With the few remaining public assets in the process of being privatised, surely politicians will have fewer responsibilities going forward?
The House of Commons might as well be sold off too, let the groups who benefit from it's machinations actually pay for the privilege. Why should taxpayers pay even more for less and less?
The argument from IPSA that it won't cost any more money due to corresponding cutbacks is getting on my tits. How about we make the cutbacks anyway and not give an 11% rise to compensate? Actually save some money and cut back on the bleeding ridiculous payouts that MPs get. £33k to adjust to normal life if you're sacked from your job? And that's the revised version AFTER the uproar over their expenses.
Guy Fawkes remains the last person to enter the Houses of Parliament with honest intent.
But if any other employee abuses their firm's expenses system they get the sack or disciplined. MPs get the fact used to justify why they should be paid more. Thankfully, at a time when they are really squeezing the public sector, all party leaders realise that this is ridiculous and I am sure will stop it. One of the rudimentals of leadership is the ability to lead by example - lose that and you lose everything!
There is never a shortage of people from all classes wishing to apply for selection, which suggests money isn't an issue. If it is about qulaity - surely that is an admission that the current ones are no good so are they going to sack themselves so a new breed of highly paid super politicians can replace them? I think not.
Not only should they not be getting a rise- they should be getting a real terms cut. Their expenses should be in line with everybody elses and their pensions too. When people stop wanting to be politicians, then maybe then is the time to re-assess. If people don't want to be politicians because it doesn't pay enough - great - do we really want these people controlling us?
Can't believe I'm saying this, but MP's should get more money, but I'd only give it to those who didn't have other jobs as well, I wouldn't pay the thieves, I'd cut out those who have a poor attendance record, and for the two or three left, I'd let their constituents have the final say.
Us teachers got 1% this month and we hardly deserve that to be honest. Because of us, children are leaving school illiterate. And our holidays are far too long.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but MP's should get more money, but I'd only give it to those who didn't have other jobs as well, I wouldn't pay the thieves, I'd cut out those who have a poor attendance record, and for the two or three left, I'd let their constituents have the final say.
I'm kind of in agreement with this view although it goes against the grain massively in the current climate. I'd be happy to see them get paid more but with conditions attached:
Set levels of attendance in the house.
Zero outside business interests as in it's their full time fecking job and not something they tinker with when they are not in the boardroom, on a jolly up or whatever.
Immediate expulsion from the House if found that they are being renumerated in any way by lobbyists or big businesses or unions.
I'd give the PM £1m a year to start with just so I never have to hear that tired old balls about "Mr Public Sector worker/civil servant earns more than the Prime Minister..." ever again. All that proves is the post is underpaid not always the other way around.
Us teachers got 1% this month and we hardly deserve that to be honest. Because of us, children are leaving school illiterate. And our holidays are far too long.
And there was me thinking that all teachers are militant Communists!
A bit like alcoholism, the first step is accepting it.
Absolute disgrace, I work in local government and we had no pay increase for 4 years and this April they generously gave us a 1% rise!
Grrrr!!!!!!!
Snap, 4 years of nothing and now a potential (but not guaranteed) 1% in March. If you are going to have some form of public sector rules, they need to be applied accross the board, not to just 'most of the public sector'.
You think that in five years a 1% payrise, compare that to how your travel, utility bills, fuel, food prices and general cost of living has moved in five years. And that's based on a 'static' life and not one where your situation changes.
Not really moaning, it is what it is, It's just depressing due to the fact i can only see it getting squeezed further.
Absolute disgrace, I work in local government and we had no pay increase for 4 years and this April they generously gave us a 1% rise!
Grrrr!!!!!!!
Snap, 4 years of nothing and now a potential (but not guaranteed) 1% in March. If you are going to have some form of public sector rules, they need to be applied accross the board, not to just 'most of the public sector'.
You think that in five years a 1% payrise, compare that to how your travel, utility bills, fuel, food prices and general cost of living has moved in five years. And that's based on a 'static' life and not one where your situation changes.
