridiculous to me. Ask someone who's benefits are being cut, or is paying the bedroom tax. That's who I mean by ordinary people. So no I don't think being paid 68k a year is underpaid.


I don't think someone's benefits being cut should be a comparison. I actually agree with you but think it would be better to compare it to the minimum wage etc instead of someone who isn't

[CropleyWasGod]

£68,000 is a bloody good salary that they can obviously live off comfortably. This is why the ordinary Person gets pissed off. So to then give them a 10% pay rise is ridiculous to me. Ask someone who's benefits are being cut, or is paying the bedroom tax. That's who I mean by ordinary people. So no I don't think being paid 68k a year is underpaid.

For me, it's not about whether they can live off the salary. It's about the time that they put into the job, which for most is well over the standard working week.

[liamh2202]

For me, it's not about whether they can live off the salary. It's about the time that they put into the job, which for most is well over the standard working week.

I suppose the other factor is what jobs most are qualified to do and what money that would bring. So maybe if you compare that and the time they do put in then you might be right mate

[easty]

For me, it's not about whether they can live off the salary. It's about the time that they put into the job, which for most is well over the standard working week.

As much as I agree with that, they didnt go into it blind. They'll have known how much they'd be paid, and nobody forces them to be an MP. If they aren't happy with the pay then leave and go do something else.

A 10% pay rise in the current economic climate just isn't on, in my opinion.

[RyeSloan]

As much as I agree with that, they didnt go into it blind. They'll have known how much they'd be paid, and nobody forces them to be an MP. If they aren't happy with the pay then leave and go do something else. A 10% pay rise in the current economic climate just isn't on, in my opinion.

And many of them do just that!

IPSA have said the changes are actually costing nothing as base salary of being adjusted to take account of the removal of expense...this makes logical sense and gives greater transparency. Not that I expect many people to take notice of that beyond the 10% headline.

Personally I think MPs are significantly under paid for taking on such a tenuous job and one that requires such time and commitment away from their home and families. People will look at the headline and go off on a rant as they won't care about such things but there you go.

I also think the cost and time required to become an MP is more important than how much they are paid when they get there...a diverse group reflecting society should be the aim but the current process would seem set up to prevent most people that don't already have some sort of financial backing or 'well paid job' in even contemplating such a move. Again I'm probably a bit barking to think anyone actually cares about such things though!

[Geo_1875]

And many of them do just that!

IPSA have said the changes are actually costing nothing as base salary of being adjusted to take account of the removal of expense...this makes logical sense and gives greater transparency. Not that I expect many people to take notice of that beyond the 10% headline.

Personally I think MPs are significantly under paid for taking on such a tenuous job and one that requires such time and commitment away from their home and families. People will look at the headline and go off on a rant as they won't care about such things but there you go.

I also think the cost and time required to become an MP is more important than how much they are paid when they get there...a diverse group reflecting society should be the aim but the current process would seem set up to prevent most people that don't already have some sort of financial backing or 'well paid job' in even contemplating such a move. Again I'm probably a bit barking to think anyone actually cares about such things though!

I totally agree. We can't go back to the days when you had to be independently wealthy to become a representative of the people. However, in a time when the vast majority of MPs are career politicians a benefits package of over £300,000 is a decent amount.

[Hibs Class]

Is there an easy way to found out how much MPS earn from other sources such as speaking engagements, interviews, press articles etc.?

[Onceinawhile]

Is there an easy way to found out how much MPS earn from other sources such as speaking engagements, interviews, press articles etc.?

Members register of interests is a good starting place.

Edit, just noticed you said msp. Not sure but there will likely be something similar.

[Hannah_hfc]

£68,000 is a bloody good salary that they can obviously live off comfortably. This is why the ordinary Person gets pissed off. So to then give them a 10% pay rise is ridiculous to me. Ask someone who's benefits are being cut, or is paying the bedroom tax. That's who I mean by ordinary people. So no I don't think being paid 68k a year is underpaid.

So to be ordinary, you must be getting paid benefits? Times have sure changed...

Would these "ordinary" people like to see Mps on the same amount of money as them despite all the scrutiny, stress and work that goes along with being an MP? I'd say it's quite justified in a role that doesn't offer job security in the long term, ask those that didn't get re-elected a month back. It's a job I sure as hell couldn't do.

As long as the Mps didn't bump up their own salarys then fair play.

[Future17]

As much as I agree with that, they didnt go into it blind. They'll have known how much they'd be paid, and nobody forces them to be an MP. If they aren't happy with the pay then leave and go do something else.

A 10% pay rise in the current economic climate just isn't on, in my opinion.

Surely that applies to anyone who does any job? Nurses and teachers don't deserve to earn more because they knew the salary when they signed up for the job.

Being an MP isn't a job that anyone can do - we want the best possible candidates for the job. To attract and retain those people, the salary has to be suitable recompense/reward for the time and effort.

[Jonnyboy]

I see Andy Burnham has stated he will refuse the pay rise. Not sure he can do that but maybe he could donate the extra money to charity

[Bristolhibby]

I see Andy Burnham has stated he will refuse the pay rise. Not sure he can do that but maybe he could donate the extra money to charity

Can he not just write a cheque and give the money to HMRC?

