Forum Topic

MPs 11% pay rise.

Do our MPs deserve to award themselves an 11% pay rise, bringing their salaries to about £74,000 per annum?  They get about £66,000 presently. Or should they get more?

Gerry Tan ● 4497d10 Comments

The BBC is becoming just as tabloid and silly as the rest of the media. They need a kick up the bum.

Susan Kelly ● 4493d

Why does the BBC keep talking about it as a "rise" when the packet of changes is not supposed to be a rise overall?I hope we aren't going to let the politicians talk themselves out of the "rise" so that they don't have to change anything else!  It is time that the silly expenses came to an end.

Philippa Bond ● 4493d

Those who don't want MPs to be paid a decent salary should ask themselves if they really want a parliament full of people who are independently wealthy. Do they think such MPs will be 'on their side'?The proposals are also fiscally neutral, with reductions is pensions, severance pay and expenses making up for the pay rise.

Susan Kelly ● 4493d

Like others here, I agree that £74,000 is somewhere between OK and maybe even a bit low, given the importance of the job.  Perhaps additional sums should be payable for those who do more than the minimum - like serving on a select committee or something similar.

David Bourne ● 4495d

I beg to differ on this occasion Chris. There are many key jobs and departments that have been shot down not because they do not deserve a better wage but because of the times we have encountered. Also there are Many MPs who do not even match up to a good Councillor locally. I feel the government Cabinet ministers are the ones we should appreciate more than the MPs .The Senior ministers are the government,the MPs are party voters .I hope you will consider these points further. However I respect your opinion, there are many who will agree with you.

Os A Whittle ● 4495d

Deciding on the lives of tens of millions of people justifies a higher salary for an MP.If your MP doesn't give a toss then deductions from salary may be justified.If he wants to balance the books then a bonus may be justified.

George Knox ● 4496d

I'm with Chris. It's an important job, with very long hours, and should be remunerated with a similar salary to that of a GP or head teacher -- so something in the region of 100k. The point about lack of job security is also a good one: most MPs lose their seats not because of any failing of their own but because their party is out of favour.I wouldn't want to do the job. Far too much like hard work!The money will, in any case, be clawed back with lower pensions, redundancy pay and expenses.

Susan Kelly ● 4496d

Some good points there Chris. I'm sitting on the fence on this one and will mull it over.

Steven Diver ● 4497d

They haven't awarded themselves anything - IPSA is an independent body set up to determine fair pay for MPs and was basically formed at the request of the public. The MPs have no power to force IPSA to do anything and even though all of the party leaders have asked IPSA to delay the pay rise IPSA has refused to do so.Ultimately, we the public are mostly to blame. We wanted an independent body and now we've got one we don't like their analysis and are blaming the MPs for it.It's worth saying that many MPs would have been earning a lot more before being elected, so although the public may not like £74K pay packages, it's still a lot less than doctors or senior teachers (they used to earn similar pay to MPs) and in 2015 the MPs will lose their final salary pensions and the £30K resettlement fee when they lose their seats. For a job that potentially has no job security and requires an awful lot of time away from home and endless evening / weekend work in constituencies the fact we are only paying £74K probably explains why so many of our MPs have got absolutely nothing to talk about in their experience prior to election. For those that have - we are frankly they are willing to earn less, work more and only get constant complaints from the public as their reward.

Chris Martin ● 4497d

Balance the £74,000 with reduced allowances, a requirement for full-time attendance in the House and a 'sensible' pension and I have no problem with the rise.

Nigel Brooks ● 4497d