Special report: Will your MP take an 11% pay rise?

The Argus: Special report: Will your MP take an 11% pay rise? Special report: Will your MP take an 11% pay rise?

As the Chancellor announced austerity measures were set to continue in his Autumn Statement last week, MPs have been discussing whether to accept an inflation-busting 11% pay rise.

Senior politicians have criticised the recommendation by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) as they sought to avoid a damaging backlash from hard-pressed voters.

But, in an anonymous survey last year, the average figure given by MPs for the pay they deserve was £86,250 and a fifth of those questioned said they should get £95,000 or more.

The recommendation by Ipsa will see salaries for MPs rise by £7,600 to £74,000 after the 2015 general election.


MORE:


In Brighton and Hove, reaction to the increase has been mixed among the city’s Parliamentary representatives.

Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas has been vociferous in her opposition to the increase and her position has not wavered.

She said: “Accepting a pay rise of 11%, particularly at a time when so many of our constituents are struggling to make ends meet, would be absolutely wrong.”

Her two neighbouring Conservative MPs also said they did not think the pay rise was warranted.

Related links

Mike Weatherley, Conservative MP for Hove, said: “Although the changes are ultimately being made for future Members of Parliament, I do not personally feel that a pay rise is necessary, especially in these tough economic times.

“I must say that I was quite surprised by the proposals. Nevertheless, Ipsa is independent for good reason and its chief executive will no doubt have to justify this decision over the coming months.”

Simon Kirby, Conservative MP for Brighton Kemptown, said: “I have supported a pay freeze for MPs since 2010 and have not and will not take a pay rise in this Parliament.”

But Sir Peter Bottomley, Conservative MP for Worthing West, said politicians should not feel under pressure to give away the additional cash.

He said: “We have not received the Ipsa report. As it happens, I do not think MPs should feel pressure to answer this kind of question nor should most of them feel the need to forgo the salary that should be set for the beginning of each Parliament and not changed before the following election.

“I have repaid my mortgage; I have a working wife; our children are off our hands; I do not need the full salary now – but when aged 37 with a wife and a third child just born, I faced leaving the Commons or going broke or crooked.”

Prominent frontbenchers from all three main parties said the move was unacceptable when most public sector workers were getting no more than 1% extra a year.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander said the public would find it “utterly incomprehensible” if Ipsa defied concerted calls from David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg to show restraint.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond indicated that he would not accept the extra cash while armed forces pay was being pegged back, and suggested cabinet ministers would agree a united approach.

But Labour ex-cabinet minister Jack Straw defended the move – to be confirmed on Thursday – arguing the failure of MPs’ pay to keep pace with comparable public sector jobs was deterring talented people of “modest backgrounds” from standing.

In an effort to mitigate the rise, Ipsa is believed to have also drawn up a tougherthan- expected squeeze on pension schemes, forcing MPs to pay in more and the taxpayer less, on top of a crackdown on claims for dinner, taxis and tea and biscuits.

MPs were stripped of the power to set their own pay in the wake of the revelations of widespread abuses of taxpayer expenses, leaving them little or no room to block Ipsa’s proposals short of changing its role by law.

Ipsa’s research found two-thirds of MPs believe they are underpaid and the watchdog’s chairman Sir Ian Kennedy has insisted politicians’ pay must “catch up” after years of being suppressed.

The hefty rise is certain to play badly with voters at the general election however, with many candidates – especially those in marginal seats – feeling under pressure to say they will divert the cash from their pay packets to good causes.

Public and Commercial Services union general secretary Mark Serwotka said: “That an 11% pay rise is even being proposed, when living standards for everyone else are falling and poverty is rife, shows a political class wildly out of touch.

“AnyMPthat thinks this increase would be anything other than a complete scandal should seriously consider their position.”

Former House of Commons speaker Baroness Boothroyd said political leaders should accept Ipsa’s recommendation “as unpalatable as it may be”.

She told BBC Radio 4’s The Westminster Hour: “I know that (the pay rise) is distasteful to a lot of people, but at the same time they have cut downthe expenses and various other things. And if you give it to an independent tribunal then that has to be accepted.

“Parliament is between a rock and a hard place unfortunately on this.

“The taxpaying public aren’t going to like it, but I think they’re just going to have to take it on the chin.”

Caroline Lucas, Brighton Pavilion

“Many people who are in work are looking forward to either no pay rise next year, or at best another below inflation increase, while many others are still without work.

“Things are particularly tough for public sector workers, who saw their pay drop by 0.8% in the year to August.

“MPs have to be in touch with the people they represent. That’s why I think an 11% pay rise sends out completely wrong message.

"I support the principle of an independent body to make decisions on MPs’ pay, but I had no idea the recommendation would be so out of touch with the economic reality for so many. I was one of the first MPs to come out and completely reject the hike recommended for 2015.

"The system won’t allow me not to take the pay increase, so if reelected I’d donate the extra money to a local charity.”

Francis Maude, Horsham

“All parties agreed in 2009 to set up Ipsa so that MPs would no longer have a say in setting
their pay and pensions. So this is not a decision for the Government or for MPs, it is solely for Ipsa.

“The Government made it clear in the consultation that Ipsa should take into account overall public service pay and pensions restraint when addressing the issue of MPs’ pay.

“We are disappointed that Ipsa has not done so. These recommendations are not final. There will be a further statutory review by IPSA after the election.

“We will continue to make the case that Ipsa should take into account overall public sector pay and pensions restraint, and that the cost of politics should go down and not up”.

Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne

“I am extremely angry that the independent watchdog has chosen to raise MPs’ pay, when many people around the country have been feeling the pinch. Allegedly, this independent group was set up to ensure that MP’s salaries and benefits remain grounded in reality, but instead they have recommended we get a ludicrously over the top increase.

"This is irresponsible, and I do wonder whether the chief executive of Ipsa is trying to provoke the Great British public. I hope common sense will prevail after 2015, but can categorically state that if I have the privilege to be re-elected I will only accept a wage increase in line with average earning increases.

"Any remainder will be given to good causes, such as the Eastbourne Sunshine Carnival, and other local initiatives in my constituency.”

Sir Peter Bottomley, Worthing West

"Each party leader will say this is the wrong amount at the wrong time.

“The fact is, it was the leaders who set up the Ipsa system who are given the responsibility to set the level of pay and people can't interfere with it. The only way MPs could overturn this is to defy their leaders and pass a law saying Ipsa is abolished or it will be ignored.

“That's impractical given the public interest in setting up Ipsa in the first place.”

Mike Weatherley, Hove

“The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was set up in 2009 after the public made clear that a great number of expenses claims by Members of Parliament were totally unacceptable.

"Both the salaries and expenses of Parliamentarians are now decided independently as a way to ensure impartiality. I understand the plans will see a curb in the pensions, expenses and living costs for Parliamentarians alongside a salary increase.

Although the changes are ultimately being made for future Members of Parliament, I do not personally feel that a pay rise is necessary, especially in these tough economic times. I was quite surprised by the proposals.

"Nevertheless, Ipsa is independent for good reason and its chief executive will no doubt have to justify this decision over the coming months.”

Norman Baker, Lewes

“Before Ipsa was brought in I was at the forefront of those challenging the existing pay
and expenses arrangements for MPs, and at that time I argued it was completely inappropriate for MPs to decide their own pay and conditions, something the public strongly supported.

“Going forward I made it clear that I would support any decisions that Ipsa makes with regard to MPs’ salaries, whether that was for an increase, no change, or a decrease.”

Simon Kirby, Kemptown

“I have supported a pay freeze for MPs since 2010 and have not and will not take a pay rise
in this parliament.

“I believe that Ipsa should take into account overall public service pay and pensions restraint.

“It is incredibly frustrating and disappointing that Ipsa would ignore this.

“Since being elected I have always supported reducing the cost of politics, for instance by voting to reduce the number of MPs and I do not support the proposals to increase MPs pay at this time.”

