MP's snouts in the trough again..whats the answer

[AJS-]

Digga said:

other working person or leave their office AFAIK.

That's actually the crux of the matter right there. Live by the rules everyone else has to, and to a standard that bears some resemblance to that of those they purport to represent.

[AJS-]

Actually when I said no one has enough money, I guess the guy who owns this place does...

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-2374...

No, that is not a reasonable place for an MP to stay when parliament is sitting.

[petemurphy]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

66k is bugger all in London- and to boot most council executives get paid more than that.

its ridiculous that you have council leaders on more than the PM! and is one of the main reason why only rich people end up running the government

this - 66k is laughable in london for people that are in charge of the whole country. mind you if paid a proper salary they need to be there all the time not having a massive summer break.

[Digga]

petemurphy said:

this - 66k is laughable in london for people that are in charge of the whole country. mind you if paid a proper salary they need to be there all the time not having a massive summer break.

They are not in charge, they are supposed to be making decisions on our behalf. HTH

[AJS-]

Agreed, it's definitely not a matter of "being in charge" of the country.

They're representing their constituents to the government, and they have a 1 in ~650 in one half of the legislative process. It's not, and nor should it be, an alternative to being a CEO or similar.

[petemurphy]

Digga said:

hey are not in charge, they are supposed to be making decisions on our behalf. HTH

decisions that affect 100's of millions of people - id say thats quite important

[shed driver]

petemurphy said:

decisions that affect 100's of millions of people - id say thats quite important

It is important, so why do they have subsidised bars on the premises, and how many jobs allow you to come to work after having a drink . Especially when you may be making decisions that affect 100's of millions of people

SD.

[hedgefinder]

petemurphy said:

this - 66k is laughable in london for people that are in charge of the whole country. mind you if paid a proper salary they need to be there all the time not having a massive summer break.

hmmm, maybe we should up the salary of every civil servant in the country who actually does the work..

[petemurphy]

shed driver said:

It is important, so why do they have subsidised bars on the premises, and how many jobs allow you to come to work after having a drink . Especially when you may be making decisions that affect 100's of millions of people

SD.

fair enough wasnt arguing against cheap beer

[petemurphy]

hedgefinder said:

hmmm, maybe we should up the salary of every civil servant in the country who actually does the work..

pretty sure a lot of them are paid more than mps already?

[0000]

AJS- said:

66k plus accommodation is far from bugger all.

It's relative. And I think there are significant numbers of people earning more than £66k who don't have to suffer venturing into London who'd do a better job. With the responsibilities of a family they'd be daft to trade in comfortable jobs for a lower income and all the flack associated with being a politician.

It already looks like the job is attracting people obsessed with money anyway, the argument that paying them more would allow them to concentrate on the job instead of earning more must hold more merit than the idea that paying more could somehow attract yet even more greedy types.

[thinfourth2]

petemurphy said:

this - 66k is laughable in london for people that are in charge of the whole country. mind you if paid a proper salary they need to be there all the time not having a massive summer break.

But they aren't incharge

They merely vote as they are told to by the chief whips

I'd prefer it if the whole lot were on profit sharing

5% of all tax excess gets split amoungst the MPs.

That might motivate them a bit more then buying votes

[AJS-]

petemurphy said:

Digga said:

hey are not in charge, they are supposed to be making decisions on our behalf. HTH

decisions that affect 100's of millions of people - id say thats quite important

So what is the current mind set of someone entering politics? Are they unable to make 66k in the private sector? Or are they already on 250k and enter parliament on principle, then find they're struggling to make ends meet on what is still 3 times the average wage of, on average, their constituents?

To my mind they are just human beings who will, as a rule, take what they can get away with. The problem is not the level of remuneration but the system by which they can get more.

One company I worked for a few years ago made the mistake of giving the sales team mobile phones with no real system for monitoring what was legitimate business use and what was taking the piss. It lasted about 3 months during which people were calling their mates in Australia, speaking to their girlfriends for 3 hours and so forth. After that they introduced a cap on what the company would reimburse and everyone miraculously stuck to it. Business didn't suffer as a result of the reduced phone use.

[petemurphy]

thinfourth2 said:

But they aren't incharge

They merely vote as they are told to by the chief whips

I'd prefer it if the whole lot were on profit sharing

5% of all tax excess gets split amoungst the MPs.

That might motivate them a bit more then buying votes

who is ultimatly responsible for departments? who decides when we go to war? are u saying the cabinet makes no decisions that affect each and every one of us?

[Fittster]

ClaphamGT3 said:

If you want to stop this sort of thing, someone has to sort out the 30-year fudge of MP pay.

Pay them a rate that reflects the importance of what they do but stop all expenses and make earning external income whilst drawing a parliamentary salary an offence. They make their own housing and pension provisions and when they leave office they can do what they like but if they use their parliamentary connections for financial gain they are disbarred from all political office for life.

The pay would probably need to be, as a minimum;

Back bencher £250k
PPS £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet/leader of opp £750k
PM £1m

Why an earth do you think that a back bench MP is important? They don't make any decision, they are a best social workers for their constituency. I'd drop their salaries to the average for the area that they are elected to represent so they have a feel for the people who put them in place.

[AJS-]

0000 said:

AJS- said:

66k plus accommodation is far from bugger all.

It's relative. And I think there are significant numbers of people earning more than £66k who don't have to suffer venturing into London who'd do a better job. With the responsibilities of a family they'd be daft to trade in comfortable jobs for a lower income and all the flack associated with being a politician.

It already looks like the job is attracting people obsessed with money anyway, the argument that paying them more would allow them to concentrate on the job instead of earning more must hold more merit than the idea that paying more could somehow attract yet even more greedy types.

There's also some very capable and committed individuals who never earn 66k, and some utter morons who earn over 250k.

If you want to be a politician it should be because you want to represent your constituents and improve the way we are governed. That shouldn't (and doesn't) mean you have to live on the bread line, but nor should it be a money move. Does anyone really think they would stop trying to get more if they were on 250k? Or any other number for that matter? People always want more.

Parliament already attracts plenty of educated people, some of whom have had promising careers in other fields before hand. What it needs is a simple system for recording and controlling expenses such as nearly every sensibly run company on the planet has already.

[thinfourth2]

petemurphy said:

thinfourth2 said:

But they aren't incharge

They merely vote as they are told to by the chief whips

I'd prefer it if the whole lot were on profit sharing

5% of all tax excess gets split amoungst the MPs.

That might motivate them a bit more then buying votes

who is ultimatly responsible for departments? who decides when we go to war? are u saying the cabinet makes no decisions that affect each and every one of us?

Are cabinet ministers on 66K?

[petemurphy]

thinfourth2 said:

Are cabinet ministers on 66K?

nope they get 135k but in 2010 there were 372 civil servants earning over 150k

[ClaphamGT3]

The figures I suggested are based on balancing the need to prevent anyone feeling dis-barred because the can't afford to do it however great their talent and commitment with the need to prevent people going into it for the money.

The current salaries are a complete farce: we pay the PM about the same as an associate in a law firm, a junior partner in a big surveying firm, an Exec Director in a local authority or the head teacher of a reasonable sized comp.

[Digga]

petemurphy said:

thinfourth2 said:

Are cabinet ministers on 66K?

nope they get 135k but in 2010 there were 372 civil servants earning over 150k

And we all know there are a number of instances where clearly it is the latter part of that statement which demonstrates what is currently 'wrong'. Locally, for example, the chair of the local HA earns more (salary is [i[over[/i] £200k) than the head of the borough council. Work that one out.