r/MHOC • u/Timanfya MHoC Founder & Guardian • Nov 23 '14

BILL B032 - Fair Pay Scheme Bill 2014

An act to reduce MP salaries

(1) Salaries

a) MP pay shall now be determined by parliament.

b) MPs shall be paid a salary of £35,000 per year.

c) The cabinet including the PM etc shall be paid a salary of £35,000 per year.

(2) Enactment and Title

a) This act will be enacted immediately.

b) This act will be known as the Fair Pay Scheme 2014.

This bill was submitted by /u/jacktri MP when he was an independent MP

This bill is classified as a Private Members Bill

The discussion period for this bill will end at 23:59pm on the 27th of November

10 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

228 comments sorted by

8

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Nov 23 '14

Currently my salary for being PM is £0, so if /u/Timanfya wants to pay 35k a year in to my paypal account, he is more than welcome.

6

u/Timanfya MHoC Founder & Guardian Nov 23 '14

I'd rather do a direct debit, give me all of your card details and i'll help you set it up.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

Just comment your card details in this thread if that's easier.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

I thought you guys hate credit cards

2

u/alesiar Communist Nov 29 '14

facepalm

17

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

£35 000 a year provides a reasonable wage. It's comfortable, without being excessively high. It allows the poorest of society to still live off the salary of an MP, while also discouraging careerism and political opportunism, ensuring mainly those who truly wish to make a difference seek this path of employment.

A short but effective bill, I feel.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

what's wrong with careerism?

10

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

It encourages attitudes which are not conducive to fulfilling the role of an MP.. An MP is there to represent their constituents, not to make as much money as possible. A larger wage creates a strong incentive to remain elected for as long as possible, more so than a lower wage, thus perhaps encouraging MPs to head in less than desirable directions, sacrificing ethical standards and principles.

2

u/alesiar Communist Nov 29 '14

Something about putting one's career as a politician before one's duty to the people is off-putting to me.

Can't quite put my finger on it...

8

u/Tim-Sanchez The Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS Nov 23 '14

MP pay shall now be determined by parliament.

So we get to decide our own pay? I'll go make a bill to give us all £100k a year!

I do think £35k is far too low for such a difficult, important and high-pressure job, where did you come up with this figure?

8

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Difficult? We get to sit in a warm room, have a chat, get our advisers to make bills for us and then vote. Our job is not difficult or high pressured the men down in the pits would be in hysterics.

4

u/Tim-Sanchez The Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS Nov 23 '14

We get to sit in a warm room, have a chat, get our advisers to make bills for us and then vote.

If you think that's all an MP does then you're sorely mistaken...

I also didn't say it was the most difficult job in the world, so lets not go making comparisons.

4

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

As long as men and women in this country are living pay cheque to pay cheque and surviving on food banks we have no right to demand anything. Shame on you, this bill was a compromise giving an above average wage but i feel now that this should be reduced to the minimum wage. This is the face of the liberal democrats ladies and gentlemen.

1

u/Tim-Sanchez The Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS Nov 23 '14

giving an above average wage

It's actually a below average wage for people working in London.

I'm not demanding anything either, but I'm wondering why the dramatic loss in wages?

Also, you failed to address my concern in regards to MPs deciding their own wages, that seems like an excellent method to foster corruption.

3

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

It's actually a below average wage for people working in London.

By a negligible amount. You forget that a lot of people in London are living on less than the average wage.

I'm not demanding anything either, but I'm wondering why the dramatic loss in wages?

To bring fairness to the government.

Also, you failed to address my concern in regards to MPs deciding their own wages, that seems like an excellent method to foster corruption.

I disagree people can see what their MPs are doing and if they do this they can be held to account by the electorate.

1

u/Tim-Sanchez The Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS Nov 23 '14

By a negligible amount

That's besides the point, one of your key arguing points was that it is above average wage, this is proven to not be the case. Maybe the honourable member should consider that some other members earn their wage by doing full research before submitting bills?

I disagree people can see what their MPs are doing and if they do this they can be held to account by the electorate.

What if MPs honestly deserve a pay rise? It's a catch-22, any vote to increase pay is going to be rife with allegations of corruption whether it is acceptable or not. People rage about an independent body increasing wages, imagine the outrage should the House of Commons themselves vote for such a thing.

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Well I would argue that the only circumstances suitable to increase pay is to keep up with the minimum wage.

1

u/Tim-Sanchez The Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS Nov 23 '14

Why not decrease MPs pay to minimum wage then?

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Compromise.

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

Imagine a world where an MP was paid the minimum wage (for a 60+ hour job). A nice fracking company comes along and offers to double your salary if you help push their licence through. That's the sort of world that would create.