Nicholas Soames, Mid Sussex

“I believe it is totally inappropriate at a time of considerable austerity and constraint to put forward a proposal along these lines.

“I believe the cost of politics should go down and that Parliament should set an example on the question of restraint and I will not therefore be taking the pay rise proposed if I am re-elected in 2015.”

Gregory Barker, Bexhill & Battle

“In the current financial climate this is a very irresponsible recommendation from Ipsa. This is not the last word and there will be a further statutory review by Ipsa after the election.

“The Government made it clear in the consultation that Ipsa should take into account overall public service pay and pensions restraint when addressing the issue of MPs’ pay. I am very disappointed that Ipsa has not done so.

“We will continue to make the case that Ipsa should take into account overall public sector pay and pensions restraint and that the cost of politics should go down and not up.”

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:24pm Tue 10 Dec 13

kopite_rob says...

I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers.
Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's.
Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant.
At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.
I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters. kopite_rob

3:15pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ashles says...

kopite_rob wrote:
I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.
I am horrified by the above comment - it is intelligent, well thought through and logical.

Have you wandered onto these forums by mistake rob?

"lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. "

^ This x 1,000
[quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.[/p][/quote]I am horrified by the above comment - it is intelligent, well thought through and logical. Have you wandered onto these forums by mistake rob? "lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. " ^ This x 1,000 Ashles

3:22pm Tue 10 Dec 13

sussexram40 says...

No surprise it sounds like Norman 'Snout in the trough' Baker is going pocket the extra 11% while the public sector workers in his constuency are having 1% max/pay freezes and pay cuts.
No surprise it sounds like Norman 'Snout in the trough' Baker is going pocket the extra 11% while the public sector workers in his constuency are having 1% max/pay freezes and pay cuts. sussexram40

3:23pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Seventh Circle says...

Its scandalous. .. if every sector had an independent assessment for pay... particularly in the public sector... do you think the government would approve pay rises of 11%... literally anyone could be an mp when you look at the likes of Soames and Baker.... 2 morons of the highest order... and Dr lucas... she got her doctorate with a thesis on woman as reader in medieval literature.... what good is that for ffs
Its scandalous. .. if every sector had an independent assessment for pay... particularly in the public sector... do you think the government would approve pay rises of 11%... literally anyone could be an mp when you look at the likes of Soames and Baker.... 2 morons of the highest order... and Dr lucas... she got her doctorate with a thesis on woman as reader in medieval literature.... what good is that for ffs Seventh Circle

3:38pm Tue 10 Dec 13

medianscore says...

Vote UKIP and help to save Britain from these leeches.
Vote UKIP and help to save Britain from these leeches. medianscore

3:52pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ashles says...

medianscore wrote:
Vote UKIP and help to save Britain from these leeches.
And how would that logically follow?

Would all non-UKIP MPs instantly disappear?
Would UKIP MPs agree to refuse this pay rise?
Would UKIP MPs suddenly develop the first clue about anything at all related to the running of a country (other than the magical 'Get rid of immigrancts and everything else will no doubt sort itself out somehow')?
[quote][p][bold]medianscore[/bold] wrote: Vote UKIP and help to save Britain from these leeches.[/p][/quote]And how would that logically follow? Would all non-UKIP MPs instantly disappear? Would UKIP MPs agree to refuse this pay rise? Would UKIP MPs suddenly develop the first clue about anything at all related to the running of a country (other than the magical 'Get rid of immigrancts and everything else will no doubt sort itself out somehow')? Ashles

4:03pm Tue 10 Dec 13

gheese77 says...

Remember an MPs salary is just the start. On top of this they get generous allowances and 'expenses'. Add into this that many of them have at least 1 other job., they are not short of money. Plus of course they get a position of power
MPs should earn the average salary and not be allowed other jobs that way they will appreciate what life is like for normal people.
This talk of having to attract the 'best' people is rubbish, paying a large salary attracts people motivated by money. In my opinion greed is not the best human quality
Remember an MPs salary is just the start. On top of this they get generous allowances and 'expenses'. Add into this that many of them have at least 1 other job., they are not short of money. Plus of course they get a position of power MPs should earn the average salary and not be allowed other jobs that way they will appreciate what life is like for normal people. This talk of having to attract the 'best' people is rubbish, paying a large salary attracts people motivated by money. In my opinion greed is not the best human quality gheese77

4:06pm Tue 10 Dec 13

medianscore says...

Ashles wrote:
medianscore wrote:
Vote UKIP and help to save Britain from these leeches.
And how would that logically follow?

Would all non-UKIP MPs instantly disappear?
Would UKIP MPs agree to refuse this pay rise?
Would UKIP MPs suddenly develop the first clue about anything at all related to the running of a country (other than the magical 'Get rid of immigrancts and everything else will no doubt sort itself out somehow')?
So the rats that are in Westminster are running the country professionally, adroitly and in the national interest are they? Don't make me **** laugh.

The last 20 years at least is proof that the LibLabCON are crooks lining their own pockets. Who the hell said that the country belongs to this band of nefarious crooks who have sold OUR country out to the EU and allowed it to be flooded with immigrants.

Time for a real change in Britain and a leap of faith. UKIP are the last chance because if we allow these LibLabCON crooks another 20 years then our nation will fall under the dictatorship of Brussels.
[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]medianscore[/bold] wrote: Vote UKIP and help to save Britain from these leeches.[/p][/quote]And how would that logically follow? Would all non-UKIP MPs instantly disappear? Would UKIP MPs agree to refuse this pay rise? Would UKIP MPs suddenly develop the first clue about anything at all related to the running of a country (other than the magical 'Get rid of immigrancts and everything else will no doubt sort itself out somehow')?[/p][/quote]So the rats that are in Westminster are running the country professionally, adroitly and in the national interest are they? Don't make me **** laugh. The last 20 years at least is proof that the LibLabCON are crooks lining their own pockets. Who the hell said that the country belongs to this band of nefarious crooks who have sold OUR country out to the EU and allowed it to be flooded with immigrants. Time for a real change in Britain and a leap of faith. UKIP are the last chance because if we allow these LibLabCON crooks another 20 years then our nation will fall under the dictatorship of Brussels. medianscore

4:07pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Number Six says...

medianscore wrote:
Vote UKIP and help to save Britain from these leeches.
You are joking. The biggest snouts in the trough are MEPs including the Kippers. They get wonderful expenses for being in an organisation that they disagree with. Makes duck houses seem mild by comparison
[quote][p][bold]medianscore[/bold] wrote: Vote UKIP and help to save Britain from these leeches.[/p][/quote]You are joking. The biggest snouts in the trough are MEPs including the Kippers. They get wonderful expenses for being in an organisation that they disagree with. Makes duck houses seem mild by comparison Number Six

4:14pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ashles says...

medianscore wrote:
Ashles wrote:
medianscore wrote: Vote UKIP and help to save Britain from these leeches.
And how would that logically follow? Would all non-UKIP MPs instantly disappear? Would UKIP MPs agree to refuse this pay rise? Would UKIP MPs suddenly develop the first clue about anything at all related to the running of a country (other than the magical 'Get rid of immigrancts and everything else will no doubt sort itself out somehow')?
So the rats that are in Westminster are running the country professionally, adroitly and in the national interest are they? Don't make me **** laugh. The last 20 years at least is proof that the LibLabCON are crooks lining their own pockets. Who the hell said that the country belongs to this band of nefarious crooks who have sold OUR country out to the EU and allowed it to be flooded with immigrants. Time for a real change in Britain and a leap of faith. UKIP are the last chance because if we allow these LibLabCON crooks another 20 years then our nation will fall under the dictatorship of Brussels.
"A leap of faith"
or
"A totally illogical risk based on nothing but wishful thinking?"

Seriously, ignoring LibLabCon, what is it specifically about UKIP you believe will somehow make them better suited to run the country than anyone else?

