Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#1
MPs pay
MPs about to get a pay rise
We have the numbers for MPs pay ,but do we have the true numbers for MPs assistants .
I think these numbers will surprise the taxpayer's just haw much we are paying for our parliament.
Are all these taxpayers funded flunkies necessary?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#2
Urgent serious reform required
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
Keith - MPs need staff and the staffing level of the UK Parliament, supporting elected representative, is lower than in equivalent legislatures across the world.
You need to bear in mind as well that these staff are at the sharp end in dealing with constituency case loads, the problems that you and I may raise, rather than what some might call the more 'glamorous' side of things. Doing letters, doing research etc all necessary in our elective system. They are not there for party political work.
That said - on MPs pay they should be leading by example and have a pay freeze at least until after the election.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#4
barryw
offices are run by and for political parties so please not that one,,,,,,,,
so now back to democracy,,,,,,
we do have an issue about the distrust of MP's and allowances/pay is one of the many failings
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
Keith - this is about the staff on the public payroll not the Party payroll. There are rules in place about not using staff on the public payroll for Party political purposes.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#6
Yet another lefty who should be doesn't deserve a pay rise. My how the left love destroying the life skills of our young:
[URL][/URL]
Pay rise? People like this should be sacked immediately. Where's Ed Balls when you need him, he's got history in that respect?
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#7
#3
"That said - on MPs pay they should be leading by example and have a pay freeze at least until after the election."
How cowardly is that?
What sheep we electors are, to even contemplate allowing such craven behaviour.
I read that losing one's place at the Cabinet table is not all bad. Plebgate MP Andrew Mitchell has recently landed himself a nice little earner;£60,000/annum for ten days 'work'. Not bad eh?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#8
You mean the innocent victim of malicious police behavior, Andrew Mitchell Tom.
At least until the next election - yes, this parliament cannot bind the next parliament on such matters.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#9
This Parliament cannot bind the next, full stop.
IF, there is to be speculation of any pay-rise for MPs the debate is better had now, before the Election, it would be for the Partys to proclaim their intent on this matter in their Manifestos.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
MP's pay is a matter for The House and is not, as such, a matter for manifestos or Party whips. Political Party organisations do not and should not have any involvement in this. Votes on pay are free votes,
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#11
I never said anything about 'party organisations'. All policies highlighted in the Manifestos are in any case dependent upon this or that Party being elected into Government and then on Votes in The House.
Any talk of 'Free Votes' or 'Whipped Votes' is making a distinction where this in fact little difference. We surely do not have to retell the Syria-Action vote mini-saga, do we?
In any case, this issue will be put to all PPCs, and I would not be surprised if the responses to this question tipped the scales for every floating voter.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#12
BarryW.
"You mean the innocent victim of malicious police behaviour"
I will remember that when the Orgreave Enquiries are published.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
So GaryC - what about the victims of malicious miners behavior in the strike towards both the police and to working miners?
I hope you remember that as well.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#14
a matter for the house to decide barry?
i wish i had worked for a firm like that with the boss shouting out "all those that want more money put your hand up" followed by "chat amongst yourselves to decide how much you want"?
this should have featured on the egp's thread.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#15
to true howard
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#16
Barry we cannot afford to keep paying for government flunkies we need to cut faster and deeper
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#17
So you want to prevent MPs from doing their most important job Keith, that of their Constituency casework. Now that really is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Better to have fewer MPs instead but, better still would be to cut out those Euro MPs and get out of that organisation, that really will save a lot of money and benefit the economy.
No-one is more in favour of deeper faster cuts than me but there are better ways of doing that that than reducing their ability to defend those they represent against the government bureaucracy.
Howard - Plenty of people decide what they pay themselves, me included. You, of course, make the assumption that all of them are greedy and grasping while, in fact, most are decent people even if many are not too bright.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#18
None of this prevents action this side of the election.
Their Constituency work is an MP's most important function is it? Ye Gods! What if you are right?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#19
Barry
So can you justify the increase in flunkies in this con lib government?
I agree we should cut the numbers of MPs Westminster and all MEPs would be good
We have more representatives per head than most Weston countries including America, and when you consider 78% of law is passed in the EU parliament, UK MPS need a pay cut not a pay rise.
Your not a paid flunky ?? Your usually very against public sector pay rises.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
Keith some points that you are forgetting.
1/ MPs are actually not paid very much. £65k is peanuts to get the sort of people we really need as MPs and that is why a fair proportion are 'monkeys'
2/ I have agreed their pay should be frozen at least until after the election when the new parliament can make a decision which, again, I would hope be a freeze for a while longer.
3/ I have no interest in flunkeys but I do want MPs to have the staff they need to carry out their tasks properly, particularly their caseload.
4/ You cannot compare different systems the way you do. Take America - the legislature is separate from the executive so of course they need fewer people in the legislature than we do.
In the UK we have 650 MPs so there needs to be at least 326 for a majority. Ministers, junior Ministers, PPS's and government whips, what is called the payroll vote, comes to about a third of the governing Party's MPs. That leaves a very small pool of ruling party MPs for backbench positions, committees etc.
Now as I said I do believe there is room to chop the number of MPs, perhaps to 600 but not much more. But the more you reduce the number of MPs the more power is in the hands of the government payroll vote and the less room there is for rebels among the governing Party. The consequences would be even more bland representatives than we have now because Parties would have to play a lot safer over selections.
Personally I want more room for individualist MPs (within the major parties) and real characters and not just have party machines. That is why there is not much room to cut back numbers.
That said - the more your cut the number of MPs, the bigger their Constituencies, the more staff (your flunkeys) they need to deal with the case load.