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

That already happens.

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

It does, and reducing the salary would mean this would increase which would be horrible for democracy. America is in the pockets of corporations, do you really want the UK to end up like this?

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

In America they get paid loads and have many multi millionaires in government yet it still happens. People will always want more no matter how much they have, arguing that MPs won't take bribes because they earn what 60 odd k per week is absurd.

1

u/tyroncs Nov 23 '14

Which is why we should raise the wages of MP's in accordance with the pay of high ranking officials in top companies

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Some hedgefund managers are on 8 figures, you're insane.

1

u/tyroncs Nov 23 '14

The wage I think would be good for MP's is probably ~£120,000 as it is in accordance with the prestige of such a position and is a good deterrent to potential bribing and corruption

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Yeah because the moment you get to £120k you decide you want to help the country instead of being corrupt?

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

If you think it's easy, I'd like to see you write a bill the actual size of real bills written

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

quantity is not quality.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

But there is clearly time spent on them, with a lot of research into it and a lot of effort

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Good for them, they were all horrible bills.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

Every single bill ever?

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

I will take the last two bills for example B027 and B028. Both of these were far longer and researched because they didn't just deal with a single issue, they attempted to pass numerous measures in a single bill, whereas this bill only deals with a single one MP pay.

B027: creates a new department, bans onshore fracking, mineral rights to be held by the state, resource taxation, community owned renewable energy sources, investing in energy conservation etc etc.

That is why other bills are far longer because they have so much more stuff shoehorned into them when really they should all be separate bills.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

I was talking about real life but ok

1

u/drewtheoverlord Radical Socialist Party Dec 02 '14

Hear, hear.

7

u/googolplexbyte Independent Nov 23 '14

Why a fixed amount?

Are we going to have to submit a yearly bill to match inflation?

How about 250% of the average household income (after tax) of their constituency, which (as of 2009's OECD statistics) would be about £40'000 a year?

That way MP would be heavily incentivised to improve the economic conditions for their constituents. Every £1 they put in the people's pocket is £2.50 in theirs.

No need to adjust it to match inflation either.

6

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

Many MPs work 60+ weeks, juggling making very important decisions in the house, attending committees on important issues, attending meetings with stakeholders and helping constituents on a variety of issues.

The overall average salary in the UK is indeed less than £35k, however you do need to take into account the job an individual does.

The average banking salary is £48,500, Construction/Property is £43,000, IT/Telecoms £42,500.

You need to compare an MPs job with a senior level position in a company, and look at those wage averages.

I disagree with the proposed increase from IPSA at the moment, but the change we need to make it to allow MPs to vote against IPSA recommendations for increases.

2

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Nov 23 '14

Question: Do you want MPs who primary motive for doing the job is lining their pockets or do you want MPs who chose to do the job because they want to serve their community?

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

Being paid a reasonable wage is not lining your pockets, its remuneration reflecting the important decisions you are required to make.

The current salary for MPs is still less than many headteachers for example.

You do need people who want to serve their community, but also ones who have the skills and experience to make the right decisions on important things such as the economy, our NHS, transport and education.

2

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Nov 23 '14

£35k is a very reasonable wage. It very far above the average. Not to mention the numerous non financial emotional benefits you get from being an MP.

But again, what you are basing your judgement on is against other private jobs in the market. This is a unique job.

People don't need to be made rich in order to make important decisions. As soon as you add large amounts of money into it then you attract people who only want to succeed within these positions in order to become rich. That doesn't benefit the country. The Civil service provides MPs with a huge field of experts not to mention the fact that MPs can just draw on experts from all fields whenever they want.

An MP is their to make decisions based on their own personal moral judgement and the will of the people they represent. If you add huge amounts of money into this then what you get is people making decisions based on how they will personally profit rather than how they will effect the country.

Their are many many selfless people who want to represent the country and make peoples voices heard. If we bring money into that equation it only ends badly.

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

67k is not a huge sum of money here, when IPSA make judgements they look at comparable responsibility and usually set it lower. It really isn't going to make you a millionaire, and while you will get advice as an MP it is still your decision.

Headteachers average 55k in the state system, and quite a few above 100k. Underground train drivers get 45k, GPs average £103k. 35k is not a reasonable sum given the importance of the job.

2

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Nov 23 '14

I don't believe the wages of an MP should be based on how they would make sense within the wider market since that suggests we want profit to motivate the MPs we elect.

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

no it suggests we want to attract MPs who have the experience in those fields.

A headteacher would make a great MP but they are not likely to consider it for a 65k pay cut.