I hope you have some rationale beyond "they're different" (so are the Greens, the British National Party and the Monster Raving Looney Party) - being different is not in itself a qualification to understand how to run a country.
[quote][p][bold]medianscore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]medianscore[/bold] wrote: Vote UKIP and help to save Britain from these leeches.[/p][/quote]And how would that logically follow? Would all non-UKIP MPs instantly disappear? Would UKIP MPs agree to refuse this pay rise? Would UKIP MPs suddenly develop the first clue about anything at all related to the running of a country (other than the magical 'Get rid of immigrancts and everything else will no doubt sort itself out somehow')?[/p][/quote]So the rats that are in Westminster are running the country professionally, adroitly and in the national interest are they? Don't make me **** laugh. The last 20 years at least is proof that the LibLabCON are crooks lining their own pockets. Who the hell said that the country belongs to this band of nefarious crooks who have sold OUR country out to the EU and allowed it to be flooded with immigrants. Time for a real change in Britain and a leap of faith. UKIP are the last chance because if we allow these LibLabCON crooks another 20 years then our nation will fall under the dictatorship of Brussels.[/p][/quote]"A leap of faith" or "A totally illogical risk based on nothing but wishful thinking?" Seriously, ignoring LibLabCon, what is it specifically about UKIP you believe will somehow make them better suited to run the country than anyone else? I hope you have some rationale beyond "they're different" (so are the Greens, the British National Party and the Monster Raving Looney Party) - being different is not in itself a qualification to understand how to run a country. Ashles

4:23pm Tue 10 Dec 13

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

Pigs with their head's in the trough.

Like all MPs, Mike gets paid £65,738 a year; last year, he claimed an additional £24,192 in expenses for travel and accommodation.

In 2012, Mike did just 72 hours of work (six a month) for the Motion Picture Licensing Company (MPLC) and was reimbursed a total of £34,000 – he sells himself to Hollywood at the handsome rate of £422 per hour. Mike has recently been Secretary for the all-party parliamentary intellectual property group, and championed changes to copyright legislation worth £500m. The MPLC is a leader in motion picture copyright compliance, supporting legal access across five continents and more than 20 countries.

http://www.strikemag

.org/whatever-they-s

ay/

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is an absolute joke and was created in the wake of the expenses scandal to distance the MPs themselves from the favourable decisions relating to pay and expenses.
Pigs with their head's in the trough. Like all MPs, Mike gets paid £65,738 a year; last year, he claimed an additional £24,192 in expenses for travel and accommodation. In 2012, Mike did just 72 hours of work (six a month) for the Motion Picture Licensing Company (MPLC) and was reimbursed a total of £34,000 – he sells himself to Hollywood at the handsome rate of £422 per hour. Mike has recently been Secretary for the all-party parliamentary intellectual property group, and championed changes to copyright legislation worth £500m. The MPLC is a leader in motion picture copyright compliance, supporting legal access across five continents and more than 20 countries. http://www.strikemag .org/whatever-they-s ay/ The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is an absolute joke and was created in the wake of the expenses scandal to distance the MPs themselves from the favourable decisions relating to pay and expenses. uniteagainstparkingcharges

4:29pm Tue 10 Dec 13

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

uniteagainstparkingc
harges
wrote:
Pigs with their head's in the trough.

Like all MPs, Mike gets paid £65,738 a year; last year, he claimed an additional £24,192 in expenses for travel and accommodation.

In 2012, Mike did just 72 hours of work (six a month) for the Motion Picture Licensing Company (MPLC) and was reimbursed a total of £34,000 – he sells himself to Hollywood at the handsome rate of £422 per hour. Mike has recently been Secretary for the all-party parliamentary intellectual property group, and championed changes to copyright legislation worth £500m. The MPLC is a leader in motion picture copyright compliance, supporting legal access across five continents and more than 20 countries.

http://www.strikemag


.org/whatever-they-s


ay/

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is an absolute joke and was created in the wake of the expenses scandal to distance the MPs themselves from the favourable decisions relating to pay and expenses.
The Mike I refer to in this post is Mike Weatherley
[quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: Pigs with their head's in the trough. Like all MPs, Mike gets paid £65,738 a year; last year, he claimed an additional £24,192 in expenses for travel and accommodation. In 2012, Mike did just 72 hours of work (six a month) for the Motion Picture Licensing Company (MPLC) and was reimbursed a total of £34,000 – he sells himself to Hollywood at the handsome rate of £422 per hour. Mike has recently been Secretary for the all-party parliamentary intellectual property group, and championed changes to copyright legislation worth £500m. The MPLC is a leader in motion picture copyright compliance, supporting legal access across five continents and more than 20 countries. http://www.strikemag .org/whatever-they-s ay/ The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is an absolute joke and was created in the wake of the expenses scandal to distance the MPs themselves from the favourable decisions relating to pay and expenses.[/p][/quote]The Mike I refer to in this post is Mike Weatherley uniteagainstparkingcharges

4:39pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ashles says...

Quick check of current UKIP policies (pasted from their own webpage)

Defence:
"1.Disband the Ministry of Defence in order to reform it as a streamlined ministry."

Step 1 for UKIP is to disband the MoD and rebuild it. Anyone else scared yet?

"4.Retain two aircraft carriers and increase the number of major surface combat vessels, allowing the Royal Navy to fulfil a global role defending British interests.
5.Urgently start a technical review of the Trident replacement, including the option of a new advanced stealthy cruise-type missile that can be delivered by land, sea or air."

That doesn't sound exactly cheap. So maybe we'd better look at how they plan to pay for these. By taxes?

"Taxation needs to be drastically reduced but only alongside equally drastic cuts in public spending. "

So let's be clear, in their own words, from their own website, they are proposing "drastic cuts in public spending". Remind me again how they are drastically different from LibLabCon?

"A Public Spending Review is not the object of this paper but UKIP can show how to reduce annual expenditure by £90 billion at a stroke without reducing major public services. This paper will shortly be available in detail."

Shortly. No really. It'll be out really soon. Any day now. An easy £90 billion. Coming shortly.

"Low rates of tax will generally raise more money than higher rates"

In BizarroInversionLand
.

"The earnings of employed people are not a legitimate target for taxation"

Well, looks like they aren't paying for the increased Defence budget from taxes after all.

"You cannot “tax” the earnings of those who are paid out of taxes "

Well, yes of course you can. The alternative is to pay them tax-free, but then you'd just be paying them a proportionately lower salary. It works out the same, just looks worse.

UKIP policies on Healthcare just for fun?

"1. Direct the majority of health care spending to elected County Health Boards, making spending decisions directly accountable to the public locally.
2. Dramatically cut the Department of Health and bring in professional procurement skills to reduce the huge amounts of money wasted in procurement and resource allocation."

So after getting rid of of the MoD and they're intending to gut the Department of Health. Makes you proud to be British.

Best of all they are planning to essentially privatise the running of the NHS and removing any central governance.
I can't see any possible issues with that system.

