MPs call for '32% salary increase'

[davieG]

BBC

MPs have suggested a 32% increases in their pay to the Commons expenses watchdog, it has been revealed.

Members said they deserved an £86,250 salary in an anonymous survey conducted by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa).

The research also found more than a third thought they should keep final-salary pensions.

The findings emerged as Ipsa published a report on its initial consultation into pay and pensions.

The Commons voted against a 1% pay rise in 2011 and last year agreed to extend the pay freeze into 2013.

But the survey found that 69% thought they were underpaid on their current salary of £65,738.

The average level suggested for the appropriate level of pay was £86,250.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

Hiking politicians' wages... would be completely unpalatable to taxpayers”

Matthew SinclairTaxpayers' Alliance

YouGov conducted online interviews with 100 MPs on Ipsa's behalf, and weighted the results slightly to represent the Commons by party, gender, year elected, and geography.

Conservative MPs were the most likely to believe they were underpaid, according to the results.

On average, Tories said their salary should be £96,740, while Lib Dems thought the right amount was £78,361 and Labour £77,322. Other parties put the figure at £75,091.

A fifth of those questioned said they should be paid £95,000 or more.

The prime minister's official spokesman said David Cameron believed it was a matter for Ipsa, when asked about the prime minister's thoughts of MPs' demands for more pay.

'Regain trust'

Ipsa took control of MPs' pay and pensions in October last year - so MPs no longer get a vote on it.

The watchdog will put firm proposals out for consultation in the spring, with final decisions likely to be taken in the autumn.

It said it was not proposing to introduce performance-related pay, regional pay or to take outside earnings into account.

Chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said: "In the past, MPs have agreed their pay and pensions among themselves.Continue reading the main story

MPs' pensions

• A funded final salary scheme
  
• Normal retirement age is 65, minimum age is 55
  
• MPs can contribute either 11.9%, 7.9% or 5.9% of their £65,738-a-year salary
  
• Payments are now increased in line with the consumer prices index
  
• Accrual is capped at two-thirds of an MP's final salary
  
• The coalition agreement included a commitment to consult with the Ipsa on "how to move away from the general final salary pension system"
  

"So this new approach of independent decision-making marks a real and important change and is another crucial step in helping Parliament to regain the trust of the public.

"The consultation we held over the autumn has been hugely informative and important in directing our thinking. It also serves to show the spread of views and depth of feeling on this issue."

Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of campaign group the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "Hiking politicians' wages at a time of pay freezes, benefit caps and necessary spending cuts would be completely unpalatable to taxpayers."

He said most people thought MPs' current salaries are "about right".

MPs have a funded final-salary pension scheme; they pay a fixed contribution and the Exchequer is liable for the balance.

[Rincewind]

Now that is a surprise.

[Charl91]

Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of campaign group the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "Hiking politicians' wages at a time of pay freezes, benefit caps and necessary spending cuts would be completely unpalatable to taxpayers."

This.

[Guest MattP]

I have no problem with them picking up that wage providing they spend their whole working day at Westminster and still do their Saturday surgeries.

The last thing you want to do is pay them too little as you will end up with them finding other ways to make up for the shortcomings of it by fiddling their expenses etc.

I don't think £80k is that outrageous for an elected member of parliament.

[davieG]

Isn't the argument for the general public - you knew what the wages where when you got the job if you're not happy find another job. It's not as if politicians as a whole are doing a good job of running the Country.

Fair enough better wages may attract better politicians, although I have my doubts but any significant increase, above inflation should be post election.

[James.]

I think the job itself deserves that sort of pay but the current people doing these jobs don't.

I think a massive problem with politcs is that it attracts the wrong kind of person. For example if you're a genuinely talented business leader you'll go and work as a CEO earning a salary 10 times that. If you're a genuinely talented banker you'll go and work in financial markets and earn 50 times that. If you're a bit of an idiot, hungry for power and ego and of average intelligence you'll go and work as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Pay them loads more but cut the numbers and attract some proper leaders.

[Rincewind]

The last thing you want to do is pay them too little as you will end up with them finding other ways to make up for the shortcomings of it by fiddling their expenses etc.

A person on minimum wage should also have a 32% pay rise to prevent them fiddling their benefits which they receive for being on minimum wage.

[Happy Fox]

80 grand for talking a load of unsubstantiated jargon anyone could do that.

[Rincewind]

If that was the case the mods on here would want a payrise.

[Charl91]

I have no problem with them picking up that wage providing they spend their whole working day at Westminster and still do their Saturday surgeries.

The last thing you want to do is pay them too little as you will end up with them finding other ways to make up for the shortcomings of it by fiddling their expenses etc.

I don't think £80k is that outrageous for an elected member of parliament.

If they were good at the job, then 80K would seem fine to me (whether they are or not is a different argument). The problem is there is no way they can justify an increase in wages at a time where most other people are having to take cuts.

[Guest MattP]

The last thing you want to do is pay them too little as you will end up with them finding other ways to make up for the shortcomings of it by fiddling their expenses etc.

A person on minimum wage should also have a 32% pay rise to prevent them fiddling their benefits which they receive for being on minimum wage.

If a person is on minimum wage it's generally because that's what their skillset is only capable of.

Every independant review commissioned said politicians were under paid last year, what do you think they should earn?

I think the job itself deserves that sort of pay but the current people doing these jobs don't.

I think you have hit it spot on there. Problem is we are the ones who have elected them.

[The People's Hero]

If they were good at the job, then 80K would seem fine to me (whether they are or not is a different argument). The problem is there is no way they can justify an increase in wages at a time where most other people are having to take cuts.

