Yes but remuneration is relative so it's reducing the gain of the pay rise. Hard to say by how much but pensions are expensive things to build up so long term it could be quite a reduction. I would take a pay cut over a pension cut any day.
Anyway as I've maintained before - if you want the best MPs you have to pay a decent wage. Only a fool would do a difficult job with huge responsibilities attached to it for a poor wage - do we really want a bunch of fools in Parliament? Or maybe that's the problem with what we do get. All the really bright leaders have been lured off to the private sector to earn six figure salaries. We've been left with the pillocks who will try and run an entire country for £74k.
I mean let's put that into perspective. Until recently I was earning just over £60k programming computers. Of course I didn't get anything in the way of perks nor a golden parachute at the end but still. If a computer programmer is paid £60k how come an MP is only paid £74k? I'm not that good a programmer
they arent getting a pay cut instead of pension loss though...and you can bet your last penny that they will be far better off then everyone else...and its been pointed out that our pensions are reduced too.
...and if you want the best nurses, doctors, etc etc etc you have to pay them a decent wage too...but nurses are getting 0% rise which in real terms is a cut. yet these scumbags think they are worth this rise?
yes they are loosing some pensions etc but were all loosing that but we dont get an 11% pay increase>:( i got me pension cut this year, plus now ive got to work till im 68. also i got a pay freeze while most of me bills went up by 8%.
Do you think so? I always think £74k seemed quite low. Your average middle-manager gets more than that.
The interview process for an MP involves impressing a lot of people, there's a lot of travelling and very late nights involved, lots of dealing with angry public, the media and rude colleagues. And the budget they are responsible for is pretty huge.
I think most succesful MPs make their real money when they leave Parliament, don't they (with directorships, lobbying contracts etc.)?
I agree, it would be too low if the majority of politicians were in any way remarkable people. But the fact is, they're not. Most are just professional politicians who have learnt (or are learning) how to play that particular game. Very few will ever have an original idea in their life. They are just part of the "party machine" who spout the same party line parrot fashion to anyone who cares to listen.
Strangely, when they retire or leave politics, you often find there was a real person, with some really bright ideas, behind the mask. So I suppose that's the fault of our party system, it doesn't encourage original thinking. But as it stands, I think most of them are adequately paid for what they actually deliver.
What a silly post! How does it go to show that they don't give a toss? The MPs didn't vote for this increase, they didn't ask for it, it's been forced upon them by IPSA.
Do a bit of homework before you put your fingers on the keyboard. ;-)
It was supposed to be 7% plus expenses, OR 11% without expenses. Even though I still think 7% is too much, that would be preferable to 11% AND expenses when there are millions getting either no pay rise or 1%. Including people on the breadline, not earning 75k.
they managed to change laws they didn`t like for benefit claimants swiflty enough.
Quite! Like the non-mandatory work programmes that claimants were told were mandatory and got sanctioned for not attending. The claimants won in court, so the rules were changed within a month or two of the win. Bam, done. Thanks for correcting my link, by the way.
It was supposed to be 7% plus expenses, OR 11% without expenses. Even though I still think 7% is too much, that would be preferable to 11% AND expenses when there are millions getting either no pay rise or 1%. Including people on the breadline, not earning 75k.
Quite! Like the non-mandatory work programmes that claimants were told were mandatory and got sanctioned for not attending. The claimants won in court, so the rules were changed within a month or two of the win. Bam, done. Thanks for correcting my link, by the way.
It was supposed to be 7% plus expenses, OR 11% without expenses. Even though I still think 7% is too much, that would be preferable to 11% AND expenses when there are millions getting either no pay rise or 1%. Including people on the breadline, not earning 75k.
Quite! Like the non-mandatory work programmes that claimants were told were mandatory and got sanctioned for not attending. The claimants won in court, so the rules were changed within a month or two of the win. Bam, done. Thanks for correcting my link, by the way. :)
Wow, you're tetchy this morning. You stated something, you get a reply, and this whole forum is dedicated to that principle. Snarky is not necessary.
I love that word, snarky.
No, not snarky but frustrated by accusations and insults being made against MPs who didn't vote for this payrise, nor did they ask for it but many, if not most, feel uncomfortable with it.
So Miliband and Clegg have said they won't take the money, but Cameron's still happy to take it despite claiming he doesn't agree with it. What a typical Tory.
So Miliband and Clegg have said they won't take the money, but Cameron's still happy to take it despite claiming he doesn't agree with it. What a typical Tory.
Where has Cameron said that he's happy to accept it? Can you provide a link? I've searched but I can't find anything to back up your claim.
I'm incensed by the 11% rise. Despite the cuts in their (already over-generous) allowances and pensions, this is out of order.
Many MPs are already wealthy, having come from successful careers in law, medicine, and the private sector. Many of them will go on to secure six-figure salaries back in the private sector, with their former status as MPs adding to their employment status.
Many of them already serve as non-executive directors of blue-chip companies, using their presence on company letterheads to secure bonuses outside their public salaries, and giving them access to a network of business leaders to better secure their financial future.
Many more have family wealth to fall back on (Cameron, Osborne, Johnson etc.), and don't need this increase to survive.
I work in the private sector for a FTSE-100 listed company, but my salary has diminished markedly in the past 4 years, despite a promotion. My pension has also been devalued. I won't name the company, but we have a market capitalisation of > 100 Billion dollars, and we're making healthy profits.
My wife works in the NHS in a clinical role, and she's seen the same thing - lower real terms income and a pension scheme which has failed to deliver the returns we expected.
So how do you think the 11% pay rise looks to us? What are we to make of it? There's no way it can be justified during this time of austerity, and it shows that we're not "in it together" at all!
No, not snarky but frustrated by accusations and insults being made against MPs who didn't vote for this payrise, nor did they ask for it but many, if not most, feel uncomfortable with it.
So why didn't you just say that? And if they're so uncomfortable with it, they should stop it going through. As has been said, they're fast enough to do so when it suits them.
So why didn't you just say that? And if they're so uncomfortable with it, they should stop it going through. As has been said, they're fast enough to do so when it suits them.
I didn't think that I needed to, tbh, I believed that posters would already have known.
Much maligning of MPs, maybe some posters should put themselves up for parliament in the next general election if they think that they can do a better job. ;-)
Where has Cameron said that he's happy to accept it? Can you provide a link? I've searched but I can't find anything to back up your claim.
The IPSA gets its authority through statutory instruments and legislation. MPs have the power to change that, and to change it quickly going by what they have done to suit their agenda previously. However, from what you are saying, MPs are simply victims of a system and are powerless in that respect.
MPs have a responsibility here and it appears that on this occasion they don't consider it in the public interest to change things. Funny that!
The IPSA gets its authority through statutory instruments and legislation. MPs have the power to change that, and to change it quickly going by what they have done to suit their agenda previously. However, from what you are saying, MPs are simply victims of a system and are powerless in that respect.
MPs have a responsibility here and it appears that on this occasion they don't consider it in the public interest to change things. Funny that!
We don't know that for sure, all three party leaders are against it. We have to wait and see.
Comments
It's not a massive amount of money to an intelligent educated person, I earn nearly half that doing something that has no importance to society
If it's a vocation and it's all about helping the people then they should earn 18k
Idiotic?
Do your homework. ;-)
they arent getting a pay cut instead of pension loss though...and you can bet your last penny that they will be far better off then everyone else...and its been pointed out that our pensions are reduced too.
...and if you want the best nurses, doctors, etc etc etc you have to pay them a decent wage too...but nurses are getting 0% rise which in real terms is a cut. yet these scumbags think they are worth this rise?
...exactly! we need 8% just to stand still!
I agree, it would be too low if the majority of politicians were in any way remarkable people. But the fact is, they're not. Most are just professional politicians who have learnt (or are learning) how to play that particular game. Very few will ever have an original idea in their life. They are just part of the "party machine" who spout the same party line parrot fashion to anyone who cares to listen.
Strangely, when they retire or leave politics, you often find there was a real person, with some really bright ideas, behind the mask. So I suppose that's the fault of our party system, it doesn't encourage original thinking. But as it stands, I think most of them are adequately paid for what they actually deliver.
It was supposed to be 7% plus expenses, OR 11% without expenses. Even though I still think 7% is too much, that would be preferable to 11% AND expenses when there are millions getting either no pay rise or 1%. Including people on the breadline, not earning 75k.
Quite! Like the non-mandatory work programmes that claimants were told were mandatory and got sanctioned for not attending. The claimants won in court, so the rules were changed within a month or two of the win. Bam, done. Thanks for correcting my link, by the way.
perhaps you could explain why they cannot change this to me, as this is a discussion.
Go moan to IPSA, not to the MPs.
my pleasure.
Why should I when the facts are available to all online. ;-)
it was your challenge, if you can`t i`ll assume you don`t know.
I do know but only because I read up on it and you can do the same.
Wow, you're tetchy this morning. You stated something, you get a reply, and this whole forum is dedicated to that principle. Snarky is not necessary.
rightio ;-)
I love that word, snarky.
No, not snarky but frustrated by accusations and insults being made against MPs who didn't vote for this payrise, nor did they ask for it but many, if not most, feel uncomfortable with it.
It should be all about that, but they probably deserve a bit more than 18k!
Where has Cameron said that he's happy to accept it? Can you provide a link? I've searched but I can't find anything to back up your claim.
Many MPs are already wealthy, having come from successful careers in law, medicine, and the private sector. Many of them will go on to secure six-figure salaries back in the private sector, with their former status as MPs adding to their employment status.
Many of them already serve as non-executive directors of blue-chip companies, using their presence on company letterheads to secure bonuses outside their public salaries, and giving them access to a network of business leaders to better secure their financial future.
Many more have family wealth to fall back on (Cameron, Osborne, Johnson etc.), and don't need this increase to survive.
I work in the private sector for a FTSE-100 listed company, but my salary has diminished markedly in the past 4 years, despite a promotion. My pension has also been devalued. I won't name the company, but we have a market capitalisation of > 100 Billion dollars, and we're making healthy profits.
My wife works in the NHS in a clinical role, and she's seen the same thing - lower real terms income and a pension scheme which has failed to deliver the returns we expected.
So how do you think the 11% pay rise looks to us? What are we to make of it? There's no way it can be justified during this time of austerity, and it shows that we're not "in it together" at all!
So why didn't you just say that? And if they're so uncomfortable with it, they should stop it going through. As has been said, they're fast enough to do so when it suits them.
I didn't think that I needed to, tbh, I believed that posters would already have known.
Much maligning of MPs, maybe some posters should put themselves up for parliament in the next general election if they think that they can do a better job. ;-)
The IPSA gets its authority through statutory instruments and legislation. MPs have the power to change that, and to change it quickly going by what they have done to suit their agenda previously. However, from what you are saying, MPs are simply victims of a system and are powerless in that respect.
MPs have a responsibility here and it appears that on this occasion they don't consider it in the public interest to change things. Funny that!
wrong time for a pay rise
We don't know that for sure, all three party leaders are against it. We have to wait and see.