Sensible policies for a happier Britain.
Quick check of current UKIP policies (pasted from their own webpage) Defence: "1.Disband the Ministry of Defence in order to reform it as a streamlined ministry." Step 1 for UKIP is to disband the MoD and rebuild it. Anyone else scared yet? "4.Retain two aircraft carriers and increase the number of major surface combat vessels, allowing the Royal Navy to fulfil a global role defending British interests. 5.Urgently start a technical review of the Trident replacement, including the option of a new advanced stealthy cruise-type missile that can be delivered by land, sea or air." That doesn't sound exactly cheap. So maybe we'd better look at how they plan to pay for these. By taxes? "Taxation needs to be drastically reduced but only alongside equally drastic cuts in public spending. " So let's be clear, in their own words, from their own website, they are proposing "drastic cuts in public spending". Remind me again how they are drastically different from LibLabCon? "A Public Spending Review is not the object of this paper but UKIP can show how to reduce annual expenditure by £90 billion at a stroke without reducing major public services. This paper will shortly be available in detail." Shortly. No really. It'll be out really soon. Any day now. An easy £90 billion. Coming shortly. "Low rates of tax will generally raise more money than higher rates" In BizarroInversionLand . "The earnings of employed people are not a legitimate target for taxation" Well, looks like they aren't paying for the increased Defence budget from taxes after all. "You cannot “tax” the earnings of those who are paid out of taxes " Well, yes of course you can. The alternative is to pay them tax-free, but then you'd just be paying them a proportionately lower salary. It works out the same, just looks worse. UKIP policies on Healthcare just for fun? "1. Direct the majority of health care spending to elected County Health Boards, making spending decisions directly accountable to the public locally. 2. Dramatically cut the Department of Health and bring in professional procurement skills to reduce the huge amounts of money wasted in procurement and resource allocation." So after getting rid of of the MoD and they're intending to gut the Department of Health. Makes you proud to be British. Best of all they are planning to essentially privatise the running of the NHS and removing any central governance. I can't see any possible issues with that system. Sensible policies for a happier Britain. Ashles

4:46pm Tue 10 Dec 13

sussexram40 says...

At the end of the day MPs are public sector workers too. Yet they continually exempt themselves from all their own rhetoric about public sector pay and pension cutbacks and pay restraint. They are pathetic. One rule for them, one rule for everyone else. We're all in this together .. NOT!
At the end of the day MPs are public sector workers too. Yet they continually exempt themselves from all their own rhetoric about public sector pay and pension cutbacks and pay restraint. They are pathetic. One rule for them, one rule for everyone else. We're all in this together .. NOT! sussexram40

4:57pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Plantpot says...

kopite_rob wrote:
I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers.
Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's.
Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant.
At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.
MP's are qualified to do the job - they win an election every few years.

The very best people are paid huge sums - they aren't going to be MP's.

Being the Health Secretary is a very different job from being a surgeon. Just because you can do one of the jobs doesn't mean you can do the other job.

If teachers were put in charge of education, doctors in charge of health etc., nothing would get done and each department would be swamped by self-interest and demands for enormous budgets and pay rises, plus they would be driven by a very narrow view of the world.
[quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.[/p][/quote]MP's are qualified to do the job - they win an election every few years. The very best people are paid huge sums - they aren't going to be MP's. Being the Health Secretary is a very different job from being a surgeon. Just because you can do one of the jobs doesn't mean you can do the other job. If teachers were put in charge of education, doctors in charge of health etc., nothing would get done and each department would be swamped by self-interest and demands for enormous budgets and pay rises, plus they would be driven by a very narrow view of the world. Plantpot

5:18pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ashles says...

"If teachers were put in charge of education, doctors in charge of health etc., nothing would get done"

Why? You don't think someone with medical or scientific background would be in a stronger position to oversee policy on healthcare than someone who wasn't? We currently have a health minister who supports homoeopathy - that doesn't exactly seem like the best use of taxpayer's money.

"and each department would be swamped by self-interest and demands for enormous budgets and pay rises"

Which would be different from the current system... how?
"If teachers were put in charge of education, doctors in charge of health etc., nothing would get done" Why? You don't think someone with medical or scientific background would be in a stronger position to oversee policy on healthcare than someone who wasn't? We currently have a health minister who supports homoeopathy - that doesn't exactly seem like the best use of taxpayer's money. "and each department would be swamped by self-interest and demands for enormous budgets and pay rises" Which would be different from the current system... how? Ashles

5:43pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Number Six says...

Are there many Doctors, Teachers, Economist or Field Marshals MPs. What profession would you need to be Home Secretary, or Foreign Secretary? Presumably the Justice Minister would need to be a Judge but they can't sit in the House of Commons. Would Caroline Lucas be Environmental Secretary?
.
God knows how you would deal with the Minister without Portfolio
Are there many Doctors, Teachers, Economist or Field Marshals MPs. What profession would you need to be Home Secretary, or Foreign Secretary? Presumably the Justice Minister would need to be a Judge but they can't sit in the House of Commons. Would Caroline Lucas be Environmental Secretary? . God knows how you would deal with the Minister without Portfolio Number Six

5:49pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Bristol VR says...

The whole thing is just preposterous! I have been awarded by this government after a freeze of four years a 0.7 pay rise as a one off award payable over 12 months, non pensionable while energy bills have soared over 30% food prices have risen by over 10%. They sit there in that house of jokers, clowns & glory hunters waving bits of paper about shouting & screaming like baboons in some glorified version of the toffee nosed Bullingdon club in the jungle, then they get awarded an 11% rise! please will someone tell me where, in ANY of this, are we all in it together???? Absolute b**locks!
The whole thing is just preposterous! I have been awarded by this government after a freeze of four years a 0.7 pay rise as a one off award payable over 12 months, non pensionable while energy bills have soared over 30% food prices have risen by over 10%. They sit there in that house of jokers, clowns & glory hunters waving bits of paper about shouting & screaming like baboons in some glorified version of the toffee nosed Bullingdon club in the jungle, then they get awarded an 11% rise! please will someone tell me where, in ANY of this, are we all in it together???? Absolute b**locks! Bristol VR

6:01pm Tue 10 Dec 13

HJarrs says...

There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us.

If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired.

I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure.

If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if!
There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us. If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired. I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure. If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if! HJarrs

7:27pm Tue 10 Dec 13

JHunty says...

HJarrs wrote:
There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us.

If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired.

I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure.

If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if!
You do realise you have summed up Caroline Lucas' s over privileged upbringing perfectly in your condemnation of rich hobby politicians.
She is one of the 1% but so lacks any self awareness that she actually turned up at the epic fail that was the occupy camp in Brighton.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us. If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired. I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure. If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if![/p][/quote]You do realise you have summed up Caroline Lucas' s over privileged upbringing perfectly in your condemnation of rich hobby politicians. She is one of the 1% but so lacks any self awareness that she actually turned up at the epic fail that was the occupy camp in Brighton. JHunty

7:49pm Tue 10 Dec 13

HJarrs says...

JHunty wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us.

If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired.

I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure.

If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if!
You do realise you have summed up Caroline Lucas' s over privileged upbringing perfectly in your condemnation of rich hobby politicians.
She is one of the 1% but so lacks any self awareness that she actually turned up at the epic fail that was the occupy camp in Brighton.
Well, I expected a cheap jibe.

This is a problem for all political parties. CL is a very able person and we are fortunate to have a very talented MP. There is nothing wrong with any background being represented, my issue is that overall, parliamentarians are drawn from too narrow a pool.
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us. If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired. I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure. If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if![/p][/quote]You do realise you have summed up Caroline Lucas' s over privileged upbringing perfectly in your condemnation of rich hobby politicians. She is one of the 1% but so lacks any self awareness that she actually turned up at the epic fail that was the occupy camp in Brighton.[/p][/quote]Well, I expected a cheap jibe. This is a problem for all political parties. CL is a very able person and we are fortunate to have a very talented MP. There is nothing wrong with any background being represented, my issue is that overall, parliamentarians are drawn from too narrow a pool. HJarrs

8:22pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Quiterie says...

HJarrs wrote:
There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us.

If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired.

I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure.

If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if!
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with HJarrs. What is important to note here is that within these proposals MPs will receive lower pensions and more rigorous expenses. There will be no cost to the taxpayer. This is an independent body and personally I agree that MPs (and councillors) don't get paid enough.

I do agree than in exchange they shouldn't be allowed to be paid for extra jobs. An MP's job should be full time, particularly with this increased salary.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us. If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired. I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure. If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if![/p][/quote]I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with HJarrs. What is important to note here is that within these proposals MPs will receive lower pensions and more rigorous expenses. There will be no cost to the taxpayer. This is an independent body and personally I agree that MPs (and councillors) don't get paid enough. I do agree than in exchange they shouldn't be allowed to be paid for extra jobs. An MP's job should be full time, particularly with this increased salary. Quiterie

8:28pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Quiterie says...

