Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Labour 18%, Lib Dems 19%
If an anonymous survey went round any business in the world the result would probably be that everyone wanted a massive pay rise. If anything I'm surprised the numbers are that low.
sure everyone wants a payrise, but......
"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.''
that's just a insultingly high suggested pay increase, especially in the economic climate (heading for triple dip recession?)
it's just not very clever to be saying that while cutting everyone else's wages, living allowances, pensions etc.
stops they from being right at all.
I want a 47% pay rise, too.
...being an MP to be a full-time or part-time job. For a full-time postion with that level of responsibility, I would consider £65,738 to be shockingly low (unless you can top it up with some nice expenses on the side natch). If it's just a sideline to your main earner...nice little wedge tbf.
...I know quite a few middling civil servants who earn more than that.
Surely you believe in the law of supply and demand?
They should lower the wage until only 650 people want to be MPs.
while I don't agree with that level of pay rise, I do think that it's important to keep MP's wages healthy.
Otherwise only the rich will be able to afford to be an MP and that will suck dick.
are moonlighting billionaires
in charge. Oh, wait....
no? If MPs wages were, say, 25k, a lot of them are commuting into London from their constituencies, which is pricey. It's a high pressure job. No one in their right mind would take it unless a) they already had money to their name or b) they were a career politician.
The guy or gal in a constituency who just wants to do good for the local area would surely think 'i can't afford to do this, will follow another career path instead.'
extrapolating from current inflation, they'd have to have a pay freeze for about 25 years before they were on the equivalent of 25k. I don't think we are in much danger of the low pay being a barrier to entry.
I didn't say the pay rise of 47 per cent was justified. I was just throwing out that healthy wages for MPs are a good thing. People will assume that's a right wing thing, but a militant lib-dem brought me around to that way of thinking while I lived with him in my early 20s and i believe it still.
Why shouldn't a level of responsibility this big be well paid? Why on earth would someone with a degree in economics, say, plump for that over a job in big business which will be less stress, less public scrutiny, more pay?
that's not going to starve anyone.
And I'd rather people became MPs because they wanted to do it, rather than because the salary was massive. Many industries attract staggeringly talented people for low wages because they have a passion for the work, and don't give a shit about earning enough to have homes abroad and send their kids to public school.
you're welcome x
Staggeringly talented in the sense of a CV that's appropriate for parliament?
other industries as they are passionate about the industry they work in.
everyone agrees with that surely?
do you know many people who have been, and who now work in low paid positions out of choice?
i don't know any of them.
i know a few people who have given up jobs to take on much much lower paid jobs doing things they are passionate about tho.
I guess I'm saying that the general view of 'looooads of people do that' is an idea that might not be as prolific a standpoint as we think? Or maybe I'm wrong, i need STATS fuck it
and attributed it to you. sorry c_b <3
just saw that I did actually say LOTS earlier in the thread.
ummmm....... somewhere between a few and lots I reckon.
they attract people with careers appropriate to their industries.
I mean do you feel that the current set of MPs are bumbling morons (heh) and that if we stuck the salary up to 300k, we'd suddenly hit an influx of super-MPs who'd be much better at the job? I'm not sure I do, but I guess it's a fair thing to disagree on.
because i'm aware that high salaries breed career politicians, but IMO low salaries would fuck us over in the other direction. Damned if you do etc.
I don't see much wrong with a free place to stay in London and a 65k salary for an MP. I'm not condoning massive payrises either. It's... ARGH.
I do feel like a lot of the MPs in positions of power are morons, sadly, yeah. I don't know what the answer is except for setting everything on fire and starting again
and wouldn't be horrified if they went up some.
If we bumped it massively I'd worry about getting too much interest from Romney-types - people invovled and concerned solely with business and economics - possibly brilliant at that, but not the sort I'd really want dominating parliament.
Basically we should just clone Joe Biden hundreds of times and use him to entirely fill both the commons and the lords.
i'm not arguing for some stance of OMG DON'T PAY THEM ANYTHING THE TWATS, I'm all for keeping it a reasonable and respectable level of pay (plus expenses etc) for the position.
are they not?
but that's true of less stressful jobs in the city too. My point more than anything is that sure, see what happens if MPs wages are frozen and the city continues to increase wages.
It won't work.
but doesn't dissuade me from my overall assertion)
I mean maybe I agree, but what is it?
but why does WORKING IN THE CITY make you a good candidate to be an MP?
i mean that on the whole, if you look at a great deal of MPs' backgrounds (and also jobs within cabinet), they have experience that would be very relevant indeed to financial/legal/economic roles.
I'm not even saying that's the right thing, but I am saying that it means that government not competing with equivalent salaries in other industries that covet those skills is important. But as i've said elsewhere brutal revolution is probably necessary anyway at this stage
who are meant to be highly educated and trained at such things?
and those jobs are also well paid for the same reasons.
