It has been reported by the BBC that MPs are seeking a pay rise of 66%.
If you don't believe me read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6205852.stm
2006-12-06 22:00:57 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No. They should have all valid expences paid, but a pay rise so far beyond that of the average worker is unjustified. If they think they are worth more, they could always leave politics and try to find a job in the 'real' world.
2006-12-06 22:06:02 · answer #1 · answered by I'm Sparticus 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is a case for this, but it all depends on productivity, as in your job and mine (but not yet theirs). A study should be carried out into whether we need 600+ MPs anyway and if the number could be reduced by 60%.
The remaining MPs must then become more professional in their attendance and voting habits; the House should rise at 9:30, there should be an hour for lunch and the (normal) day should end at 5:00. No more 'Midnight Sittings'.
If an MP is absent from the House without being on official business or through incapacity, he should be required to explain such an absence.
Outside jobs, with this level of earnings for their 'real' job, would become unnecessary and should be forbidden.
More open Parliament would be the result of these changes and we could then afford to get the right (professional) people in Parliament rather than the amateurs we endure at the moment. It is a personal belief of mine that we could select, at random as in jury selection, 600+ eligible members of the public to do the task that this lot are doing, with no diminution of results.
By all means, pay MPs more - but we must get what we pay for.
2006-12-07 06:26:25 · answer #2 · answered by seams OK 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In what other area of work can the employee set the pay grade and then if the employers don't like it, they have to pay the replacement the exact same amount?
And at the same time as MPs are arrogantly demanding that they're worth £100,000 a year, we have troops in Iraq being told that they won't be getting their promised £3000 bonus after all.
They can SEEK a pay rise if they want, but wanting to stick your head in the trough to the tune of 66% is, or at least should be, a sure fire way to find yourself out of the Commons at the next election. Would that the electorate had that much sense.
2006-12-07 07:34:27 · answer #3 · answered by Morgy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
...there is no harm in seeking a pay rise
but, and like John Prescott Its a HUGE but, in my view it stoallt unjustifiable if things remain the same.
bear in mind its not just the pay rise, its the associated pension rise.
the argument is about saying the pa is too low to attract the calibre of people required... we've heard this argument beofre (it was used when all the public utilities were privitised, or when quangos & NHS appointments were made. the rality is that you will still get the same deadbeats but paty them a lot more.
if MP's want that siginificant a pay rise then it should be offset
by reducing the number of MP's,
improved openesss in what they spend their time on, what they actaully claim for as expenses.. soem expenses are just ut through on the nod (ie they may get an allowance of £n,000 for secretarial support.. often there is no proof they have actually spent that money on secretarial support.
MP's are trying to establish parity with GP's, after GPS were given a hugh trtanche of cash last year to recognise the work they do (most GP's promptly took the cash and stopped an out of hours service). GPS can and do work very hard, I remain to be convinced that politicians do. Many of the hours they claim to puit in (some are claiming they work in excess of 100 hours per week) are on party matters or keeping in with the elctorate.. not the same as wroking on behalf of the eclectorate.
its greed pure and simple, I suspecdt the MP's can see perfedctly weell that public finances are in a total shambles (gee than ks Gordy.... good job) and what to get their snouts in the trough now, as they recognise there will not be much chance in the near future to feather bedn themselves again.
2006-12-07 06:17:10 · answer #4 · answered by Mark J 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. !!!!! What an insult to every hard working,law abiding,TAX paying citizen of this country!What have they done to deserve such an enormous pay rise?They are already earn a massive £60,277 a year,we'd all like to earn that!!! I think they have a bl**dy cheek !!What about the extra pay promised to the Royal Marine commandos fighting in Afghanistan? The government is now refusing to honour the agreement! The public have to accept a cap of 3% on wages! They protected THEIR pensions! All public services are to be cut next year! As far as I'm concerned, they can go whistle!!!
2006-12-07 08:04:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is this government mad?? or any for that matter!
Here we are getting screwed out of our HARD earned wages left right and centre, we are having civil liberties taken away, we are being forced into submission by cameras and identity cards, the earth needs some serious repair work which will cost a fortune, but they want more money?? Have these people never heard of revolution, do they not know that people will only take so much, do they think that they are REALLY that untouchable that they can do as they please whilst the rest of us cannot even afford a roof over our heads? Anyone would think that they wanted a civil war!
2006-12-07 06:22:28 · answer #6 · answered by Spoonraker 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. If one of them was honest and bold enough to say in the house that they earn far more than they deserve and that includes the huge expenses they claim for and the hefty pensions they receive after a short time as a politician then they would be a true representative of the people. And this talk of a green budget is bullshit as far as "they" are concerned.Any increases for whatever, is claimed as expenses which we pay for from our taxes.No,the whole lot of them are only interested in what they get out of the system and ---- the rest of us.
2006-12-07 06:32:48 · answer #7 · answered by Ossieboy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a few years back a local politician was speaking at my university about getting in to politics, and he said he originally got in to it to make a difference, not for the adulation or the money. it seems those type of MPs are a dying breed. no, they should not be given a pay rise.
2006-12-07 06:40:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
a UK politician gets on average £130000 in allowances on top of their pay at present.They seem to want the majority of us not to have large pay rises as this raises inflation and then prices go up.they seem to forget that they represent us why should they get 66% rise.Its a pity they are not paid on results and straight talking
answers.
66% my backside but when you can vote your own pay rise in ,I wonder which way they will vote doubt if anyone needs 2 guesses.
2006-12-07 06:27:35 · answer #9 · answered by dink2006 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No they should not. The amount of money wasted by these bureaucrats is beyond the dreams of most people. I would like to see how they justify their present salary. How can they ask for more money after the bl--dy mess they have got the social services in. Its the sack they deserve
2006-12-07 07:04:48 · answer #10 · answered by Jim G 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