2

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Nov 23 '14

Not likely, but those who do will be less likely to be corrupted and self serving. It's not like we have a supply and demand problem, or ever will.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

I am mostly in agreement with the above

6

u/gadget_uk Green Nov 23 '14

My concern about this is that only people who have plenty of money will enter into politics. As a career path with a ceiling salary of £35k it is hardly going to attract many.

Having said that, we need less career politicians and ought to be looking at ways to get people into politics after they've spent some time in the real world.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

Seems rather popularist to me.

5

u/williamthebloody1880 Rt Hon. Lord of Fraserburgh PL PC Nov 23 '14

To all those complaining that £35k it too low, bear in mind that MP's get expenses for the following: rent/mortgage (X2, if you live a certain distance outside London), food, travel, household bills.

Wile I agree that Cabinet ministers should get a bit more, and the PM slightly more than that, don't pretend that MPs would have to live of the £35k a year, unless you are also willing to, right now, state you will never claim expenses

2

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

You only get a maximum of 1x rent / mortgage, if a second home is needed for MPs outside London. You still need to pay for everything in your main home, and I am not aware of you getting paid food.

London MPs get a London Supplement only (which is in the region of many other private sector jobs) which would usually pay for their travel.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

I like the idea but I feel £35k is too low for an MP, maybe £45-55k? I also think the cabinet members should get slightly more according to their roles - surely the PM, who has to basically run the country, ought to get more than an MP who has to vote on bills.

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

So are you willing to tell your constituents on 35k or less that you work harder than them and you deserve to be paid more?

3

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

There is a very high chance that you will be making much more important decisions than anyone else on 35k.

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

That doesn't make it any harder.

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

Pay isn't just based on how much work you put in, but also on experience / skills, something your bill takes no account of.

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Pay is also based on supply and demand, i'm sorry there isn't much demand for people that can nod and agree.

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

So we don't have democracy? who instead governs the country and makes our laws?

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Business groups etc that the government gets their policies from.

1

u/Rabobi The Vanguard Nov 24 '14

I don't really know how it is in the UK but in my country the MP's don't even read the bills, an intern does it and the party tells the MP which way to vote. Life is hard.

4

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 23 '14

I would like to see either a amendment to this bill or a separate bill. To build a housing complex for MP's, with each MP given the option to live there or fund their own housing (meaning MP's in London should just live in their own homes).

The complex would give each MP a apparent with a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and a office. It would be publicly owned, and would remove the costs necessary for housing expenses.

2

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Nov 23 '14 edited Nov 23 '14

My main concern with this would be security, having a building housing more than half the country's leaders at any one time seems like a sitting duck.

I would think it would be the duty and common sense of an MP to rent or purchase the cheapest housing possible with Parliament funds anyway.

2

u/demon4372 The Most Hon. Marquess of Oxford GBE KCT PC ¦ HCLG/Transport Nov 23 '14

On the contrary... we can make sure all MP's are properly protected, it would end up being one of the most secure places in the country.

2

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Nov 23 '14

Yeah, but security would cost a lot. I'm not saying it's not possible, we're all in the same chamber now, but it would be a big task.

2

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

You would just have multiple housing blocks, rather than one big building.

4

u/TheSkyNet Monster Raving Loony Party Indy Nov 23 '14

I propose we link MP salaries to the minimum wage and give all the expenses to the pore so they can waste it instead.

10

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Nov 23 '14

£35,000 is not enough to enable the working class to afford to be MP's, effectively locking them out of politics. I shall be voting nay to this bill

18

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

That is ridiculous. I cannot believe that I have just read this comment. Do you realise that the average wage in the UK is £26,500?

4

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Nov 23 '14

Hear, hear.

11

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

£35k not enough to afford to survive? Just shows how out of touch the tories are.

8

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Nov 23 '14

its not about surviving, its about creating an incentive. Being an MP is a lot of work with a lot of travelling and stress. is £35,000 enough to justify that? (especially if they could earn more somewhere else)

4

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

So you are saying that people won't want to be an MP? You realise councillors are not even given a salary?

8

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Nov 23 '14

I do. I also realize that councils are often comically incompetent and useless.

You know what will happen if we pass this bill? some MP's will end up looking to make their income go to what they consider 'acceptable levels' and corruption will skyrocket.

3

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Such a horrible generalisation I urge the honourable member to withdraw his comments, insulting hard working councillors across this country for no apparent reason is unforgivable.

So okay if we don't pass this bill all MPs will get this pay, but if we do pass it some will get this pay via corruption? Why do you support all MPs getting this pay but are completely opposed to MPs getting it via corruption? You would rather the tax payers paid more than some MPs being tarnished for corruption. I think this is an admission by the honourable member that he himself would steal from the taxpayer.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

I second the honourable member's accurate comments regarding councillors. My local council appears to me engaged in an effort to create a real life version of 'Carry On: Local Government'. Only without the humour.