Quiterie wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us.

If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired.

I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure.

If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if!
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with HJarrs. What is important to note here is that within these proposals MPs will receive lower pensions and more rigorous expenses. There will be no cost to the taxpayer. This is an independent body and personally I agree that MPs (and councillors) don't get paid enough.

I do agree than in exchange they shouldn't be allowed to be paid for extra jobs. An MP's job should be full time, particularly with this increased salary.
Sorry, I also meant to say that there should be a mechanism to get rid of your MP if people aren't happy.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us. If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired. I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure. If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if![/p][/quote]I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with HJarrs. What is important to note here is that within these proposals MPs will receive lower pensions and more rigorous expenses. There will be no cost to the taxpayer. This is an independent body and personally I agree that MPs (and councillors) don't get paid enough. I do agree than in exchange they shouldn't be allowed to be paid for extra jobs. An MP's job should be full time, particularly with this increased salary.[/p][/quote]Sorry, I also meant to say that there should be a mechanism to get rid of your MP if people aren't happy. Quiterie

8:41pm Tue 10 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

HJarrs wrote:
JHunty wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us.

If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired.

I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure.

If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if!
You do realise you have summed up Caroline Lucas' s over privileged upbringing perfectly in your condemnation of rich hobby politicians.
She is one of the 1% but so lacks any self awareness that she actually turned up at the epic fail that was the occupy camp in Brighton.
Well, I expected a cheap jibe.

This is a problem for all political parties. CL is a very able person and we are fortunate to have a very talented MP. There is nothing wrong with any background being represented, my issue is that overall, parliamentarians are drawn from too narrow a pool.
HJ - Remember we agreed that we wouldn't support CL under our usual posting names and instead would create a new one?

Oh hang on a minute, I think you have.

Well done HJ, you really have them fooled.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us. If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired. I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure. If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if![/p][/quote]You do realise you have summed up Caroline Lucas' s over privileged upbringing perfectly in your condemnation of rich hobby politicians. She is one of the 1% but so lacks any self awareness that she actually turned up at the epic fail that was the occupy camp in Brighton.[/p][/quote]Well, I expected a cheap jibe. This is a problem for all political parties. CL is a very able person and we are fortunate to have a very talented MP. There is nothing wrong with any background being represented, my issue is that overall, parliamentarians are drawn from too narrow a pool.[/p][/quote]HJ - Remember we agreed that we wouldn't support CL under our usual posting names and instead would create a new one? Oh hang on a minute, I think you have. Well done HJ, you really have them fooled. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

9:20pm Tue 10 Dec 13

We are the 99% says...

And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals!


NOTHING!!!!
And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals! NOTHING!!!! We are the 99%

9:24pm Tue 10 Dec 13

We are the 99% says...

kopite_rob wrote:
I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers.
Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's.
Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant.
At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.
Any MP, that lies to get elected, that uses massaged figures to justify clearly wrong policies, should be charged with crimes against the people!
[quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.[/p][/quote]Any MP, that lies to get elected, that uses massaged figures to justify clearly wrong policies, should be charged with crimes against the people! We are the 99%

9:29pm Tue 10 Dec 13

We are the 99% says...

Ashles wrote:
kopite_rob wrote:
I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.
I am horrified by the above comment - it is intelligent, well thought through and logical.

Have you wandered onto these forums by mistake rob?

"lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. "

^ This x 1,000
I have always been baffled, by when there is re-shuffles, and Ministers are moved to a new department; Say education to Home Office, these ministers seem to be automatically experts in these new fields?

How can they be????
[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.[/p][/quote]I am horrified by the above comment - it is intelligent, well thought through and logical. Have you wandered onto these forums by mistake rob? "lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. " ^ This x 1,000[/p][/quote]I have always been baffled, by when there is re-shuffles, and Ministers are moved to a new department; Say education to Home Office, these ministers seem to be automatically experts in these new fields? How can they be???? We are the 99%

9:33pm Tue 10 Dec 13

We are the 99% says...

We are the 99% wrote:
Ashles wrote:
kopite_rob wrote:
I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.
I am horrified by the above comment - it is intelligent, well thought through and logical.

Have you wandered onto these forums by mistake rob?

"lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. "

^ This x 1,000
I have always been baffled, by when there is re-shuffles, and Ministers are moved to a new department; Say education to Home Office, these ministers seem to be automatically experts in these new fields?

How can they be????
And who are UKIP?

EXTREME Right Wing Tories!!!!

Vote UKIP?

I don't think so!!!
[quote][p][bold]We are the 99%[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.[/p][/quote]I am horrified by the above comment - it is intelligent, well thought through and logical. Have you wandered onto these forums by mistake rob? "lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. " ^ This x 1,000[/p][/quote]I have always been baffled, by when there is re-shuffles, and Ministers are moved to a new department; Say education to Home Office, these ministers seem to be automatically experts in these new fields? How can they be????[/p][/quote]And who are UKIP? EXTREME Right Wing Tories!!!! Vote UKIP? I don't think so!!! We are the 99%

10:43pm Tue 10 Dec 13

michael505 says...

Tory;s say we are all in it together (except when it comes to pay). There will be those that will not take it on principle but there are all the greedy ones that will. Just vote UKIP and get rid of the Tories
Tory;s say we are all in it together (except when it comes to pay). There will be those that will not take it on principle but there are all the greedy ones that will. Just vote UKIP and get rid of the Tories michael505

12:42am Wed 11 Dec 13

PorkBoat says...

We are the 99% wrote:
And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals!


NOTHING!!!!
"They" know that, that's why they can get away with it time and time again. Every week there's some scandal involving politicians, banks, big business, erosion of civil liberties, and when someone DOES try to protest about it, the great British public slate them as "smelly hippies", "unwashed scum", "scroungers", you know the rest. As long as the majority of people can get to watch "I'm a Zelebrity", get **** at the weekend, and mock those less fortunate than them, they really couldn't give a ****. When we are all sitting in workhouses or shipping container shanty towns, eating gruel, and being used for medical experiments and organ donors for the mega wealthy, a lightbulb might briefly flicker in their skulls, and they might start to ask "Why didn't someone warn me this would happen?"
[quote][p][bold]We are the 99%[/bold] wrote: And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals! NOTHING!!!![/p][/quote]"They" know that, that's why they can get away with it time and time again. Every week there's some scandal involving politicians, banks, big business, erosion of civil liberties, and when someone DOES try to protest about it, the great British public slate them as "smelly hippies", "unwashed scum", "scroungers", you know the rest. As long as the majority of people can get to watch "I'm a Zelebrity", get **** at the weekend, and mock those less fortunate than them, they really couldn't give a ****. When we are all sitting in workhouses or shipping container shanty towns, eating gruel, and being used for medical experiments and organ donors for the mega wealthy, a lightbulb might briefly flicker in their skulls, and they might start to ask "Why didn't someone warn me this would happen?" PorkBoat

1:54am Wed 11 Dec 13

fredaj says...

I think they should all take the rise otherwise what was the point of setting up an independent pay review?
I think they should all take the rise otherwise what was the point of setting up an independent pay review? fredaj

7:24am Wed 11 Dec 13

Alison Smith says...

Look at the salaries of quite a few local Government officers, then MPs salaries look quite low.
Look at the salaries of quite a few local Government officers, then MPs salaries look quite low. Alison Smith

9:29am Wed 11 Dec 13

Plantpot says...

Seventh Circle wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
kopite_rob wrote:
I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers.
Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's.
Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant.
At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.
MP's are qualified to do the job - they win an election every few years.

The very best people are paid huge sums - they aren't going to be MP's.

Being the Health Secretary is a very different job from being a surgeon. Just because you can do one of the jobs doesn't mean you can do the other job.

