MP's want 32% pay raise

65k a year isn't enough for them they want to up it by 32%
How do they think the rest of us are managing?

 

Well we'd all like a pay raise to be fair - They may as well get their hat in the ring. It'll never happen!

 

Like fuck are they getting a pay rise without a riot :devil:

 

Like Fuck!

 

I told you so....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23262503

parasites

 

You said: MP's want 32% pay raise

The MPs' expenses watchdog will recommend a pay rise for MPs to £74,000 but will say there should be cuts to other allowances...

9.3%

 

Thanks for the correction, Odon.

I could just do with 9.3% myself, ya know ...

 

It's more of an update than a correction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20978487

 

and what's your point, you trying to say i was wrong?

MP's did want a 32% payrise, I was right. Now the expenses watchdog have ok'd a 6k+ payrise. Any fool knows when negotiating a pay deal you go in higher than what you want.

You don't think that is at all distasteful given the job cuts and pay freeze for everyone else in the public sector they've enforced?

 

leeds85

I said: It's more of an update than a correction.

But, with relation to my earlier post - my point was that you said: 'I told you so' - which seemed like you were still correct when you posted that MP's wanted a 32% pay rise. Technically you are now wrong (it was only a poll, anyway).
It might change from the % I quoted: The proposals, to be unveiled later on Thursday, will go to consultation before being finalised later this year.

I'd prefer to know exactly what they are getting, and know they are not siphoning money from expenses etc.
So, if they abolish their expenses etc...
Maybe 4-5% rather than 9-10%

 

They're not going to abolish expenses. They are proposing to end a few of them like claiming £15 for dinner if they are in the commons till late. They'll still be able to claim for stuff like taxi rides without producing a reciept or wallpaper for decorating a 2nd home. The rest of us have to pay for that sort of stuff out of our own pocket don't we? If 66k isn't enough don't take the job in the 1st place. They'll are able to draw a pension after something like 12yrs in office. So someone getting into politics in their 40's gets to put their feet up in their 50's. While for the rest of us they're rasing the age of retirement higher and higher. How can these people make an informed decision of things that effect our lives when they don't have to live like us? But as long as they have people on £6 an hour defending them, they'll carry on screwing us.

Just keep telling yourself we're all in it together .

 

I do think MP's pay should be in line with those in a similar position. I don't think it should be anything over 70-75k. Expenses, outside office expenses, should be abolished completely.
I would imagine many people do not enter politics because of the pay.
After this, their pay should be 'indexed to average earnings in the whole economy thereafter'.
So, perhaps, after all is said and done, they will, effectively, have a pay cut

'How can these people make an informed decision of things that effect our lives when they don't have to live like us? '

What do you mean? - with an e.g if poss'.

 

I really don't mind them being paid properly (excuse me if my ideas wander, Test Match Special is on and we just took the 3rd wicket.... GET IN!) ...

... er ... where was I? Oh yeah, I don't mind MPs being paid properly in theory - at least £100 000, and probably a good 50% higher ...

... BUT before everyone screams outrage at me the BIG problem isn't the pay they get for doing their jobs as MPs... it's the money they take from second jobs, consultancy fees, share ownership (the recent controversy over Tim Yeo being chair of the Energy Select Committee while holding hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of shares in energy companies whose profits depend on government energy policy)...

So a pay rise should only be given in return for them giving up their rights to second (and in many cases third, fourth, fifth... twentieth) incomes. Any shares they have should be controlled by independent trustees during their period in parliament.

These people do try and forget that making and amending law is a damn privilege, and there need to be sacrifices made by the people given that privilege to show they're worthy of it.

They must not only be independent, they must be SEEN to be independent. Until then, they shouldn't get a flipping penny.

(ANOTHER WICKET!! YEEEHAH!)

 

"it takes 5 seconds..... just 5 seconds..... to realize, that the time is right! to start thinking about......a little....... REVOLUTION!"

 

deciding government policy, voting on laws those sort of things tend to have an affect on our lives.