They can if they feel the job is worth £80k.

I refer you to Matt P's point.

You should pay what someone/the position is worth otherwise they will look to supplement income elsewhere or simply not do the job at all.

Anyone can ask for a pay rise at any time. You or I or anyone. It doesn't matter that generally people have had pay freezes. You ask for you pay rise, get your answer and deal with it. The point being that I don't care what other people are getting, if I'm generating a lot of money for the company, I feel justified in asking to be rewarded. I don't care that a lot of people haven't had a payrise, especially those in nice safe jobs with no risks, no real decision making etc.

[Captain...]

Can we implement performance related pay for MPs? I would certainly back that, or allow MPs to state their required salary during the election campaign, then the public get to vote to decide if they think they are worth that amount.

The fact is a lot of MPs do very little, those in the cabinet do a lot more than a backbencher and those in opposition do even less, someone like Stephen Dorrell really does fvck all to earn his salary. I wouldn't mind cabinet ministers getting paid more than the rest, give them some incentive to actually work hard to get in the cabinet, and once in the cabinet work hard to keep their place,

I would also like to see cabinet position elected by the public, nobody voted for George Osbourne to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, I wouldn't trust him with my dinner money.

[Jon the Hat]

They thnik they are worth more. Some are some are not I suspect. Guido Fawkes tweeted about a 27 year onld grad with 3 years work, 3 years in Conervative party HQ now earning £90k plus. Which seems a lot.

If only back benhc MPs get the basic anyway not so sure.

Either way, they are not in fact asking for a pay rise are they? That would be stupid in this economic climate, and they are not that stupid. This was a survey. If you ask me if I deserve a pay rise I would say yes

[Charl91]

They can if they feel the job is worth £80k.

I refer you to Matt P's point.

You should pay what someone/the position is worth otherwise they will look to supplement income elsewhere or simply not do the job at all.

Anyone can ask for a pay rise at any time. You or I or anyone. It doesn't matter that generally people have had pay freezes. You ask for you pay rise, get your answer and deal with it. The point being that I don't care what other people are getting, if I'm generating a lot of money for the company, I feel justified in asking to be rewarded. I don't care that a lot of people haven't had a payrise, especially those in nice safe jobs with no risks, no real decision making etc.

Exactly; you pay people what the position is worth. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who are just as capable of doing the job for that wage. Obviously they are going to say "I think we deserve more" - who doesn't think that? But in a normal job you get a payrise based on your performance; what have most of them done to suggest that they are deserving of one?

If it was based on performance, I would be more inclined to agree.

[Ashley]

If a person is on minimum wage it's generally because that's what their skillset is only capable of.

No it isn't I know someone who has a degree but is struggling to find work in that area so they are on minimum wage, at the end of the day at least that person is in a job.

[The People's Hero]

If a person is on minimum wage it's generally because that's what their skillset is only capable of.

No it isn't I know someone who has a degree but is struggling to find work in that area so they are on minimum wage, at the end of the day at least that person is in a job.

I don't want to teach you how to argue, but you can't attempt to discredit a GENERAL point by stating ONE atypical example.

[Saxondale]

Some points:

1) If you ask anybody if they want a bigger salary, they'll say yes.

2) Their salaries are actually quite small considering the responsibility they have. They are governing the country.

3) I'm much more enraged by the large salaries paid by local authorities to mid and high-level executives - who HAVEN'T been democratically voted in - and are, usually, too incompetent to get a job in the private sector (where results actually matter).

[Finnegan]

I think the job itself deserves that sort of pay but the current people doing these jobs don't.

I think a massive problem with politcs is that it attracts the wrong kind of person. For example if you're a genuinely talented business leader you'll go and work as a CEO earning a salary 10 times that. If you're a genuinely talented banker you'll go and work in financial markets and earn 50 times that. If you're a bit of an idiot, hungry for power and ego and of average intelligence you'll go and work as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Pay them loads more but cut the numbers and attract some proper leaders.

:D I love you sometimes.

[davieG]

There doesn't seem to a shortage of applicants so they must think the salary plus perks is acceptable.

[Jon the Hat]

Somehow we end up with the proper leaders in the Lords. People who have developed real influence business, law, the chairtable sector, even religion. It is all backwards!!

[Finnegan]

Some points:

1) If you ask anybody if they want a bigger salary, they'll say yes.

2) Their salaries are actually quite small considering the responsibility they have. They are governing the country.

3) I'm much more enraged by the large salaries paid by local authorities to mid and high-level executives - who HAVEN'T been democratically voted in - and are, usually, too incompetent to get a job in the private sector (where results actually matter).

Will ignore the bit about being competency because you're clearly just spouting uninformed rhetoric (though there definitely are some ****ing morons in local office) but the wages for top end execs in the public sector are disgusting.

Especially when you put them in to the context of front like staff and vital service cuts.

[Finnegan]

Somehow we end up with the proper leaders in the Lords. People who have developed real influence business, law, the chairtable sector, even religion. It is all backwards!!

Who spend all day drinking ale at 40p a pint in Westminster, only stopping when the bell rings to go vote! Actual truth!

[The People's Hero]

3) I'm much more enraged by the large salaries paid by local authorities to mid and high-level executives - who HAVEN'T been democratically voted in - and are, usually, too incompetent to get a job in the private sector (where results actually matter).

Spot on!

[Guest MattP]

Who spend all day drinking ale at 40p a pint in Westminster, only stopping when the bell rings to go vote! Actual truth!

If you are on about Strangers Bar it's about £2.40 a pint.

Which isn't worth it as you have to put up with a pissed up Sally Bercow on most nights as well.