If teachers were put in charge of education, doctors in charge of health etc., nothing would get done and each department would be swamped by self-interest and demands for enormous budgets and pay rises, plus they would be driven by a very narrow view of the world.
PLANTPOT......
P155POT MORE LIKE
Comedy gold. I bet you were up all night coming up with that one.
[quote][p][bold]Seventh Circle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.[/p][/quote]MP's are qualified to do the job - they win an election every few years. The very best people are paid huge sums - they aren't going to be MP's. Being the Health Secretary is a very different job from being a surgeon. Just because you can do one of the jobs doesn't mean you can do the other job. If teachers were put in charge of education, doctors in charge of health etc., nothing would get done and each department would be swamped by self-interest and demands for enormous budgets and pay rises, plus they would be driven by a very narrow view of the world.[/p][/quote]PLANTPOT...... P155POT MORE LIKE[/p][/quote]Comedy gold. I bet you were up all night coming up with that one. Plantpot

9:38am Wed 11 Dec 13

NickBrt says...

Its easy Lucas saying how opposed she is to the rise, she's hardly short of a bob or two is she?
Its easy Lucas saying how opposed she is to the rise, she's hardly short of a bob or two is she? NickBrt

9:38am Wed 11 Dec 13

Plantpot says...

HJarrs wrote:
JHunty wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us.

If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired.

I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure.

If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if!
You do realise you have summed up Caroline Lucas' s over privileged upbringing perfectly in your condemnation of rich hobby politicians.
She is one of the 1% but so lacks any self awareness that she actually turned up at the epic fail that was the occupy camp in Brighton.
Well, I expected a cheap jibe.

This is a problem for all political parties. CL is a very able person and we are fortunate to have a very talented MP. There is nothing wrong with any background being represented, my issue is that overall, parliamentarians are drawn from too narrow a pool.
Ordinary people would simply die on their feet as MP's. The mere fact that you actively took steps to become an MP would mark you out as extraordinary in any case. There are examples of people who were previously in ordinary jobs becoming MP's, for example Dennis Skinner - is he ordinary? He's also the worst of the hecklers at Westminster.

How do you propose to attract "ordinary" people to Westminster? How do you define "ordinary"?

I sincerely hope the following election sees the last of Lucas in B&H.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us. If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired. I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure. If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if![/p][/quote]You do realise you have summed up Caroline Lucas' s over privileged upbringing perfectly in your condemnation of rich hobby politicians. She is one of the 1% but so lacks any self awareness that she actually turned up at the epic fail that was the occupy camp in Brighton.[/p][/quote]Well, I expected a cheap jibe. This is a problem for all political parties. CL is a very able person and we are fortunate to have a very talented MP. There is nothing wrong with any background being represented, my issue is that overall, parliamentarians are drawn from too narrow a pool.[/p][/quote]Ordinary people would simply die on their feet as MP's. The mere fact that you actively took steps to become an MP would mark you out as extraordinary in any case. There are examples of people who were previously in ordinary jobs becoming MP's, for example Dennis Skinner - is he ordinary? He's also the worst of the hecklers at Westminster. How do you propose to attract "ordinary" people to Westminster? How do you define "ordinary"? I sincerely hope the following election sees the last of Lucas in B&H. Plantpot

9:44am Wed 11 Dec 13

Saltdean Resident says...

We are one of the only countries where its a law that only elected MP's can hold a ministry title, thereby reducing the talent pool by about 99.9%. Oh and the only people who can repeal this law are elected MP's.
We are one of the only countries where its a law that only elected MP's can hold a ministry title, thereby reducing the talent pool by about 99.9%. Oh and the only people who can repeal this law are elected MP's. Saltdean Resident

10:09am Wed 11 Dec 13

Plantpot says...

Saltdean Resident wrote:
We are one of the only countries where its a law that only elected MP's can hold a ministry title, thereby reducing the talent pool by about 99.9%. Oh and the only people who can repeal this law are elected MP's.
If they were unelected a PM could simply appoint a bunch of people to positions of power and we would end up like Soviet Russia.

Bear in mind many well-qualified people contribute to public life via research and enquiries.
[quote][p][bold]Saltdean Resident[/bold] wrote: We are one of the only countries where its a law that only elected MP's can hold a ministry title, thereby reducing the talent pool by about 99.9%. Oh and the only people who can repeal this law are elected MP's.[/p][/quote]If they were unelected a PM could simply appoint a bunch of people to positions of power and we would end up like Soviet Russia. Bear in mind many well-qualified people contribute to public life via research and enquiries. Plantpot

12:00pm Wed 11 Dec 13

mtmoocher says...

Saltdean Resident wrote:
We are one of the only countries where its a law that only elected MP's can hold a ministry title, thereby reducing the talent pool by about 99.9%. Oh and the only people who can repeal this law are elected MP's.
You are mistaken in your assertion. Ministers can be from "the other house" for example.
x
Peter Bottomley tells of his struggle on MP's pay when he had 3 young children He entered Parliament in 1975, married a former Cabinet member, (Virginia became a MP in 1985,) They are listed as having homes in Worthing, Westminster, Milford & the Isle of Wight. It must have been a real struggle to maintain 4 residences & pay school fees on the meagre pay of a MP. Thank God they were no student loans to pay back then.
x
In 1975, MP's got a pay rise of £24 per week. My father worked on building sites for 50 hours in the cold & rain & brought home less than that increase to pay rent on our council house & feed 5 children, not to mention carrying out other acts of charity! Thankfully no school fees.
x
Shame on you Peter for not realising that we are all in it together but hey, if you bothered to get your snout out of the trough, you might notice someone up the back can't get through.
x
Finally, does anyone else recognise Central Office diktat in the virtually identical responses from the Conservative MP's? Here's a few suggestions on how to fend off the awkward questions that may arise ......
[quote][p][bold]Saltdean Resident[/bold] wrote: We are one of the only countries where its a law that only elected MP's can hold a ministry title, thereby reducing the talent pool by about 99.9%. Oh and the only people who can repeal this law are elected MP's.[/p][/quote]You are mistaken in your assertion. Ministers can be from "the other house" for example. x Peter Bottomley tells of his struggle on MP's pay when he had 3 young children He entered Parliament in 1975, married a former Cabinet member, (Virginia became a MP in 1985,) They are listed as having homes in Worthing, Westminster, Milford & the Isle of Wight. It must have been a real struggle to maintain 4 residences & pay school fees on the meagre pay of a MP. Thank God they were no student loans to pay back then. x In 1975, MP's got a pay rise of £24 per week. My father worked on building sites for 50 hours in the cold & rain & brought home less than that increase to pay rent on our council house & feed 5 children, not to mention carrying out other acts of charity! Thankfully no school fees. x Shame on you Peter for not realising that we are all in it together but hey, if you bothered to get your snout out of the trough, you might notice someone up the back can't get through. x Finally, does anyone else recognise Central Office diktat in the virtually identical responses from the Conservative MP's? Here's a few suggestions on how to fend off the awkward questions that may arise ...... mtmoocher

12:16pm Wed 11 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

PorkBoat wrote:
We are the 99% wrote:
And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals!


NOTHING!!!!
"They" know that, that's why they can get away with it time and time again. Every week there's some scandal involving politicians, banks, big business, erosion of civil liberties, and when someone DOES try to protest about it, the great British public slate them as "smelly hippies", "unwashed scum", "scroungers", you know the rest. As long as the majority of people can get to watch "I'm a Zelebrity", get **** at the weekend, and mock those less fortunate than them, they really couldn't give a ****. When we are all sitting in workhouses or shipping container shanty towns, eating gruel, and being used for medical experiments and organ donors for the mega wealthy, a lightbulb might briefly flicker in their skulls, and they might start to ask "Why didn't someone warn me this would happen?"
It is simply unbelievable that they are considering a pay rise of this magnitude when local councils are facing £60+ millons of cuts to core services like adult social care. It's good to see from the comments that many agree, bar Plant Pot who is probably Mike Weatherley. Bet he doesn't turn it down.