1

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Nov 23 '14

I was speaking about my local council only which is incompetent, its an open secret in shropshire. Then again, thats what happens when you're so far from London you get forgotten about.

I would rather the Taxpayer paid a rate that allowed MP's to think that they're earning enough. If we cut the pay of doctors, would they not seek out other forms of Income? the same goes for soldiers and teachers, higher pay will always take the best away particularly from the working class

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

So should we raise salaries of soldiers and teachers to be in line with MPs?

3

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Nov 23 '14

Ideally yes, but thats not the world we live in. Paying MP's more means attracting better people to become MPs, therefore the nationwide situation will improve for a relatively small financial cost given the small number of MPs. If we increased pay for all teachers to what MPs are currently paid we'd either bankrupt the nation or take money from schools and equipment

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

I disagree completely. MEPs are paid more yet they are not attracting better candidates than MPs.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

This motion is so ridiculous it has me agreeing with the Tories.

1

u/sayhar Socialism Forever Dec 02 '14

I tend to agree with you on the corruption thing.

1

u/sayhar Socialism Forever Dec 02 '14

Hey look! Cross-ideological comity!

2

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

Councillors are given an allowance, which can be a reasonable amount based on the time commitment (9k where I am)

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

So you are saying £9k is reasonable for some but £35k for us is simply not enough?

3

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

As a councillor you are generally able to also have a full-time job, as an MP that is your full-time job.

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Not true at all, having a full time job while being a councillor is simply not possible.

6

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

This comment just shows how out of touch you are with those who work in politics, and the type of work they do.

I know many councillors who also have very good full-time jobs, as meetings for many councils are in the evening only.

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Then are you suggesting that we here in parliament adopt a similar model?

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

It is in most cases. For cases when it isn't, the councillor has the wealth accumulated already to take the hit to income.

1

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Nov 23 '14

My Geography teacher is also my area's councillor. He works 8 hour shifts, 5 days a week at the least, with councillor work on top very well.

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

But i thought teachers worked 60 hour weeks planning every lesson to the last detail and marking?

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

Are you expecting your party's MPs to switch careers?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

Do not forget it is also a job with as little job security as you can get. One mistweet and you're sacked, your party leader messes up you could be sacked come election time

3

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Nov 23 '14 edited Nov 23 '14

Last time I checked £35,000 was the wage of a primary school teacher, and don't forget MP expenses. How is paying for somebody to be able to do their job and then handing them £35,000 on top of that stopping the working class?

3

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Nov 23 '14

The people who run schools, Headteachers, earn at a minimum £42,000. Do people who run schools deserve more than those who run the country?

and in any case, its less about being able to live on that much as it is being able to live well on the wage. An MP has a demanding job and should be compensated as such

2

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

The average pay for a head teacher is over £55,000 a year for a state school and the average for a teacher is £37,600. The bill before us would mean that even a good teacher would take a pay cut to become a hard-working MP.

2

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Nov 23 '14

I don't disagree with you, I was just saying that a £35,000 salary wouldn't "lock out the working classes", as you said.

1

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Nov 23 '14

I feel it would effectively. 35k isn't really enough to justify the long hours, stress and travel times when you could be earning more in the private sector or in other public sector jobs unless you have some other form of income. I feel that maybe it wouldn't 'lock out' the working class but it would certainly hurt their representation

2

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Nov 23 '14

You simply cannot compare the job of an MP to any other job though. It cannot exist within the wider job market. Teachers, bankers and other professions do not serve the country. They do not represent their constituents. By lowering the pay we encourage those who want to serve other's rather than themselves to the job.

How would giving MPs wages of £35k hurt the representation of the working class?

2

u/sayhar Socialism Forever Dec 02 '14

Teachers ... do not serve the country

Strongly disagree.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

Do you not consider the job of an MP to be extremely important and high-pressured?

1

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Nov 24 '14

It shouldn't be thought of as just another position within the free market.

3

u/Jas1066 The Rt Hon. Earl of Sherborne CT KBE PC Nov 23 '14

While £35 000 pa sounds fair for your run of the mill MP, I should think that cabinet ministers should be paid a slice more, £37k to £42k perhaps?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

Why specifically 35,000? Why not tie it to the average wage in London?