But what do you do? pay the advisors to the ministers more than the ministers.
i was just paraphasing for brevity.
I suppose it's a fine line, I think we are probably on a similar page with or thinking overall.
they can rent expensive flats in central London that they'd likely not be able to afford on their wages and charge it back to the nation.
but remember guys, living in the City of Westminster is a privilege, not a right :')
Of course there will be examples that disprove from all parties, but on average a Tory MP is more likely to have come from a legal, banking, business or other 'professional' background, and will in many cases have taken a substantial pay cut to become an MP. So I would imagine they see the increase as more comensurate (though probably still lower) than their external earning potential.
If you're earning £300,000 a year in the City and you quit to become an MP and start earning £65,000 you probably think your wages are a bit low and that a pay rise would get a bit nearer your earning potential. But even a pay rise to £85,000 is still a lot lower than you were earning before so you don't see it as a very big deal.
If you're a trade union official on £25,000 a year and you quit to become an MP and suddenly start earning £65,000 a year it feels like a massive increase in itself and will (positively)change your lifestyle by a significant enough amount that even more on top might seem less necessary.
Cliched, extreme examples of course, but you (hopefully) get the point.
*and they're irresponsible enough not to have saved, set up side hussles, and all the things you're meant to do to take a low-paying gig*
I suppose they could always solve their problems by fucking the fuck off.
If you had a Parliament made up exclusively of people who were only 'worth' £65,000 based on their abilities you'd have 650 David Brents sitting on the green benches.
is that the case now? given that they already earn a scant 65k as it is?
Plenty of people from affluence do badly paying jobs for the love, anyhow. I'm surrounded by the idiots.
I reckon people are more likely to decide whether they want to run for MP based on other factors rather than the 'low' pay. Over 95% of people earn a salary below £65k.
Parliament & democracy are better off for having people engaged with the responsibility of public office and stewardship of their constituencies rather than people concerned with keeping up with the Featherstonehaughs
would have virtually no impact on their quality of life or happiness. Even going from £65k to £300k isn't going to have a major difference.
Once you get to that level of income, your quality of life is much more determined by your health, your personal relationships and even your genetics than your income.
if i quit my job to go work to pursue my dream of working on the counter at greggs the baker I don't expect that greggs are going to pay me as much as I earn now.
why is it relevant what they were earning before?
Yeah, is there any chance you can pay me the same amount as my last company?
This is kind of like when bankers were asked what they thought the average UK wage was, they assumed that it was about £50,000 a year.
What % of your workplace want a payrise too? If it's less than 47%, I'd be fucking astonished.
As an aside, I think MPs are mostly underpaid in the grand scheme of things (i.e. if you look at some of the jobs that command that kind of bunce).
They want a rise of 47%
But even so, the non-storyness remains the same along largely the same lines...
seems like no-one finds this interesting or meaningful at all.
Quantity of discussion =/= general importance.
Anyway, I can't be bothered with this now. You find it interesting and meaningful; I don't. Fair play.
but you'd think that, as politicians, they'd be even slightly aware of the public reaction to this at a time when benefits are being cut, etc. Then again, politicians being moronically short-sighted isn't really news either.
I don't know if they would have been aware the results would have been published.
the people running the country are operating on.
In the current climate and with the confidence in politics at such a low, to come out with this is only showing how out of touch they are.
You could argue all day whether they should have a pay rise or indeed if it's right or wrong for them to want one but eseentially this coming out is just another example of something misguided, misjudged and wrong.
`They` haven't `come out` with anything.
To read anything into this is a folly. The coalition have shown how, largely, misguided, misjudged and wrong they are through their policy making and ideological arguments regarding policy making... as such, this is small, irrelevant, beer.
it's 69% of mps think they deserve a payrise, and the average payris they think they deserve is 32%.
Tories think they deserve a 47% payrise
...tend to come from wealthier backgrounds and, prior to becoming MPs, had jobs that paid them more than other parties? Plus, they're more likely to be the `sort of people` who are motivated by industry and the rewards from it.
^ I fail to see what is revelatory, interesting or worth comment about that, regarding the Conservative party. Let them display that through their policies, not through a hotch-potch survey regarding their opinions on wages...
because they come from a culture of entitlement they believe themselves to be more entitled
and I'd agree with that
...owing the standard of living that has been engrained in their consciousness.
Obviously you can argue from a lofty objective perspective that `LOL, x% of people live on < £1 a day the cunts` but... what people perceive their needs to be are largely irrational and borne out of personal circumstance. I'd expect you to be the same.
means that you have an extra comfortable existence
but I suppose to a certain mind it might mean that your status among your peers is diminished if you can only afford the £200 bottles of wine for dinner parties instead of the £500 ones
I see what you're saying
...but that's largely the psychology behind it, sure.
and strengthens class boundaries
Sadly, there's no way of rooting it out so it's a dead conversational end.
seriously, if your experience of the world leads you to believe that this kind of psychology is hardwired into the human character then I truly pity you
Right, let's put it this way... if your wage was slashed in half, tomorrow, how would you react? And why?