The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work? When they do show up, they act like school children waving their paper in the air and hurling childish insults. I'm sick to the back teeth of them.
[quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We are the 99%[/bold] wrote: And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals! NOTHING!!!![/p][/quote]"They" know that, that's why they can get away with it time and time again. Every week there's some scandal involving politicians, banks, big business, erosion of civil liberties, and when someone DOES try to protest about it, the great British public slate them as "smelly hippies", "unwashed scum", "scroungers", you know the rest. As long as the majority of people can get to watch "I'm a Zelebrity", get **** at the weekend, and mock those less fortunate than them, they really couldn't give a ****. When we are all sitting in workhouses or shipping container shanty towns, eating gruel, and being used for medical experiments and organ donors for the mega wealthy, a lightbulb might briefly flicker in their skulls, and they might start to ask "Why didn't someone warn me this would happen?"[/p][/quote]It is simply unbelievable that they are considering a pay rise of this magnitude when local councils are facing £60+ millons of cuts to core services like adult social care. It's good to see from the comments that many agree, bar Plant Pot who is probably Mike Weatherley. Bet he doesn't turn it down. The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work? When they do show up, they act like school children waving their paper in the air and hurling childish insults. I'm sick to the back teeth of them. thevoiceoftruth

12:18pm Wed 11 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

Ooops, I quoted Porkboat by accident there! I completely agree your point but didn't mean to quote you.
Ooops, I quoted Porkboat by accident there! I completely agree your point but didn't mean to quote you. thevoiceoftruth

1:45pm Wed 11 Dec 13

JHunty says...

HJarrs wrote:
JHunty wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us.

If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired.

I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure.

If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if!
You do realise you have summed up Caroline Lucas' s over privileged upbringing perfectly in your condemnation of rich hobby politicians.
She is one of the 1% but so lacks any self awareness that she actually turned up at the epic fail that was the occupy camp in Brighton.
Well, I expected a cheap jibe.

This is a problem for all political parties. CL is a very able person and we are fortunate to have a very talented MP. There is nothing wrong with any background being represented, my issue is that overall, parliamentarians are drawn from too narrow a pool.
And my point is that Caroline is part of that narrow pool that you criticise. You can't have it both ways. Caroline typifies the over privileged background of the hobbyist politicians you criticise yet you try and make an exception for her. As for being able, what has she ever actually achieved? What laws has she had passed? What career outside of politics has she ever succeeded at?
Her talent seems to lie entirely in self promotion. She is in fact a very divisive figure promoting a hard left agenda on the back of concern over the environment. She has never held a position of responsibility, never had to take tough decisions, it is a fact that Jason Kitkat has more power than she has ever had and more responsibility than she is ever likely to have, thank goodness.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: There was a debate on Newnight yesterday with CL. I only caught the very last bit and the guy made a very good point that if we are not careful, we will end up with a parliament exclusively of rich hobby politicians and that we already have a rich hobby politician government. It is a very good point. The current government are a disaster, with little or no empathy for the rest of us. If we just keep attacking MPs and their conditions in such a childish manner all the time, then hobby politicians are all we will end up with. Just as attacking councillors all the time, will see that role become the sole preserve of the well off retired. I want a parliament that more reflects the country. We have far too many politicians from the narrow background of Oxbridge, political research, Lawyers, PR and finance. Some are talented, but it is too narrow a group for the political health of the country and it shows in the dreadful government we have to endure. If increased remuneration is part of a package of measures that improves the representation of the commons and turns back the tide then I am for it. It is a big if![/p][/quote]You do realise you have summed up Caroline Lucas' s over privileged upbringing perfectly in your condemnation of rich hobby politicians. She is one of the 1% but so lacks any self awareness that she actually turned up at the epic fail that was the occupy camp in Brighton.[/p][/quote]Well, I expected a cheap jibe. This is a problem for all political parties. CL is a very able person and we are fortunate to have a very talented MP. There is nothing wrong with any background being represented, my issue is that overall, parliamentarians are drawn from too narrow a pool.[/p][/quote]And my point is that Caroline is part of that narrow pool that you criticise. You can't have it both ways. Caroline typifies the over privileged background of the hobbyist politicians you criticise yet you try and make an exception for her. As for being able, what has she ever actually achieved? What laws has she had passed? What career outside of politics has she ever succeeded at? Her talent seems to lie entirely in self promotion. She is in fact a very divisive figure promoting a hard left agenda on the back of concern over the environment. She has never held a position of responsibility, never had to take tough decisions, it is a fact that Jason Kitkat has more power than she has ever had and more responsibility than she is ever likely to have, thank goodness. JHunty

2:01pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Plantpot says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
PorkBoat wrote:
We are the 99% wrote:
And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals!


NOTHING!!!!
"They" know that, that's why they can get away with it time and time again. Every week there's some scandal involving politicians, banks, big business, erosion of civil liberties, and when someone DOES try to protest about it, the great British public slate them as "smelly hippies", "unwashed scum", "scroungers", you know the rest. As long as the majority of people can get to watch "I'm a Zelebrity", get **** at the weekend, and mock those less fortunate than them, they really couldn't give a ****. When we are all sitting in workhouses or shipping container shanty towns, eating gruel, and being used for medical experiments and organ donors for the mega wealthy, a lightbulb might briefly flicker in their skulls, and they might start to ask "Why didn't someone warn me this would happen?"
It is simply unbelievable that they are considering a pay rise of this magnitude when local councils are facing £60+ millons of cuts to core services like adult social care. It's good to see from the comments that many agree, bar Plant Pot who is probably Mike Weatherley. Bet he doesn't turn it down.

The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work? When they do show up, they act like school children waving their paper in the air and hurling childish insults. I'm sick to the back teeth of them.
I happen to believe that MP's are underpaid for the responsibility they have and the work that they do. In today's climate though, they can't take the pay rise.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We are the 99%[/bold] wrote: And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals! NOTHING!!!![/p][/quote]"They" know that, that's why they can get away with it time and time again. Every week there's some scandal involving politicians, banks, big business, erosion of civil liberties, and when someone DOES try to protest about it, the great British public slate them as "smelly hippies", "unwashed scum", "scroungers", you know the rest. As long as the majority of people can get to watch "I'm a Zelebrity", get **** at the weekend, and mock those less fortunate than them, they really couldn't give a ****. When we are all sitting in workhouses or shipping container shanty towns, eating gruel, and being used for medical experiments and organ donors for the mega wealthy, a lightbulb might briefly flicker in their skulls, and they might start to ask "Why didn't someone warn me this would happen?"[/p][/quote]It is simply unbelievable that they are considering a pay rise of this magnitude when local councils are facing £60+ millons of cuts to core services like adult social care. It's good to see from the comments that many agree, bar Plant Pot who is probably Mike Weatherley. Bet he doesn't turn it down. The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work? When they do show up, they act like school children waving their paper in the air and hurling childish insults. I'm sick to the back teeth of them.[/p][/quote]I happen to believe that MP's are underpaid for the responsibility they have and the work that they do. In today's climate though, they can't take the pay rise. Plantpot

2:35pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Number Six says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
PorkBoat wrote:
We are the 99% wrote:
And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals!


NOTHING!!!!
"They" know that, that's why they can get away with it time and time again. Every week there's some scandal involving politicians, banks, big business, erosion of civil liberties, and when someone DOES try to protest about it, the great British public slate them as "smelly hippies", "unwashed scum", "scroungers", you know the rest. As long as the majority of people can get to watch "I'm a Zelebrity", get **** at the weekend, and mock those less fortunate than them, they really couldn't give a ****. When we are all sitting in workhouses or shipping container shanty towns, eating gruel, and being used for medical experiments and organ donors for the mega wealthy, a lightbulb might briefly flicker in their skulls, and they might start to ask "Why didn't someone warn me this would happen?"
It is simply unbelievable that they are considering a pay rise of this magnitude when local councils are facing £60+ millons of cuts to core services like adult social care. It's good to see from the comments that many agree, bar Plant Pot who is probably Mike Weatherley. Bet he doesn't turn it down.