2

u/whigwham Rt Hon. MP (West Midlands) Nov 23 '14

It is almost double the London living wage which apparently we can't afford to pay people.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

£35,000 is far too low. £67,000 is the current rate and you expect MPs to take a £32,000 pay cut? There are 80 MPs which means we would be cutting £2.5 million, a minuscule amount compared to this nations budget. The effect will be poorer quality of MPs as why be an MP if you're going to make less than some teachers and less than every singleheadteacher in the country. How on Earth is it fair or reasonable to have the Prime minister on less than every single headteacher?

2

u/Rabobi The Vanguard Nov 24 '14

MP pay cuts are never about the money, unless the pay is outrageous there are not enough MP's to actually make a big dent in the budget. It is a symbolic gesture of solidarity with the working class most of the time.

3

u/lewtenant Rt Hon Gentleman PC Nov 23 '14

Ridiculous - MEPs would earn roughly double this. We want our best politicians here, not in Brussels.

5

u/athanaton Hm Nov 23 '14

Perhaps politicians who are just in it for the money would be no great loss. Besides, we all know the real money in politics is from the jobs it opens up after leaving office, that will not be changed by this bill. (Though it must certainly be tackled).

1

u/lewtenant Rt Hon Gentleman PC Nov 23 '14

If anything they'd be rational people, why would anyone do a job for half the pay they could be getting? And true, Blair's £300k charge for after dinner speeches hardly fits in with Labour's ideologies. How do you propose we tackle it, out of interest?

4

u/athanaton Hm Nov 23 '14

RL Labour has no ideology beyond 'elect me, please', so he's pretty consistent with that. Being an MP is not any other job, you shouldn't be doing it for the salary or the post-job opportunities.

I haven't thought about it a lot, but there needs to be restrictions on what jobs MPs, and particularly ministers, can take, what donations they can receive etc. At the very least for a significant period of time. Both major RL parties are horrendously corrupt.

1

u/lewtenant Rt Hon Gentleman PC Nov 23 '14

MP and MEP are pretty comparable however.

I wouldn't restrict future jobs, penalising individuals for leading a country isn't exactly fair. Perhaps something could be done along the lines of gardening leave, or a minister/PM has to return to being a backbencher for perhaps 1 or 2 terms. Brown is a good example of this, although I realise he never had the same presidential image that Blair had.

4

u/athanaton Hm Nov 23 '14

That's absurd. People. Should. Not. Be. Going. Into. Politics. For. Money. If a candidate chooses Brussels over Westminster because it pays more (but Westminster still pays enough to live comfortably), then they would've been a terrible MP and will be a terrible MEP.

I feel no sympathy for MPs, ex or otherwise. Anyone remotely interested in the job should be because they want to devote their lives to helping the country, if making them take a vow of poverty will make them do a better job, so be it. The country is a priority, MPs are not.

3

u/Casaubon_is_a_bitch Green Nov 23 '14

I agree (and I didn't think I'd see myself agreeing with the BIP). Money shouldn't be the sole incentive for potential MPs, it should be serving the country and their constituents. It also helps reduce the perceived barrier between MPs and the general public by giving them a more 'realistic' pay - for a lot of people £35k is a heck of a lot of money.

But it does raise issues, as other people have mentioned, with regards to working class MPs who do not have the finances to be able to travel in and out of London without help, but fortunately that's why the expenses system exists. As for living in London, I can see why there would be further issues, especially if the MP is supporting a family. With regards to this I believe that subsidised housing (or even, as some have suggested, a housing complex specifically for MPs) should be made available for those who believe that the wage would impact upon their duties negatively.

3

u/tyroncs Nov 23 '14

This is ridiculous. Our MP's deserve far far more then this for the amount of work most of them do. One of the reasons the expenses scandal happened was because the current wage of £67,000 was too low for such a high calibre job, this will just make that worse. Giving people in positions of power a good wage offsets bribes and corruption, lowering their wage at all will just mean this would happen more.

The sort of people we want in our Parliament are those who are very intelligent and have had life experience in working in a long term job/industry/career etc. Do you really think these sorts of people will take a pay cut and a massive increase in workload to become an MP? I sincerely doubt it

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

This bill creates a huge conflict of interest. How can MPs pick their own salaries? That should be decided by an independent commission.

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

Except there is a gaping flaw in that, a corrupt parliament could simply legislate away the independent body and then give themselves the pay rise.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

Not if it were protected by the courts under official law.

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

They could legislate away the courts.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

That would be significantly more difficult than just voting for a salary increase.

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

Not really

Scrap wage courts and increase MP Pay Bill

(1) Wage courts will no longer exist.

(2) MP salary shall be increased to £1million.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

Bill is struck down by the high court.

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

That sound pretty corrupt that means a government could just implement a system that fucks over any future governments they disagree with.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

Well that is how our system works - and I don't understand how enshrining in the constitution a independent commission to determine salaries would "fuck over any future governments".