Not really moaning, it is what it is, It's just depressing due to the fact i can only see it getting squeezed further.
I suppose, on the bright side, you haven't been 'let go'!
I've seen my income fall by more than 25% since the credit crunch started. As I run my own business I am, virtually, guaranteed not to lose my job, but If I'd got a sniff of a pay freeze six years ago I would have ripped someone's arm off!
Can't believe I'm saying this, but MP's should get more money, but I'd only give it to those who didn't have other jobs as well, I wouldn't pay the thieves, I'd cut out those who have a poor attendance record, and for the two or three left, I'd let their constituents have the final say.
I'm kind of in agreement with this view although it goes against the grain massively in the current climate. I'd be happy to see them get paid more but with conditions attached:
Set levels of attendance in the house.
Zero outside business interests as in it's their full time fecking job and not something they tinker with when they are not in the boardroom, on a jolly up or whatever.
Immediate expulsion from the House if found that they are being renumerated in any way by lobbyists or big businesses or unions.
I'd give the PM £1m a year to start with just so I never have to hear that tired old balls about "Mr Public Sector worker/civil servant earns more than the Prime Minister..." ever again. All that proves is the post is underpaid not always the other way around.
It pains me to say that I agree. Although I would add more conditions and expectations.
There's only one game to be in folks - well, maybe two if you include banking.
Well, of course, there's a lot more games than that. Jeez, many of the mediocre middle-ranking managers I used to work for were paid (I won't use the term "earned" because they didn't) much more than an MP. It seems that MPs' pay is lagging and has certainly got a lot worse than it was back in the 1980s. On top of that most MPs have precious little job security at all and work very long mostly unsocial hours indeed. Then, of course, on a per capita basis and just behind members of the armed forces, an MP is much more likely to be arrested than any other sector of society, so they need a good salary in order to be able to pay the hefty legal bills :-)
Us teachers got 1% this month and we hardly deserve that to be honest. Because of us, children are leaving school illiterate. And our holidays are far too long.
I don't have a problem with them getting it. Pay peanuts and get monkeys. These are the guys and gals who are supposedly shaping britain and its way forwards in the world. I want the best to apply and they havn't done recently. Of course, however it should be their only job and they should have compulsory attendance requirements but currently, for the responsibilities and requirements they are, for me, underpaid.
I know that will be an unpopular thing to say but there you go.
Plenty of other professions are the same unfortunately.
What pisses me off is that the Independant Pay Review Body concluded that NHS workers should get a 1% pay uplift in April 2014 after three years of a freeze. The government have asked them to reconsider this saying the country can't afford it. I have no words to describe how I feel about politicians at the moment.
What pisses me off is that the Independant Pay Review Body concluded that NHS workers should get a 1% pay uplift in April 2014 after three years of a freeze. The government have asked them to reconsider this saying the country can't afford it. I have no words to describe how I feel about politicians at the moment.
Thing is SHG a 1% increase for the thousands of NHS employees is massive compared to an 11% increase in the earnings of 600 odd MPs. Also we have to bear in mind that it was accepted (by the MPs and those associated with them) that they benefited from extra income through the expenses that have now been taken away.
Anyone that thought the expenses loophole was going to be closed (for PR reasons only) and the MPs were going to earn thousands of pounds a year less should probably have known better.
As this increase still makes the MPs total income less than it was when they were able to buy, renovate and sell houses tax free you should all expect similar increases every year from now on.
Bearing in mind that the PM earns about 10% of what those running large corporations earn and, one could argue, has a more important job, I don't see how we can complain if they give themselves a pay rise that is less than the CEO of a major utility.
Also, anyone that doesn't like it can stand for election to be an MP and then set about changing it. Of course, once one becomes an MP they seem to be more interested in what they can get out of it than reducing the income that they and their colleagues earn.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but MP's should get more money, but I'd only give it to those who didn't have other jobs as well, I wouldn't pay the thieves, I'd cut out those who have a poor attendance record, and for the two or three left, I'd let their constituents have the final say.