J

[Hibs Class]

Members register of interests is a good starting place.

Edit, just noticed you said msp. Not sure but there will likely be something similar.

Sorry, meant MPs but came up as caps. Just interested as for most folk on a salary equivalent to an MP that will be their sole income, but MPs have many, many other opportunities to earn extra.

[stantonhibby]

Sorry, meant MPs but came up as caps. Just interested as for most folk on a salary equivalent to an MP that will be their sole income, but MPs have many, many other opportunities to earn extra.

Indeed. Not to mention their pension entitlement and the resettlement amount they get when they leave the Commons.

[RyeSloan]

Indeed. Not to mention their pension entitlement and the resettlement amount they get when they leave the Commons.

Are their pension arrangements any more generous than the average public sector arrangement (if there is such a thing!)?

To be fair their severance package is pretty generous but I suppose that does reflect the fact that they can be 'let go' no matter what their individual performance has been. It probably also reflects that losing a seat will result in an MP being immediately redundant so I suppose it's only fair that some consideration is given to allowing them a few months to gain normal employment again.

No doubt we should be looking for value for money but at the same time I really can't connect with the tabloid style outrage at the thought of paying an MP £70 odd grand a year.

[Colr]

The thing about this is, the pay rise is being implemented by IPSA - an independent panel set up after the expenses scandal - so there's literally nothing MPs can do about this other than to scrap IPSA.

The fact that IPSA exists (at least partly) because of a lack of trust in MPs, but has granted them a pay rise at a time when even some of the more disingenuous ones wouldn't have supported it, is an irony which I'm sure will not be lost on most people.

Having said that, there has to be an element of protection for MPs as well to ensure they are being paid at a level commensurate with their role. Otherwise, if it were left to the court of public opinion, they would probably never get a raise!

Personally I don't have a problem with the increase as I'm sure the vast majority of MPs fully earn their salary and are extremely open about how they do so. Also, for those interested, it's becoming increasingly easier to check various aspects of the work they carry out on our behalf.

They don't have to draw all of their salary. They could give some of it back or donate it to their local authority or school. Bet they won't, though.

[lord bunberry]

I'm obviously going to be in the minority but IMHO MPs are underpaid. If an independent body decides to rectify that, fair enough.
There's lots of public sector employees who are underpaid, they won't be getting a 10% pay rise.

[Beefster]

There's lots of public sector employees who are underpaid, they won't be getting a 10% pay rise.

I've no problem with that being rectified by an independent body either, if it's affordable.

[lord bunberry]

I've no problem with that being rectified by an independent body either, if it's affordable.
It won't be though as it isn't affordable. I agree that MPs are underpaid, but they need to lead by example. The independent body that sets their pay is just a way of taking the heat of themselves IMO.

[Peevemor]

They don't have to draw all of their salary. They could give some of it back or donate it to their local authority or school. Bet they won't, though.


https://twitter.com/georgekerevan/status/586506511247142912

[Jack]

I've no problem with that being rectified by an independent body either, if it's affordable.

There used to be an independent body, the equivalent of IPSA, that did exactly that for public sector workers.

To cut a long story short. It would provide average earnings for equivalent jobs outside the public sector. The government and unions would then negotiate around that.

There then came a time when the government of the day didn't like the results and ignored the surveys. It then ignored the surveys and imposed a settlement. It then did away with the independent body, one can only assume because by this time it was continually showing the government were underpaying their own staff.

The government does have a history of ignoring independent pay review bodies when it suits them.

It could be easily argued that the 10% pay increase is not affordable when it comes from the same purse that finds it unaffordable to give pay rises to other public servants.

[Mikey09]

I don't think someone's benefits being cut should be a comparison. I actually agree with you but think it would be better to compare it to the minimum wage etc instead of someone who isn't


I honestly think its relevant liamh. If we asked people struggling on benefits, or toiling to pay the bills week to week despite working full time what they thought of this ridiculous pay rise then I wonder what there response would be?...

[Holmesdale Hibs]

I wouldn't be too fussed if they took the pay rise. IMO they probably deserve it and there's plenty people getting paid more for doing far easier and less important jobs.

That being said, I can see why they want to turn it down. With smaller pay rises for other public sector workers and the expenses scandal still reasonably fresh in people's mind, rejecting it would be the right decision at this point in time.

[bobbyhibs1983]

Im not 100% sure i agree that they should be paid a 10% .A few people mention that they feel mp's are underpaid, ,comparied to what/wom?

I dont think many people would mind if the country was doing well, but aren't we hugely in debt?i know it is not one persons fault but it iws what it is.

I have seen someone above say they work long hours, what is a typical working week for an mp/msp?
I must say i have little knowledge to what they do,i have seen pmq's on a wednesday, i think msp's one is on tuesdays(maybe wrong here) other than that I have little or no idea what they do.
I often hear that nurses/people in hospitals, fire bargradies.police,the army/armed forces and other jobs that are vital are struggiling for wages, why cant THEY get a wage rise letalone 10%?
is it cos we as a nation cant afford it?
are the jobs i have stated, LESS inportant/LESS stressful, than mp's/msp's?

you know i think if you heard that nurses were getting a 10% pay rise i think the vast mijority or people would say rightly so,i doubt many people would have any problems with that(i also include the jobs i have said above)