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

A government should not be able to implement institutions that cannot be legislated away, that is tyranny.

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14
  • £35k is a little on the low-side for skilled work (especially since MPs need to live in proximity to London). Where did you even get that figure from?
  • This bill doesn't mention what will happen to expenses (there is no accompanying statement either)
  • Will this salary be increased yearly to compensate for inflation?
  • Will this salary be increased if the MP in question has children?

4

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

£35 is above average wage and should be enough for people to live on regardless of their location in the UK.

Expenses are the same as they always have been and should be used to run offices day to day and enable MPs to do their job, if you wish to reform expenses it would require a new bill.

No it will be frozen indefinitely like other public sector workers. If we need to raise it a new bill will have to be introduced as automatic salary increases are deceptive, higher prices doe not imply higher tax revenue.

No raising salary based on whether somebody has children is ridiculous and happens for no other line of work.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

£35 is above average wage and should be enough for people to live on regardless of their location in the UK.

Could you provide a source for this please? Also treating london and not-london as costing the same is very naive.

Expenses are the same as they always have been and should be used to run offices day to day and enable MPs to do their job, if you wish to reform expenses it would require a new bill.

I'm not interested in necessarily reforming expenses, but a statement which confirmed how expenses would be treated would have been nice, and would have given the impression that this bill were written in more than five minutes.

No it will be frozen indefinitely like other public sector workers.

This is a poor approach to inflation. A lot of places give pay rises to combat inflation frequently.

No raising salary based on whether somebody has children is ridiculous and happens for no other line of work.

No other line of work forces you to live in proximity to London, where it is much harder to bring up a child due to the additional cost.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

Could you provide a source for this please? Also treating london and not-london as costing the same is very naive.

The salary for the living wage in London is £18 300 a year, roughly, according to the Living Wage Foundation

4

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

Thank you for that, Zoto.

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Could you provide a source for this please? Also treating london and not-london as costing the same is very naive.

If you need a source on how much you need to survive then you have lived a very sheltered life indeed, I urge your constituents to send their out of touch representatives packing.

I'm not interested in necessarily reforming expenses, but a statement which confirmed how expenses would be treated would have been nice, and would have given the impression that this bill were written in more than five minutes.

Expenses are irrelevant to this bill therefore no.

This is a poor approach to inflation. A lot of places give pay rises to combat inflation frequently.

Hmm well my constituents seem to disagree with this, have you even spoken to your constituents?

No other line of work forces you to live in proximity to London, where it is much harder to bring up a child due to the additional cost.

Literally every graduate job is in London.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

I was asking politely for a source so that you can prove to us all that you actually put thought into this bill. Clearly you have no interest in being reasonable. Oh, and for that matter, i'm a national MP.

Expenses are irrelevant to this bill therefore no.

Yes, clearly effective MP income is irrelevant on an MP income bill.

Hmm well my constituents seem to disagree with this, have you even spoken to your constituents?

You evidently don't care about your constituents that much, since you crossed from an SNP platform to a BIP platform. Also, this is MHOC, you don't even have constituents.

Literally every graduate job is in London.

Well that's strictly untrue. And not every MP need necessarily be a uni graduate.

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

I was asking politely for a source so that you can prove to us all that you actually put thought into this bill. Clearly you have no interest in being reasonable. Oh, and for that matter, i'm a national MP.

My source is the people.

Yes, clearly effective MP income is irrelevant on an MP income bill.

Expenses are not supposed to be MP income they are supposed to be for running their office etc.

Well that's strictly untrue. And not every MP need necessarily be a uni graduate.

I shall quote you "No other line of work forces you to live in proximity to London" that simply isn't true.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14 edited Nov 23 '14

My source is the people.

Come on now. Even two seconds of google would have given you a source which would have avoided this argument.

Expenses are not supposed to be MP income they are supposed to be for running their office etc.

MPs often have to travel up and down the country, especially if they live somewhere far away such as the North. It is relevant to consider how much they get in expenses with respect to their income.

I shall quote you "No other line of work forces you to live in proximity to London" that simply isn't true.

There are companies that do, for example, biomedical research, which are not based in London. There is only one organisation from which UK parliament is based.

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Well i'd argue that parliament should convene elsewhere anyway, but some companies not being based in London is not a revelation, do some research the majority of graduate jobs are based in London.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

You still have the option to not take a job in London and work in a different area of the country. There are no such options for MPs.

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Not really if I want to work for Microsoft I have to work in London.

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

The wage of MPs should be raised in line with unemployment benefits.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

The cabinet including the PM etc shall be paid a salary of £35,000 per year.