I'm kind of in agreement with this view although it goes against the grain massively in the current climate. I'd be happy to see them get paid more but with conditions attached:
Set levels of attendance in the house.
Zero outside business interests as in it's their full time fecking job and not something they tinker with when they are not in the boardroom, on a jolly up or whatever.
Immediate expulsion from the House if found that they are being renumerated in any way by lobbyists or big businesses or unions.
I'd give the PM £1m a year to start with just so I never have to hear that tired old balls about "Mr Public Sector worker/civil servant earns more than the Prime Minister..." ever again. All that proves is the post is underpaid not always the other way around.
It pains me to say that I agree. Although I would add more conditions and expectations.
Comments
as long as I get an 11% rise as well.
The House of Commons might as well be sold off too, let the groups who benefit from it's machinations actually pay for the privilege. Why should taxpayers pay even more for less and less?
Guy Fawkes remains the last person to enter the Houses of Parliament with honest intent.
But then again they are MPs, so boo!
There is never a shortage of people from all classes wishing to apply for selection, which suggests money isn't an issue. If it is about qulaity - surely that is an admission that the current ones are no good so are they going to sack themselves so a new breed of highly paid super politicians can replace them? I think not.
Not only should they not be getting a rise- they should be getting a real terms cut. Their expenses should be in line with everybody elses and their pensions too. When people stop wanting to be politicians, then maybe then is the time to re-assess. If people don't want to be politicians because it doesn't pay enough - great - do we really want these people controlling us?
Grrrr!!!!!!!
Set levels of attendance in the house.
Zero outside business interests as in it's their full time fecking job and not something they tinker with when they are not in the boardroom, on a jolly up or whatever.
Immediate expulsion from the House if found that they are being renumerated in any way by lobbyists or big businesses or unions.
I'd give the PM £1m a year to start with just so I never have to hear that tired old balls about "Mr Public Sector worker/civil servant earns more than the Prime Minister..." ever again. All that proves is the post is underpaid not always the other way around.
A bit like alcoholism, the first step is accepting it.
;-)
You think that in five years a 1% payrise, compare that to how your travel, utility bills, fuel, food prices and general cost of living has moved in five years. And that's based on a 'static' life and not one where your situation changes.
Not really moaning, it is what it is, It's just depressing due to the fact i can only see it getting squeezed further.
I've seen my income fall by more than 25% since the credit crunch started. As I run my own business I am, virtually, guaranteed not to lose my job, but If I'd got a sniff of a pay freeze six years ago I would have ripped someone's arm off!
Boo!!!!
It pains me to say that I agree. Although I would add more conditions and expectations.
Jeez, many of the mediocre middle-ranking managers I used to work for were paid (I won't use the term "earned" because they didn't) much more than an MP.
It seems that MPs' pay is lagging and has certainly got a lot worse than it was back in the 1980s.
On top of that most MPs have precious little job security at all and work very long mostly unsocial hours indeed.
Then, of course, on a per capita basis and just behind members of the armed forces, an MP is much more likely to be arrested than any other sector of society, so they need a good salary in order to be able to pay the hefty legal bills :-)
I know that will be an unpopular thing to say but there you go.
Plenty of other professions are the same unfortunately.
I have no words to describe how I feel about politicians at the moment.
Anyone that thought the expenses loophole was going to be closed (for PR reasons only) and the MPs were going to earn thousands of pounds a year less should probably have known better.
As this increase still makes the MPs total income less than it was when they were able to buy, renovate and sell houses tax free you should all expect similar increases every year from now on.
Bearing in mind that the PM earns about 10% of what those running large corporations earn and, one could argue, has a more important job, I don't see how we can complain if they give themselves a pay rise that is less than the CEO of a major utility.
Also, anyone that doesn't like it can stand for election to be an MP and then set about changing it. Of course, once one becomes an MP they seem to be more interested in what they can get out of it than reducing the income that they and their colleagues earn.