Very late, but...

 

 

Absolutely not

 

They are public sector workers so should get the same pay rise as the rest of the public sector (nurses, soldiers etc) 1%

Yes, as the first IPSA wage change since 2009 but pegged to public sector pay rises thereafter now it's been adjusted for it being so underpaid for the demands of the job until now.

Yes, as the first IPSA wage change since 2009 but pegged to public sector pay rises thereafter now it's been adjusted for it being so underpaid for the demands of the job until now.

 

After the expenses scandals MP's need to rebuild public trust, being seen to have their noses in the trough while troops and nurses are getting effectively pay CUTS and most people are struggling with the cost of living will further drive a wedge between MPs and the people who elect them

 

Compared with a nurse or a soldier an MP has an easy life, its so hard choosing between caviar and foie gras in the heavily subsidised house of commons restaurant while teenage troops are getting their legs blown off by landmines

 

MPs need to reflect the mood of their constituents and the overwhelming majority of the public (the MPs ultimate boss) do not want to see this rise happen

Edited December 11, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere

Yes, they should get a pay rise. But you could argue that for almost every person working in the UK right now. So many sectors are operating on pay freezes, pay cuts and insane 1% rises that just aren't keeping up with the rapidly rising cost of living. They should get a rise, but so should the rest of the country. The Government are still forcing austerity upon us and capping the rises in the public sector. It'd just be a slap in the face to take it when the rest of the country is struggling to stay afloat (Because I don't believe the growth figures at all. Things are getting tougher, not better)!

 

I work in Higher Education which is a weird step between the public and private sector and we're getting a 1% pay rise. There was a staff memo sent out where I work confirming it last week, and saying it'll take effect from this months pay slip (backdated to August), despite there still being a dispute with the unions. The Unions have argued that workers in the Higher Education sector have had a 15% pay cut in real terms. To then see MPs, who caused this problem, take 11% would be highly offensive and really quite deadly to their reputations.

 

I'm not denying they don't deserve it, but there is a time and a place for pay rises and now is not that time.

Yes, as the first IPSA wage change since 2009 but pegged to public sector pay rises thereafter now it's been adjusted for it being so underpaid for the demands of the job until now.

 

Underpaid? Really?!

 

 

Yes, they should get a pay rise. But you could argue that for almost every person working in the UK right now. So many sectors are operating on pay freezes, pay cuts and insane 1% rises that just aren't keeping up with the rapidly rising cost of living. They should get a rise, but so should the rest of the country. The Government are still forcing austerity upon us and capping the rises in the public sector. It'd just be a slap in the face to take it when the rest of the country is struggling to stay afloat (Because I don't believe the growth figures at all. Things are getting tougher, not better)!

 

I work in Higher Education which is a weird step between the public and private sector and we're getting a 1% pay rise. There was a staff memo sent out where I work confirming it last week, and saying it'll take effect from this months pay slip (backdated to August), despite there still being a dispute with the unions. The Unions have argued that workers in the Higher Education sector have had a 15% pay cut in real terms. To then see MPs, who caused this problem, take 11% would be highly offensive and really quite deadly to their reputations.

 

I'm not denying they don't deserve it, but there is a time and a place for pay rises and now is not that time.

 

Pretty much this. I'm not one of those who says "MPs are all lazy they should never get a rise ever again!!!!!111" but it's clearly ridiculous they should get one at a time when all other public-sector workers are getting no or hardly any rises at all (something that's supported, shamefully, by all the major parties).

Cameron should bring in emergency legislation that enforces a free vote on whether this decision of the IPSA is binding

 

Those MPs that vote in favour of it can then be named and shamed, and be forced to explain to their constituents why they think they are worth 11%, while the constituents are barely getting any pay increase at all

Edited December 11, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere

MSPs have unanimously agreed to 'unlink' their pay with that of MPs so they can avoid the 11% rise. They will take 1%, like the rest of the public sector, instead.

Cameron should bring in emergency legislation that enforces a free vote on whether this decision of the IPSA is binding

 

Those MPs that vote in favour of it can then be named and shamed, and be forced to explain to their constituents why they think they are worth 11%, while the constituents are barely getting any pay increase at all

It doesn't need emergency legislation. The proposed pay rise doesn't take effect until after the next election so any legislation can go through the usual timetable. Any "emergency legislation" will be entirely for PR purposes and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

It doesn't need emergency legislation. The proposed pay rise doesn't take effect until after the next election so any legislation can go through the usual timetable. Any "emergency legislation" will be entirely for PR purposes and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

 

The IPSA are giving their final verdict in January i think, so when that happens, it automatically becomes cast in stone as MPs currently do not have a vote on whether to accept it

 

So with new legislation there can be a vote whether to accept it or not, and those that choose to accept it will in many cases be signing their political death warrant, a number of MPs from the expenses scandal lost their seats in 2010 and the mood of public anger is probably even stronger than over expenses

Edited December 11, 201311 yr by Sandro Raniere

The IPSA are giving their final verdict in January i think, so when that happens, it automatically becomes cast in stone as MPs currently do not have a vote on whether to accept it

 

So with new legislation there can be a vote whether to accept it or not, and those that choose to accept it will in many cases be signing their political death warrant, a number of MPs from the expenses scandal lost their seats in 2010 and the mood of public anger is probably even stronger than over expenses

Rubbish. MPs can easily vote to strip IPSA of its powers and then reverse the decision.