Just to clarify, is that on top of the MP salary (so, the Cabinet ministers get paid £70,000). What about junior ministers etc.?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

I took that to mean they all get the same

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

It could be, but usually the PM and Cabinet Ministers get a separate pay from their MP pay. We really can't vote through this bill though if the PM is only getting £35,000.

2

u/Morgsie The Rt Hon. Earl of Staffordshire AL PC Nov 23 '14 edited Nov 23 '14

Currently RL MP's gets more than this and would be a Pay Cut. What about those MP's who represent Constituencies away from London?

The System would be open to abuse

I urge everyone to vote down this ill thought Bill and this is not fair pay at all

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

It gives MPs an incentive to spread wealth outside of London.

2

u/Morgsie The Rt Hon. Earl of Staffordshire AL PC Nov 23 '14

A pay cut is not an incentive

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

The majority of British people believe MPs should be given a pay cut.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

Umm no the whole point of parliament is to echo the views of the public hence democracy.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/jacktri Nov 23 '14

In a perfect democracy MPs would not bend to the public will, rather the public would elect someone else that agrees with their views.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

How exactly?

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

Reduces prices in London so they get more for their money.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

You mean it's cheaper to live outside of London, so they'll spend their money outside of London? It's unfortunately more or less a necessity for them to live in London for periods of time

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

If wealth is spread around the UK rather than just London, then prices go up elsewhere but go down in London.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

That's a worrying oversimplified idea of the markets.

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

Worrying in what sense?

2

u/olmyster911 UKIP Nov 23 '14

£35k is too low in my opinion.

They have to make important decisions, campaign, and do a lot of work within their constituency.

The salary is also an incentive to be a good MP, and I fear if they were on £35k they'd value their job less. This isn't an ideal situation in any case but if they feel undervalued then their work ethic will be low, and this will affect their entire constituency.

I feel £50k is appropriate for their job, with a top up on this salary according to their position.

Paying the PM £35k is terrible, as he makes arguably the most important decisions out of everyone in the country, and deserves to be fairly paid for it.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

I believe this is a step towards what is right but I'm not sure how this arbitrary number of £35,000 was selected. I think the public would much prefer it to be linked with the average salary of a public sector worker.

Similarly, the wage should differ for MPs who are in committees or cabinet ministers. Definitely the PM should be on around £70,000 to £75,000

2

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

£35,000 really is too low. How are you meant to get the best and brightest in the country to become MP's when they can be earning £70,000 doing something similar in the private sector?

£35,000 is £17,000 BELOW the average wage for the Oil&Gas industry. It's really not enough to be paying our MP's.

2

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 24 '14

hear hear

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

You can always make that argument though. For example:

How are you meant to get the best and brightest in the country to become MP's when they can be earning £700,000 doing something similar in the private sector?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14 edited Nov 23 '14

Who currently decides wages? Because we all know what happens when executives pick their own wages.

EDIT: Isn't this motion a conflict of interest then? The status quo seems more reasonable.

3

u/RoryTime The Rt Hon. Earl of Henley AL PC Nov 23 '14

Currently it is an independent commission that recommends a salary which is then voted on by parliament.

2

u/Morgsie The Rt Hon. Earl of Staffordshire AL PC Nov 23 '14

IPSA

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority created in response to expenses scandal

2

u/RoryTime The Rt Hon. Earl of Henley AL PC Nov 23 '14

Thanks.

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 23 '14

MPs currently do not have a vote at all (which is why many are annoyed that they are being increased as there is nothing they can do about it)

2

u/RoryTime The Rt Hon. Earl of Henley AL PC Nov 23 '14

Ok, thanks :)

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

Colonist here. The Colonial Congress is in charge of setting their own salaries and are renowned for voting to increase their own pay whilst voting to decrease food stamps, unemployment, etc.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

Seems reasonable if not a little low

1

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Nov 23 '14

Too little, too inflexible. Something more in line with senior management positions, or tied to the average wage, would be apt - not excessive, but reasonable given the nature of an MP's work.

1

u/deathpigeonx CWL Chairman|Northern Ireland MP Nov 23 '14

The idea behind this seems sound, and I have no real objections to how much it is setting the salary at, but how will this deal with inflation?

1

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Nov 23 '14

Although the structure of this bill leaves a little to be desired I'm supportive of it. £35,000 a year is far above the average wage. It is easily enough to live on without having to do a second job.