The same psychological impulse, when we are faced with being what we would define as `noticeably worse off` affects us all.
But, y'know, if your wage was cut by half I would assume things would be a lot tougher for you and you wouldn't like it very much and might even exclaim something like `I can't afford to live properly`.
Yet, there'd still be millions of people who would look at your status and go `Pfft, I'm on less than that mate with more children than you, what are you worried about?`.
The point is that this impulse affects you whether your `standard of living` is based on whether you earn £100,000 a year or £10,000 a year. The song remains the same. There's always someone poorer than you who can make the trite morally relativist argument that `you don't NEED the money` at you. Y'know what? I agree with you that most wealthy people don't need their money. But, that isn't really how it works and it's an empty debate.
Not a straw man argument at all.
I was using a hypothetical example to show how the psychology works.
My argument is not actually relevant in the slightest to the OP, but we wandered off into the territory by talking about the supposed human `need` to have x amount of money, exacerbated by you saying the psychology behind it is something that is able to be changed. I was saying arguing on those terms is redundant because, well, it's an impossible thing to change.
you might have thought that when an Ipsa survey on MP pay was announced somebody, somewhere might have suggested that party members tread very carefully on this matter. You know, considering what they're doing to the rest of the public sector. I'm glad this has been picked up as a news story for this very reason.
also, whilst £65k is actually pretty low for their job, reported 'real wages' of <£100k (taking into account expenses) are not
...but doesn't a Labour MP saying `oh I think I should get a pay rise of ~20%` look silly in this climate as well, if we're using that as a parameter of the debate? It's just that one party looks sillier than other - what a fantastic theme on which to debate politics.
i suppose the difference is that Labour aren't currently in power/engaging in the wholesale destruction of the public sector. Also, 47%! There's no way to sugar that one. It's just a highly amusing figure
It only has value when placed alongside the figures for Labour and Lib Dems. I'm not sugar coating anything. I dislike this current administration as much as most in this thread, I'm just bemused by the scrambling to get a boot in on this largely worthless finding from a largely worthless survey.
Plus `wholesale destruction`? Come on now...
and you also seem to be ignoring the massive discrepancy between parties as part of the story.
I guess the difference is that they can't give it to themselves
and suggesting that everyone is in the same boat and we all need to suck up no payrises.
If you're going to be a hypocrite then expect to be called out for it.
Someone sent round an anonymous survey that they filled in.
I'll cut and paste it: claiming publicly we should all 'tighten our belts'
They have DEFINITELY publicly claimed that we all need to tighten our belts and been completely open that we should all expect to not receive pay rises right now because of the state of THE DEFICIT etc. etc.
is the right-wingers seem to be supporting all MPs and the rest of us are abhoring them all. 47% sounds high but the Labour MPs can get to FUCK with 18% too, frankly. 18%!!!!
Are there free cakes at the bottom?
All Ministers get their standard MP's salary (as they remain MPs) but get a Ministerial top up.
I know that more MP's were contacted about this survey but declined to take part. This could have possibly affected the findings?
and credit 31 out of that 100 who didn't think a pay rise was necessary
I think there is a fair argument for raising MPs wages. There's also a fair argument for raising my wages. Not in a time of austerity though.
it's good enough for this
The headline is that MP's want a 32% rise. It reinforces a stereotype and that's all people will see.
Whether this is correct or not is irrelevant as just the idea of saying you deserve a £20'000 pay rise when you're pay freezing other people is stultifyingly terrible politics. Anyone with half a brain should have refrained from taking part.
I think people who are nominally pro-labour will, as it reinforces many people's views of the tories.
But I honestly don't think that will be the first thing on the mind of a swing voter/ undecided people who are disillusioned with politics (and there are a lot of them in the polls). The rise put forward by labour Members is hardly acceptable. I'm not being sarcastic when I say that minority interest parties have the most to gain from a poll like this.
However my point still stands that PR fuck ups like this will erode support for the Conservatives and people going to far right minority parties like you suggest will be to the benefit of Labour in an election. Especially with the Lib Dem vote largely likely to go at least partly back to them as well.
I think that, like with the expenses scandal, it hits whatever party is in government at the time, whether or not they're the worst offenders.
Of course, one could be cynical and say that it's in the Tories' best interest to increase distrust with politicians and democracy.
The main problem for the Tories, in my understanding, is the pressure from the right and the potential for their vote to be split with UKIP etc. Part of the appeal of UKIP is that they don't appear like Politicians™ (in the same way Boris Johnson doesn't) so something that makes the public more hateful of Politicians™ will endear them strongly to fringe parties who are a lot further removed from the establishment the public are so fed up with.
Because they're removed from the establishment?