 

Of course, it should not be forgotten that the whole purpose of giving IPSA the power to decide MPs' pay was a direct result of the expenses scandal. Whoever sets MPs' pay there will always be rows. Almost inevitably their pay will gradually fall behind that of comparable professionals (insofar as they can be directly compared with anyone) which, ultimately, will lead to another hefty increase to catch up.

 

It should also be noted that part of the overall package (but ignored by most of the press) includes a reduction in pension entitlement, a reduction in severance pay for MPs who lose their seats and tighter control of expenses. Therefore, the total cost of the package amounts to an increase well below 11%.

Rubbish. MPs can easily vote to strip IPSA of its powers and then reverse the decision.

 

Of course, it should not be forgotten that the whole purpose of giving IPSA the power to decide MPs' pay was a direct result of the expenses scandal. Whoever sets MPs' pay there will always be rows. Almost inevitably their pay will gradually fall behind that of comparable professionals (insofar as they can be directly compared with anyone) which, ultimately, will lead to another hefty increase to catch up.

 

It should also be noted that part of the overall package (but ignored by most of the press) includes a reduction in pension entitlement, a reduction in severance pay for MPs who lose their seats and tighter control of expenses. Therefore, the total cost of the package amounts to an increase well below 11%.

 

Perhaps, but public-sector workers are having to also make most of those sacrifices (especially with regards to pensions) AND have their pay frozen on top of that.

 

I'm generally not one for the general "if I'm suffering, everyone else should suffer equally" attitude that a lot of people have had the last few years, but considering MPs are the very people who've insisted on that restraint from public-sector workers, I don't think it's unreasonable that they should be held to the same standard.

Underpaid? Really?!

For the nature and demands of the job, I'd say so, yeah. I don have the figures to hand but from what I can recall it's pretty low by international standards, and similar jobs in the public/private sector with the same demands would easily be paid far higher.

 

That's not to say there aren't loads of other jobs that aren't underpaid as well, but MPs are pretty unique in that a pay rise for them will ALWAYS be cried down as 'it's not the right time!' or 'it's not fair!'. I take the view of if not now then when? This is the jest time an independent commission has decided what it would be fair to pay MPs. Any rises above those given to the public sector after this would be more than fair game for complaint.

For the nature and demands of the job, I'd say so, yeah. I don have the figures to hand but from what I can recall it's pretty low by international standards, and similar jobs in the public/private sector with the same demands would easily be paid far higher.

 

That's not to say there aren't loads of other jobs that aren't underpaid as well, but MPs are pretty unique in that a pay rise for them will ALWAYS be cried down as 'it's not the right time!' or 'it's not fair!'. I take the view of if not now then when? This is the jest time an independent commission has decided what it would be fair to pay MPs. Any rises above those given to the public sector after this would be more than fair game for complaint.

 

Osborne famously said 'we are all in this together' while proceeding to effectively cut the pay of nurses and soldiers, so how are MPs going to show they are 'all in this together' by accepting a rise 11 times that of a soldier and nurse?

 

When nurses and soldiers etc start getting inflation busting pay rises so should MPs, till then they can struggle along on their 65k salary, generous expenses and heavily subsidised caviar

For the nature and demands of the job, I'd say so, yeah. I don have the figures to hand but from what I can recall it's pretty low by international standards, and similar jobs in the public/private sector with the same demands would easily be paid far higher.

 

That's not to say there aren't loads of other jobs that aren't underpaid as well, but MPs are pretty unique in that a pay rise for them will ALWAYS be cried down as 'it's not the right time!' or 'it's not fair!'. I take the view of if not now then when? This is the jest time an independent commission has decided what it would be fair to pay MPs. Any rises above those given to the public sector after this would be more than fair game for complaint.

 

Although MPs do work harder than the general public perception (especially in terms of the hours they work away from parliament), I still find it a bit questionable to say there's really more demands on them than there is on a typical nurse, for example.

 

I saw the argument made in a thread in the Lounge that increasing MPs' pay would encourage people like GPs and nurses to become politicians. I'm a bit sceptical of whether it would achieve that too, I personally think the main reasons more "normal" people don't go into politics is because of how unappealing the House of Commons always comes across, and because of how little respect people have for MPs (and increasing pay will probably only make the latter problem worse, and maybe they could use the money saved from not giving them a pay rise to send MPs onto etiquette lessons to remove the first problem). I'd be interested to see if there's any international evidence showing any correlation between higher pay, and more "normal" people wanting to become MPs.

For the nature and demands of the job, I'd say so, yeah. I don have the figures to hand but from what I can recall it's pretty low by international standards, and similar jobs in the public/private sector with the same demands would easily be paid far higher.

 

That's not to say there aren't loads of other jobs that aren't underpaid as well, but MPs are pretty unique in that a pay rise for them will ALWAYS be cried down as 'it's not the right time!' or 'it's not fair!'. I take the view of if not now then when? This is the jest time an independent commission has decided what it would be fair to pay MPs. Any rises above those given to the public sector after this would be more than fair game for complaint.

Even before the expenses scandal British MPs were paid less than many of their counterparts overseas and had a less generous expenses system.

Although MPs do work harder than the general public perception (especially in terms of the hours they work away from parliament), I still find it a bit questionable to say there's really more demands on them than there is on a typical nurse, for example.

 

I saw the argument made in a thread in the Lounge that increasing MPs' pay would encourage people like GPs and nurses to become politicians. I'm a bit sceptical of whether it would achieve that too, I personally think the main reasons more "normal" people don't go into politics is because of how unappealing the House of Commons always comes across, and because of how little respect people have for MPs (and increasing pay will probably only make the latter problem worse, and maybe they could use the money saved from not giving them a pay rise to send MPs onto etiquette lessons to remove the first problem). I'd be interested to see if there's any international evidence showing any correlation between higher pay, and more "normal" people wanting to become MPs.

If you are referring to my argument I did not say that increasing pay would encourage more GPs etc to stand for parliament. What I did say is that many people say they would like to see more GPs, headteachers etc. stand and may change their mind about MPs' pay if they are asked whether such people should take a pay cut in order to be an MP.

 

While nurses etc. undoubtedly work very hard while they are on duty, they do at least get to switch off when they go home. MPs generally do not have that luxury.

I saw the argument made in a thread in the Lounge that increasing MPs' pay would encourage people like GPs and nurses to become politicians. I'm a bit sceptical of whether it would achieve that too, I personally think the main reasons more "normal" people don't go into politics is because of how unappealing the House of Commons always comes across, and because of how little respect people have for MPs (and increasing pay will probably only make the latter problem worse, and maybe they could use the money saved from not giving them a pay rise to send MPs onto etiquette lessons to remove the first problem). I'd be interested to see if there's any international evidence showing any correlation between higher pay, and more "normal" people wanting to become MPs.

I'm not sure that was the argument, but in any case Gloria de Piero (my personal favourite Labour MP) did a lot of research on this very topic! She did a 'why do people hate me?' tour, which found a lot of what you mention here, and also did some work on finding out why more people don't stand for parliament. Both made pretty interesting reads. Aside from the obvious dislike of politics (which also covers things like people hating the party system/whipping) the amount of money people would need to stand properly, given you need to be either wealthy or have wealthy backing, is a really huge obstacle, alongside the demands of the job and that most people don't have a clue as to where they'd begin.

While nurses etc. undoubtedly work very hard while they are on duty, they do at least get to switch off when they go home. MPs generally do not have that luxury.

Quite. I'd imagine having to go back and forth across half the country on a frequent basis just to do the job and getting barely any down time/time spent with their families isn't the case for most nurses either.

I'm not sure that was the argument, but in any case Gloria de Piero (my personal favourite Labour MP) did a lot of research on this very topic! She did a 'why do people hate me?' tour, which found a lot of what you mention here, and also did some work on finding out why more people don't stand for parliament. Both made pretty interesting reads. Aside from the obvious dislike of politics (which also covers things like people hating the party system/whipping) the amount of money people would need to stand properly, given you need to be either wealthy or have wealthy backing, is a really huge obstacle, alongside the demands of the job and that most people don't have a clue as to where they'd begin.

 

I interpreted "I couldn’t afford to give up my job to campaign for election" as people not being willing to risk giving up their income in case they didn't actually get elected as an MP - I don't really see from the article (which is admittedly vaguely worded) that many people were saying that an MP's salary if they were to actually get there would be too low. The fact that normal people don't have the resources to get into parliament in the first place is a big problem for sure, and is probably a good argument for state funding of political parties (which frankly would be much easier to sell to the public if MPs' salaries aren't increased, which understandably is just going to look to most people like privileged MPs pulling up the ladder further away from an understanding of normal people rather than trying to broaden "access" to parliament), but I really don't see that it follows from that that keeping salaries quite modest for those who are MPs would mean only wealthy people would want to run - in fact, the article saying that more Labour supporters (who obviously on average are poorer) hypothetically say they'd like to be an MP, if they could somehow get there, suggests the exact opposite of salaries being the problem.

Edited December 11, 201311 yr by Danny