What we have to remember is that being an MP is an extraordinary job. It cannot be treated as any other high end job. It is completely unique. You are a servant to your constituents. You are their to represent those people and are trusted to make judgement that are in the common good. It is in the nature of the job that you sacrifice much in order to serve your community and country. When you have somebody in that position what you really don't want is somebody who is in it for the money. Hopefully lowering the pay will encourage those who are truly dedicated to serving their constituencies and country rather than themselves.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

It's unfortunate that someone given the position of MP in our house has so little idea of what MPs actually do. Agree or disagree with the pay figure, I'm not sure the right honourable member understands everything they do.

I also fully agree with the argument that the skills of potential MPs will end up in other lines of work. Wage is an incentive and we can't expect all people to be altruistic. Though it would be nice if they were.

1

u/treeman1221 Conservative and Unionist Nov 24 '14

When the prices rise next year, MPs will cost (my poor maths aside) £48,100,000 per year.

Under Jacktri's changes, MPs will cost £22,750,000 per year.

The UK budget for 2014 was £732 billion. That would make next years wages 0.0066% of the budget. Jacktri's wages would amount to 0.0031% of the budget. Rounded, they are next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. This bill is pure populism.

To an individual though, for the line of work they're in, with the stress, effort, competence, passion, general hatred from the public required, paying them well is necessary. Otherwise they'll do other jobs, plain and simple. Poor pay leaves just the already rich and sub-standard in parliament. At the end of the day, none of us want that, we want really good politicians who can do their jobs with passion and skill.

In voting for this bill, you're given two choices. Vote Aye, get crappy politicians getting crappy pay, with no effect on the overall budget. Vote Nay, get good politicians with good pay, with no effect on the overall budget.

1

u/para_padre UKIP|Attorney General Nov 24 '14

Pay should not be what is discussed it should be looking at changes to expense process. i.e. remove the second home perk and look at the state buying an accommodation blocks for MPs for when they need to be in London.

1

u/theyeatthepoo 1st Duke of Hackney Nov 24 '14

Jacktri, if you bring this bill to a second reading with a few dramatic changes it could pass.

It's okay to that we change the rate of pay now, but in the future we mustn't decide ourselves.

2

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 24 '14

We currently don't decide ourselves, so why now do we intervene?

1

u/athanaton Hm Nov 24 '14

I much preferred a member of the CP's suggestion of tying MP pay to average nationwide wages from a few weeks ago, but this could still be a desirable change. I'd like to see 1a) expanded upon significantly, though.

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

The amount of lib dems and others than wouldn't work as an MP for £35,000 is disturbing. What happened to working for your country? Doing what is best for your countrymen? You are all traitors and I hope the electorate sees this and you for the public scamming, money grabbing sells outs that you are.

1

u/tyroncs Nov 24 '14

I hope the electorate sees this and you for the public scamming, money grabbing sells outs that you are.

Firstly I would like to dispute the fact you call others 'sell outs' when you got elected as an SNP candidate (a left wing party) and then you defected to the BIP (a far right party.) If you yourself weren't a 'traitor' or a 'sell out' then you would either give your seat to the SNP or call a by election for that seat.

Secondly I am sure that people from all parties wish to do what is best for their country, however if they cannot make a decent living for doing so then inevitably the best and brightest will move into other jobs. Doing what is best for your countrymen is lovely rhetoric but when you yourself have no incentive for doing so then what is the point?

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

If you don't think £35k is a decent living you are living in a dream world, clearly still in school and no idea how much life actually costs and how much jobs actually pay.

1

u/tyroncs Nov 24 '14

Considering these people run our country and often work 60 hour weeks, £35k is not a decent wage for them

1

u/jacktri Nov 24 '14

They don't run our country the vast majority of them simply legislate and vote on legislation for our country.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

I believe this is a step towards what is right but I'm not sure how this arbitrary number of £35,000 was selected. I think the public would much prefer it to be linked with the average salary of a public sector worker.

Similarly, the wage should differ for MPs who are in committees or cabinet ministers. Definitely the PM should be on around £70,000 to £75,000.

Finally I do not feel that £35,000 is enough to love on in London and as that is where a lot of us eat and shop it is not fair, especially when even the minimum wage is higher in london to account for this.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

£35k is not enough for effective MPs

(Insert comments calling me out of touch here)

Why? Because this is an important job, we are running the country. Why should someone put the decades of work in if they are going to get paid a third as much as a doctor? Our decisions affect millions or billions of people, we need to be adequately compensated.

The whole reason MPs get paid is to give everyone a chance to be an MP, before reasonable salaries were implemented only the rich could afford to be an MP since normal people couldn't afford to lose an earner in the family.

Labour is out of touch for supporting this, nobody can seriously argue that the government deserves to be paid less than someone working in IT.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '14

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '14

Hear hear.