 

Yes, I know. I was just wondering about the effect on those types of e.g's when they earn what they do, and seemingly don't have to live like we do.
It isn't that hard to imagine what life is like earning 67K, why do you think it is hard for them to imagine what it is like earning 25K?
For that matter is it difficult for somebody who earns 16K to imagine what it is like earning 25K?
I don't think 67K pushes most people into some ivory tower - if they do their homework and 'stay in touch'.
I'm getting to realise if you are a psychopath you might find it difficult. But I don't think most MP's are psychopaths.
Do you mean most don't care about anybody who earns less than 25K?

 

Btw, I don't think many will take up the increase, so I'm not sure how much will actually change : /

 

ok I see what you're asking now, look at like this. If a person who gets to put their travel expenses paid for, travelling 1st class on the trains the right person to be deciding if the train companies are charging the public too much. Is the person who doesn't have to pay to heat for their much needed 2nd home, the right person to keep an eye on the utility companies raising our fuel bills every year despite making record profits. Is someone who already earns 66k but feels the need to fleece the public funds by claiming for items they don't need, never bought or could comfortably pay for themselves the right person to decide if people on minimum wage should have a pay freeze or not?

 

leeds85

I think you have to lower the cynicism slightly.
I don't know how often Norman baker takes 1st Class travel - I would imagine not that often.
I would also wonder if he makes policy decisions in isolation.
If you read all sides of the debate, it is clear they all blame each other, and it is also heavily tilted towards those hard-done by London commuters.
The regulated and unregulated fares are so complicated, imho, I think it is almost impossible to know if one persons decisions are the only decision in play.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/rail-fares-and-ticketing-review
http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_ne...jet"&pPK=05b720f2-7888-49ec-b7c6-8a3425c46199

I think what is taken into more consideration is the politics of the issue, rather than personal gain etc.

I think if Norman thinks he is going to lose his job, he is more likely to be the one 'championing the passenger'. Now, that is me being cynical.

I think you have to consider the the process involved, decisions made, and any prejudices we may have (including who you feel should pay for the rail system: tax payers or the passenger).

Personally, I don't travel on the trains, but I do use public transport.
The prices are ridiculous sometimes - but overall, I think they are fair (pardon the pun).

If anybody is 'fleecing the public funds' then they should be exposed.

A lot of decisions end up being on a more local level.
My council has decided to give it's workers a 'living wage'...
http://rorypalmerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/living-wage-implemented-today-at.html
http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council-services/jobs-and-careers/recruitment/living-wage/

If we can flip the argument for a second...

How many on a low wage feel the sense of entitlement, or do not consider the impact they have on services.
For e.g, somebody going to A+E for a paper cut.

We all need to take some responsibility.

 

You'd like me to lower the cynicism but then talk of people going to A&E with paper cuts as an agrument????

I was in Paris 2yrs ago, you can go anywhere on the metro for 2 euros, you're lucky if you can go 2 stops for that on the london underground. People pay 1000's for annual rail tickets and they can't even get a seat for that, but the price of fares keep going up.

your local goverment has decided to pay its staff a living wage, hooray! Don't you get it? that should be the norm not headline news on a website, It's called a 'living wage' ffs lol

Why do you saying MP's will turn down a 10% payrise thats being recommended when they have already said they wanted a 33%? They started this process in the 1st place. Sure the MP's in the cabinet and shadow cabinet's might turn it down and a few decent ones maybe like Dennis Skinner and the like but the majority of them will take it don't worry about that. And all this while public sector workers are having a pay freeze year after year. Famlies are going to the wall, people are losing their homes because they can't pay the bills everything is going up in price from electric, gas, petrol, food and you want MP's to have a payrise. Why? Why should they have a payrise and the rest of us a pay freeze? And why 10%, when are you ever heard of civil servants like office staff, bin men getting a 10% pay rise?