The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work? When they do show up, they act like school children waving their paper in the air and hurling childish insults. I'm sick to the back teeth of them.
" The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work?"

There's the problem. What actually do we think their work is? And what hours are they supposed to work? The fact that they aren't in the Chamber doesn't mean they are not working. They could be sitting on Select Committees for example. They might even - wait for it - be looking after their constituents.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We are the 99%[/bold] wrote: And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals! NOTHING!!!![/p][/quote]"They" know that, that's why they can get away with it time and time again. Every week there's some scandal involving politicians, banks, big business, erosion of civil liberties, and when someone DOES try to protest about it, the great British public slate them as "smelly hippies", "unwashed scum", "scroungers", you know the rest. As long as the majority of people can get to watch "I'm a Zelebrity", get **** at the weekend, and mock those less fortunate than them, they really couldn't give a ****. When we are all sitting in workhouses or shipping container shanty towns, eating gruel, and being used for medical experiments and organ donors for the mega wealthy, a lightbulb might briefly flicker in their skulls, and they might start to ask "Why didn't someone warn me this would happen?"[/p][/quote]It is simply unbelievable that they are considering a pay rise of this magnitude when local councils are facing £60+ millons of cuts to core services like adult social care. It's good to see from the comments that many agree, bar Plant Pot who is probably Mike Weatherley. Bet he doesn't turn it down. The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work? When they do show up, they act like school children waving their paper in the air and hurling childish insults. I'm sick to the back teeth of them.[/p][/quote]" The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work?" There's the problem. What actually do we think their work is? And what hours are they supposed to work? The fact that they aren't in the Chamber doesn't mean they are not working. They could be sitting on Select Committees for example. They might even - wait for it - be looking after their constituents. Number Six

12:14pm Thu 12 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

Number Six wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
PorkBoat wrote:
We are the 99% wrote:
And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals!


NOTHING!!!!
"They" know that, that's why they can get away with it time and time again. Every week there's some scandal involving politicians, banks, big business, erosion of civil liberties, and when someone DOES try to protest about it, the great British public slate them as "smelly hippies", "unwashed scum", "scroungers", you know the rest. As long as the majority of people can get to watch "I'm a Zelebrity", get **** at the weekend, and mock those less fortunate than them, they really couldn't give a ****. When we are all sitting in workhouses or shipping container shanty towns, eating gruel, and being used for medical experiments and organ donors for the mega wealthy, a lightbulb might briefly flicker in their skulls, and they might start to ask "Why didn't someone warn me this would happen?"
It is simply unbelievable that they are considering a pay rise of this magnitude when local councils are facing £60+ millons of cuts to core services like adult social care. It's good to see from the comments that many agree, bar Plant Pot who is probably Mike Weatherley. Bet he doesn't turn it down.

The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work? When they do show up, they act like school children waving their paper in the air and hurling childish insults. I'm sick to the back teeth of them.
" The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work?"

There's the problem. What actually do we think their work is? And what hours are they supposed to work? The fact that they aren't in the Chamber doesn't mean they are not working. They could be sitting on Select Committees for example. They might even - wait for it - be looking after their constituents.
Yep, this is true. I did some research on it - so the HOC is open 140 days a year. MPs get 6 weeks summer holiday, 2 weeks at Christmas and 2 weeks at Easter. Plus another 3 weeks for party conferences. Of course they also do constituency work and are on select committees.

The only info I could find on MP hours was an article which said they work an average of 30 hours per week. Yet some MPs claim they work 69 hours a week. I don't personally believe that they work nearly 10 hours a day from Mon - Sun. Especially as many have second jobs! So it's really hard to tell what hours they really do.
[quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We are the 99%[/bold] wrote: And while these so-called representatives of the people, while these enemies of the people, while these traitors of the people, continue to rub our noses in the dirt, we will continue to do what we ALWAYS do about this and all the other scandals! NOTHING!!!![/p][/quote]"They" know that, that's why they can get away with it time and time again. Every week there's some scandal involving politicians, banks, big business, erosion of civil liberties, and when someone DOES try to protest about it, the great British public slate them as "smelly hippies", "unwashed scum", "scroungers", you know the rest. As long as the majority of people can get to watch "I'm a Zelebrity", get **** at the weekend, and mock those less fortunate than them, they really couldn't give a ****. When we are all sitting in workhouses or shipping container shanty towns, eating gruel, and being used for medical experiments and organ donors for the mega wealthy, a lightbulb might briefly flicker in their skulls, and they might start to ask "Why didn't someone warn me this would happen?"[/p][/quote]It is simply unbelievable that they are considering a pay rise of this magnitude when local councils are facing £60+ millons of cuts to core services like adult social care. It's good to see from the comments that many agree, bar Plant Pot who is probably Mike Weatherley. Bet he doesn't turn it down. The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work? When they do show up, they act like school children waving their paper in the air and hurling childish insults. I'm sick to the back teeth of them.[/p][/quote]" The amount of times you turn on the parliment channel to see rows and rows of empty seats. How many days do they actually work?" There's the problem. What actually do we think their work is? And what hours are they supposed to work? The fact that they aren't in the Chamber doesn't mean they are not working. They could be sitting on Select Committees for example. They might even - wait for it - be looking after their constituents.[/p][/quote]Yep, this is true. I did some research on it - so the HOC is open 140 days a year. MPs get 6 weeks summer holiday, 2 weeks at Christmas and 2 weeks at Easter. Plus another 3 weeks for party conferences. Of course they also do constituency work and are on select committees. The only info I could find on MP hours was an article which said they work an average of 30 hours per week. Yet some MPs claim they work 69 hours a week. I don't personally believe that they work nearly 10 hours a day from Mon - Sun. Especially as many have second jobs! So it's really hard to tell what hours they really do. thevoiceoftruth

11:32am Mon 13 Jan 14

Saltdean Resident says...

Plantpot wrote:
kopite_rob wrote:
I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers.
Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's.
Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant.
At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.
MP's are qualified to do the job - they win an election every few years.

The very best people are paid huge sums - they aren't going to be MP's.

Being the Health Secretary is a very different job from being a surgeon. Just because you can do one of the jobs doesn't mean you can do the other job.

If teachers were put in charge of education, doctors in charge of health etc., nothing would get done and each department would be swamped by self-interest and demands for enormous budgets and pay rises, plus they would be driven by a very narrow view of the world.
We are one of the only countries where only elected politicians can be ministers, thereby shrinking the talent pool of people who know how to run departments properly to virtually zero, and to back it up its a law. Well done UK!!
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: I found it baffling that IPSA claim they need to raise the salary to attract people to become MP's in line with the salaries of "professionals" such as GP's, head teachers, Army officers. Well that's all well and good, but then lets have a qualification or at least a charter for MP's to at least meet a high professional standard, coupled with an ability for the electorate to recall underperfoming MP's. Wouldn't it be a revelation if the Minister for Education was actually a qualified professional in teaching, or Minister for Health was a qualified Surgeon or Chief Consultant. At the moment though judging by the behaviour that would embarass a 3 year old during PMQ's and all the trough snorting, property switching and criminality displayed by a current incumbents why would a qualified professional give up a good salary and career to work with this bunch of wasters.[/p][/quote]MP's are qualified to do the job - they win an election every few years. The very best people are paid huge sums - they aren't going to be MP's. Being the Health Secretary is a very different job from being a surgeon. Just because you can do one of the jobs doesn't mean you can do the other job. If teachers were put in charge of education, doctors in charge of health etc., nothing would get done and each department would be swamped by self-interest and demands for enormous budgets and pay rises, plus they would be driven by a very narrow view of the world.[/p][/quote]We are one of the only countries where only elected politicians can be ministers, thereby shrinking the talent pool of people who know how to run departments properly to virtually zero, and to back it up its a law. Well done UK!! Saltdean Resident

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree