MPs call for 32% pay rise

First topic message reminder :

MPs have told the watchdog reviewing their pay that they deserve a 32% hike to £86,250.

A survey carried out by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) also found more than a third believe they should keep generous final salary pensions.

The findings emerged as Ipsa published a report on its initial consultation into pay and pensions, which ended last month.

The research, which politicians completed anonymously, found that 69% thought they were underpaid on £65,738.

The average level suggested for the salary was £86,250.

But Tory MP Andrew Bridgen told BBC Radio 4's PM programme he believed MPs deserved more cash.

"Most of my colleagues on the government benches took a large pay cut to be an MP, and I think there’s a real danger, if you need good people, you need the right people, there’s a lot of exclusion," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/10/mps-vote-to-increase-pay-86250_n_2448503.html?1357840986&utm_hp_ref=uk

Strange how when it comes to MP's you have to pay more to get good workers but for the rest of us we should be happy if we get minimum wages because we have a job.....

MP's should remember that they put themselves up for election, unless of course their Tory's then it was their rich friends who pushed them........

tlttf. Yesterday you told us this:-
 

Osborne is actually squeezing the rich harder than any Labour Chancellor ever did (that’s what you get when you cut the top rate of tax).

It's a shame that you've swallowed the lie that the Tories put around when they want to cut the income tax of their cronies and backers. A reduction doesn't bring in more money; those who are immoral enough to avoid tax at 50% will do so whatever the rate. The cut to 45% is actually costing the Treasury in the region £2.7-£3 billion.
 
Then today, via ‘The Yorkshire Post’, you quote from ‘Greed Unlimited: How Cameron and Clegg Protect the Elites While Squeezing The Rest of Us’. I suppose we can’t really expect someone who supports the Tories, UKIP and independent politicians to be consistent.
 
I doubt if anyone here agrees with Tory MP Andrew Bridgen when he said: “A vast majority of people do not think £65,000 a year salary is a lot of money". MPs most certainly should not get a rise in the present economic climate, and I think £50,000 would be more than enough to pay them. However, the article from ‘The Yorkshire Post’ is flawed. For a start, the percentage of our laws deriving from our EU obligations varies from year to year, but the House of Commons Library estimates it as being about 15%, which is nowhere near 75%.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/05/pro-eu-tories-euroscepticism
 
MPs have not “awarded themselves a pay rise”, that’s been the decision of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, although I wouldn’t be surprised if Cameron had threatened the IPSA; we all know that he’s a bully who used to be nicknamed ‘Flashman’. MPs do have a generous pension scheme, but I understand that’s being cut under the new arrangements.
 
The article says that “if we look at the result of our MPs’ work, we’ll see their failure to govern effectively”. That confuses the work of MPs with the work of the government. Yes, 90 MPs are in the government, but that’s nothing new. In the early 1960s, there were 85 MPs in Harold Macmillan’s Tory cabinet (and he was related to 36 of them). Backbench MPs don’t just shout at the opposition in the Commons, they are there to scrutinise the work of the government on various committees and to deal with issues raised by their constituents. Inner-city MPs often do a similar job to social workers when their constituents bring them their problems. Cutting the number of MPs is a bad idea, especially as it would mean fewer backbenchers to hold the government to account. If you want to cut anything, cut the number of Lords; Cameron has cost us untold millions by swamping the House of Lords with his cronies.

Who swamped the house of Lords Ivan?

House of Lords membership:

Conservative: life peers – 164; excepted hereditary peers – 49. Total 213
Labour: life peers – 227; excepted hereditary peers – 4. Total 231
Lib. Dem: life peers – 86; excepted hereditary peers – 4..Total 90
Crossbench: life peers – 150; excepted hereditary peers – 31. Total 181
Other life peers - 33; excepted hereditary peers - 1. Total 34
Bishops 26 Total 26

TOTAL: 775

tlttf wrote:-
Who swamped the house of Lords Ivan?

How strange that a poster who claims to support 'independents' is so desperate to whitewash the Tories at every opportunity, even when it means flying in the face of the evidence!  
 
April 2011:-
 
Cameron creates 117 new peers at a cost of £18m
 
Cameron has broken his manifesto promise to cut the cost of politics by creating an unprecedented number of peerages. His decision to elevate 117 people to the Lords, more than any other PM in his first year, has led to a cramped upper chamber, with 792 peers.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-creates-117-new-peers-at-a-cost-of-16318m-2274229.html
 
January 2013:-
 
Lords gets 50 new peers despite pledge to cut size: Cameron on course to create more than any other Prime Minister
 
A further 100 will be added over the next two years to reflect the last election result.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269355/Lords-gets-50-new-peers-despite-pledge-cut-size-Cameron-course-create-Prime-Minister.html
 
As I said previously:-

Cameron has cost us untold millions by swamping the House of Lords with his cronies.

But surely the Prime Minister would act only in the interests of the Electors?

oftenwrong wrote:But surely the Prime Minister would act only in the interests of the Electors?

When we get a Labour gov't in 2015, that is one of the things Ed Miliband will have to sort out should have clean out the Lords if they want to sit in there get people to vote them in then maybe they will earn what money WE decide to pay them.

Ivan, not sure why you have an obsession with my voting, I'm simply trying to show a balanced debate. What would be the point of the forum if everybody posted the same tripe. Personally I think the lot of them are useless, the problem being that which ever group of troughites are sitting in power you would struggle to slide a feeler gauge between them, we're run by a bunch of quasi socialists that are obsessed with staying in Europe to ensure their personal wealth is ensured with a guaranteed job for when they're booted out from being an mp. Look at Lord Mandelson and Lord Kinnock (and all his family).

Ivan wrote:

tlttf wrote:-
Who swamped the house of Lords Ivan?

How strange that a poster who claims to support 'independents' is so desperate to whitewash the Tories at every opportunity, even when it means flying in the face of the evidence!  
 
April 2011:-
 
Cameron creates 117 new peers at a cost of £18m
 
Cameron has broken his manifesto promise to cut the cost of politics by creating an unprecedented number of peerages. His decision to elevate 117 people to the Lords, more than any other PM in his first year, has led to a cramped upper chamber, with 792 peers.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-creates-117-new-peers-at-a-cost-of-16318m-2274229.html
 
January 2013:-
 
Lords gets 50 new peers despite pledge to cut size: Cameron on course to create more than any other Prime Minister
 
A further 100 will be added over the next two years to reflect the last election result.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269355/Lords-gets-50-new-peers-despite-pledge-cut-size-Cameron-course-create-Prime-Minister.html
 
As I said previously:-

Cameron has cost us untold millions by swamping the House of Lords with his cronies.

Good post Ivan but it will only give Ed Miliband more work when he gets the keys for No10 in May 2010, he will need to clean out that House of Tory VAMPIRES blood suckers by name and blood suckers by nature.

To return to the issue of the MP's pay rise - I'm quite happy to agree that, for such a responsible job, a commensurate rate of pay is appropriate.
I suspect the rise being discussed would in fact be quite fair, if certain conditions were imposed:-
1) Being an MP should be a FULL TIME job - members should be required to resign from their law practices, directorships etc etc and devote their full energies to the job of representing their constituents and helping to run the country.
2) Expenses claims should stop - travel connected to the job could be managed by the use of rail warrants and maybe a pool of cars for use of member; the need to reside near to Parliament could no doubt be met by a block booking at an appropriate hotel.
3) MP's salaries should reflect their need to employ secretarial and research staff, with an increase being given to members of the Cabinet and front benches on both sides to reflect the increased need for such support. There could also perhaps be a House of Commons secretarial pool, to do all those letters to constituents and other routine work.
4) Reflecting the fact that the job of an MP is by its nature insecure, it would be appropriate to have a system in place to provide something like a redundancy payment for MP's voted out - maybe something like a month's wages for every year served - something to help bridge the gap whil they look for alternative employment.

Given those reforms, I'd be happy enough for the job to attract a salary of ,say, £85000. After all, representing your country in Parliament IS a privilege, isn't it?

What do mps actually do?

And have they been doing a good job serving the electorate?

Surely they should be taking a pay cut rather than a pay rise?


Mps - screwing it up since 1980.

sickchip wrote:What do mps actually do?

And have they been doing a good job serving the electorate?

Surely they should be taking a pay cut rather than a pay rise?


Mps - screwing it up since 1980.

I would vote for that sickchip

Parliament is now in recess for the Summer, so MPs will have sone leisure time in which to digest letters from their constituents.

So why not write direct to your elected representative and explain just how much things have improved since he/she took their seat?

The Postal address is (your MP) House of Commons, London.
or google their email adress.

Get it all off your chest.

oftenwrong wrote:Parliament is now in recess for the Summer, so MPs will have sone leisure time in which to digest letters from their constituents.

So why not write direct to your elected representative and explain just how much things have improved since he/she took their seat?

The Postal address is  (your MP)  House of Commons, London.
or google their email address.

Get it all off your chest.

I would imagine OW those Tory and Lib-Dem MPs will be getting the idea not to go back to their constituents and ask for their votes in 2015, some even might even get a punch in the mouth for putting through the nasty Tory cuts, and it is a pity some will get prison sentences for taking out their frustration on the person that deserves it.

Many people might prefer the "punch-in-the mouth" alternative to "one man-one vote", but it can't be described as Democracy.

The problem lies in all those "safe seats" where a contrary vote is effectively a complete waste of voters' time.

oftenwrong wrote:-
The problem lies in all those "safe seats" where a contrary vote is effectively a complete waste of voters' time.

Since the Second World War, Labour has never won fewer than 209 seats in a general election, the Tories have never won fewer than 165. So even when there are massive landslides one way or the other, 374 of the 650 parliamentary seats never change hands. The election is effectively only fought in the remaining 276 seats - less than 43% of the total – by whatever percentage of the electorate bother to vote (in 2010, it was 65%).
 
In 2011, voters were offered a chance to change this archaic system, which often produces only a passing resemblance to their wishes. But they weren’t offered the chance of a real change to proportional representation and voted overwhelmingly to stick with the current lottery, where the majority of votes don’t count for anything.

Ivan wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:-
The problem lies in all those "safe seats" where a contrary vote is effectively a complete waste of voters' time.

Since the Second World War, Labour has never won fewer than 209 seats in a general election, the Tories have never won fewer than 165. So even when there are massive landslides one way or the other, 374 of the 650 parliamentary seats never change hands. The election is effectively only fought in the remaining 276 seats - less than 43% of the total – by whatever percentage of the electorate bother to vote (in 2010, it was 65%).
 
In 2011, voters were offered a chance to change this archaic system, which often produces only a passing resemblance to their wishes. But they weren’t offered the chance of a real change to proportional representation and voted overwhelmingly to stick with the current lottery, where the majority of votes don’t count for anything.

Ivan we have PR here in Scotland for our Parliament I do not think it very fair, let me explain in 2011 I was helping my MSP stuffing envelopes to be delivered by the councillors activists and Labour voters. As usual there was a Tory Lib-Dem SNP and assorted Independents, when we go to the polling station we get two ballot papers one for voting for your candidate and one to vote for a party (this is called the list) my MSP knew it was going to be tight between herself and the SNP candidate but she won by a majority of 2,000 votes but the SNP candidate sits in Holyrood due to getting in on the list which I think is unfair. So I am not in favour of the PR system would rather have first past the post.

Most people I speak to about Proportional Representation glaze over because they don't understand how it works, and don't really care either.

It doesn't help, to be told that there are two or three competing PR systems.

 
I hope OW my explanation of PR could be understood, if not please let me know and will try again to explain how it works here in Scotland.

Aaaaarrrgghh! Redflag. No more explanations of PR thank you.
I choose having my feet put to the fire if that's the only alternative.  

NS&I REDUCES INTEREST RATE ON PREMIUM BONDS

http://www.nsandi.com/media-centre-nsi-reduces-interest-rate-premium-bonds

When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.