I keep hearing that MP's should be paid more to bring them in line with MP's in other countries, but what about the common worker, why aren't they allowed 10% to bring them into line, why is it only the people at the top? And what's going to happen if we don't pay MP's more, they're not going to go and work as an MP in another country, so they can either take the job or not because somebody else will for 66k, we won't be short of takers and i'd rather have someone that's in politics to help the people than the ones there for the money. It's the nurses, teachers etc that should be getting the pay rises. They're the people that pack up and go and work abroad after being trained with tax payers money. These are the ones we need to keep not the parasites at the top.

 

It's not cynical, it's an extreme e.g!

Paper cut injuries and false nails among list of Midland A&E time-wasters costing NHS at least £7million.
10 Nov 2011

TIMEWASTERS have been condemned for clogging up Midland A&E departments with ‘emergencies’ including paper cuts and false nails peeling off.

Chris Welsh, medical director at NHS Midlands and East, said: “Examples are very funny and extreme cases but there is a very serious message behind them."

Cynicism creeps in when you presume one person forms an opinion/makes a decision based on their salary.
If you compare salaries of MP's around the world, and the cost of living i.e train and fuel costs - is it fair to compare it with decisions made with the amount MP's earn?

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/MPsalariesFinal.pdf

If people are going to complain how MP's are paid, and them wasting money - we should acknowledge what we do, and we should take some responsibility for the money we waste.

I have no idea which ticket you are talking about, perhaps you can enlighten me.
I have taken some time to compare fares - but it's far too complicated.
I did find an 'unlimited' ticket for approx' 24euros (5 zones).
And a similar ticket for £11 (4 zones) £16 (6 zones).
http://visitorshop.tfl.gov.uk/travelcards/1-day/product/day-anytime-travelcard.html
http://www.conciergerie.com/paris/pass/paris-metro-pass.php
You do the math!
Your e.g is based on train/tube fares in London and Paris, not prices around the country.
This seemed to ring true for me, though:

'...fossilised by Government fares regulation (it's a long story!).'

Conclusion..

So the next time someone says (or you read) "Britain has the highest rail fares in Europe", you'll know this is only 15% of the story. The other 85% is that we have similar or even cheaper fares, too. The big picture is that Britain has the most commercially aggressive fares in Europe, with the highest fares designed to get maximum revenue from business travel, and some of the lowest fares designed to get more revenue by filling more seats. This is exactly what airlines have known, and been doing, for decades. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself, check some UK train fares at www.nationalrail.co.uk...
http://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-fares-comparison.html#.UeAUvDtvOXs

You also have to factor in subsidies, and how many people use it.

I didn't think we were talking about prices, but decisions being made based on a persons salary.
To me, that seems unfair, and unfair cynicism creeps in.
But I appreciate it is a valid question to ask.
I'm not sure you have made an argument for that yet - other than: It must be true, mustn't it?

True.
It was an e.g of MP's being payed lots of money but thinking about those that don't.

Approx' 69 MP's said their jobs should be valued at more than they were currently were.
If you think that is a representative sample - fair enough.
I don't. I do not think 69% of MP's will take anything like a 10% pay increase.

However, It is a question of how much their jobs are valued - that seems the whole point.

E.g:

The 2002-2003 UK firefighter dispute began when the UK firefighters union, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), voted to take strike action in an attempt to secure a better salary.
The FBU demanded a 39 percent increase in pay, which would have brought the average firefighter's wage (at the time) to around £30,000.
It balloted its members for a strike in late 2002 and the industrial action began in November.
It was the first nationwide firefighters' strike in the UK since the 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_firefighter_dispute_2002–2003

Would you say firefighters were being payed too much?

How much do you think MP's should earn (...and not based on how much a bin man/'common worker' earns)?

I think the fundamental point is how much should people be payed for the job they do - there is probably never a good time for this to be debated with regards to MP's, because a majority of people think they don't deserve the money they are payed. I wonder if you would have such an issue if the Firefighters went on strike again - in this difficult economic climate.