At least that's one thing we can all be happy about.

We're all in it together.

I'd be OK with it if it also came with a bar on outside earnings while in office and stricter rules on expenses. But it doesn't. So I'm not.

11% for them and 1% for some of us.

Indeed.

It's still not a lot for the stature of people you would ideally want in such a role.

Whilst we might ideally love for MPs to perform for their beliefs rather than money, really we will get:
Those rich enough not to need the money.
MPs taking outside work to generate pay.
A dodgy expense system used to subsidise an inadequate pay scheme.

Sir Ian Kennedy says what with other reforms around pay and expenses this increase will not cost the taxpayer an extra penny.
So just what is the problem?
Yeah,sure Sir Ian.

The "extra penny" bullcrap seems to basically be saying that it "won't cost any extra" only on the basis that the extras perks and scams some of them fiddle at the moment will instead be converted to salary. Great. You no longer need to scam it, cos we're giving you all an extra 11% so you don't have to.

That's a similar excuse to the one used to justify paying CEOs £sqillions and it's utter bullcrap.

Without the increase, MPs are on a basic that is more than twice the average wage and is similar to recently qualified doctors, better than the vast majority of teachers and lawyers all of whom do not enjoy an expense system that would make an oligarch envious.

If MPs reckon they're struggling financially and could earn more elsewhere, let them resign. There'd be no shortage of applicants to replace them

But would the applicants be any good? Is the skill set of a recently qualified doctor, majority of teachers or lawyers adequate for that kind of position?

If the incumbents are any indicator of required skills, I reckon I could get 650 equally qualified candidates straight off the dole queue

....and isn't that exactly where I started this?

You're so spot on. I find it hard to believe that there is anybody in the world, let alone the UK, who would come close to matching the present or past MP skill sets of the likes of Michael Gove, Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears, Patrick Mercer, Nadine Dorries, Keith Vaz or Eric Pickles, toi name but a smidgeon. We are just lucky to have them.

Is there a performance related pay / disciplinary element linked to meeting their manifesto "promises" / local issue "pledges" ?

Don't be silly.

In fact if you have a look through the new Health Bill, they've actually managed to slip in a couple of clauses that absolve the Secretary of State for Health of any responsibilty towards the NHS and following Hunt losing a couple of Judicial Reviews on closing hospitals/A&E departments, he's now seeking statutory authority to close ANY hospital/department as he sees fit without any recourse to law.

Upholders of democracy my 'arris

Assuming you are being sarcastic, how do you propose we get better people those roles?

We pay the recommended salary as indicated by an independent Committee....... Oh, wait a minute!

I was listening to three MP's on Radio 5 after PMQ's the other day and I was flabbagasted to hear all of them singing from the same hymn sheet, pity it was all of them saying that it was out of their hands and they 'had' to receive it. Remember what happened when the 'independent' police pay review was put before government. Hypocrites.

Will that attract a better calibre of candidate?

Why are you all getting so bent out of shape about it? It's not their fault, the poor souls are being FORCED into this measly 7.5k p/a increase, they don't WANT it.. do they?

Gah, everybody in here is so quick to blame the MP's for everything. They will do everything they can to avoid their rise. Except trying to avoid the rise.

Now let them get back to not doing their jobs and go and turn your heating off, It's been on for 5 minutes and that's all you can afford.

Chop-chop, peasants

It is not the same excuse.

It isn't about not getting the top people for the job if we don't pay enough. It's about making the job accessible to those who are not as well off as David Cameron and who can do the job as a hobby.



This argument is a bit of a straw man. It isn't the fact it is good wage that is the issue or someone on low or no pay would jump at the chance. They can do that now if they want to join a party and try for selection . No qualifications required! The issue is would ordinary people chuck in a decent career to do the job?

Even you don't agree with that as the reason for a high MP wage you must see that anyone who is talented and can get a [ucareer[/u that pays say £40K or similar is not going to give that up for a chance to earn not a great deal more for a few years. Whereas the wealthy will.

It is like sending your kids to public school. Mostly a preserve of the rich who can take the hit of the costs. If MP's wages are too low parliament will end up the same way, worse than it is now.

Would everyone here turn down a similar increase in their own income?
I would be tempted to take it, I must admit. Perhaps I am lacking moral fibre...

It seems to me that the whole argument that they need paying more is flawed. Politicians go into politics for some reasons aside from money - power, they like hearing themselves talk and sometimes because they want to try to do good. We are told you need to pay more to attract the poorer candidates - but pay is aleady way over the national average. We're told we have to pay more to attract talented people from other fields - but what top surgeon would wish to give up a career to go into politics unless he were that way inclined in the first place? Wouldn't we want our most talented people such as doctors, etc to use their skills in medicine anyway? We are told they need paying more so they don't feel the need to fiddle expenses - but dishonest people will still be dishonest if you pay them twice as much. I can see no reason or possible justification for paying more when they are already on nearly 3 times average salary.

If they are to have more pay then we should have a rolling scheme whereby each of them is subjected to a televised lie-detector test each 3 months and anyone failing is dismissed.

I wish RLFans would bring that in, and ban liars for life.

bye bye Dally

I would love to see the figures of just how many MPs who lost their seats over the past 50 years had no alternative but to sign on the dole and rely on the state to support them