Saturday, 27 February 2010

MPs' Salaries - Poll Results



Intriguing results to the MPs' salaries poll don't you think?

The 44% opting for the civil service pay scale is higher than I thought it would be, along with the 12% who want our MPs to have a salary of more than £100,000.

Nearly 20% voted for 'none of the above' and it would be interesting if some of those voters could explain their reasons.

A few MPs do read this blog on occasion and 481 votes is around the size of a small village, so perhaps they will pass on the result to the powers that be. Of course it will be ignored, we know that, because MPs aren't interested in what the hoi polloi have to say. That's what is wrong with politics today. They can have all the think tanks they like but if the think tanks are not composed of a fair section of society then they have little meaning. I've never been invited to attend a think tank, have you?

My sincere thanks to all who took the trouble to vote.

24 comments:

Tory Totty Online said...

Interesting. I agree they should be paid well as the job carries with it a lot of responsibility (all things being equal!)
Thing is, as we all well know, all things aren't equal. It's when you get idiots abusing the system - or doing a shoddy job with up to now very little accountability, that irks me!

subrosa said...

Responsibility TT yes. Every job carries some responsibility.

Do you think their responsibilities are more than say an army Major at the front line if Afghanistan. I certainly don't. Plus presently MPs receive 33% more than a Major who receives basic, very basic expenses - and dreadful food.

Also, MPs are terrified the public will start really delving deep into what they do because their roles have changed radically in recent years.

CrazyDaisy said...

SR

True so very true, let's keep digging and those idle feckers in the EBC.

CD

Strathturret said...

MPs are more important than Majors in my opinion. They make laws and decide to go to war. Majors follow orders.

I'd say MPs should eqate to GPs or Headtechers or okay some civil servant scale.

Intruder said...

What about clocking in, there only seems to be a good turnout when the bosses turn up :0)

Okay so they have other elements of the post to attend to so perhaps the constituencies should have some input about the pay scale, certainly not the MPs themselves - unless we can all do the same.

Mark Wadsworth said...

I think that 'civil service payscale' was a bit of a cop-out. What would that mean in £ s and d?

subrosa said...

Once upon a time I would have agreed with you Strathturret but certainly no longer.

The role of MP has seriously diminished in recent years. The EU make 80% of our laws now. Our MPs are little more than senior administrators. Any rulings they do make are constantly rebuked by the EU.

They don't deserve to be on a salary scale of good headteachers who are responsible for the future lives of hundreds of children.

Ask around your friends and ask what help their MP has been to them in recent times. You may be surprised by the results.

subrosa said...

Intruder, I like that. Plus the fact they all push and shove to be nearest to him. Just like at school when the teacher sat for the class photo.

MPs have staff who undertake the majority of constituency work (we pay for them of course too).

subrosa said...

Mark I've always suggested alongside the military pay scale but there are many others. Certainly I would say a senior civil service pay scale but starting at the bottom like everyone else and being paid in increments for length of service.

I see no problem with that these days as most MPs are careerists and have not given up anything for the job.

subrosa said...

Mark, here's one site which gives military officers' salaries.

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armypayscales.htm

Lt Col basic salary may be about right, although they have far less responsibility than one.

Strathturret, I think you're perhaps not as informed about the modern military. Army officers make many decisions and also rules which are imperative to saving hundreds of lives. They're certainly not like sheep and just follow orders.

If they did can you imagine the state of this country now? Far worse than it is. Yes they do carry out orders but I assure you many of the orders given are disputed before agreement is reached.

It's not just a sake of the GEC saying 'walk on water' these days.

Apogee said...

The point of MP's pay being tied to the civil service is that once agreed,the level is set. only a change in duties should raise or lower it.
Also, allowances should be on a cost only basis, again as in the civil service with receipts for everything.They have proved they are not to be trusted, and that means they must be watched always,never allowed out of sight in anything, and that includes the running of the country !

subrosa said...

Allowances are a mine field where MPs are concerned Apogee. They've had over 6 months to sort something out and little has been done.

Apogee said...

Hi SR.
I meant civil service fixed allowances as per the civil service for pay and grade.
You didnt think I meant that THEY set the rates? Heaven forbid!

D.

Surreptitious Evil said...

"MPs are more important than Majors in my opinion. They make laws and decide to go to war. Majors follow orders."

You start off well and then fail so badly, as others have pointed out. Actually, although a Major starts off on about £46k, lots of us earn far more. In fact, I probably could go back to living on my direct equivalent wage - the mid-£50k range isn't too far off my basic salary in some recent jobs - I wouldn't like it and it wouldn't keep me in the sports cars I'd like to be accustomed to but ... As a reservist, I was being paid civvy-equivalent wage in Iraq and some of the medics were on the statutory maximum compensation. And the last 'order' I was given was about 5 years ago, and that was a Warrant Officer forcibly suggesting I, and the Colonel I was with, both needed to visit the barbers. Generally the only orders I give are on parades. It doesn't work quite the same way as the under-informed would have it.

Military allowances are actually quite good (compared to commercial ones, if not to politicians) and operational food is now generally very good, especially if it is to a Brit rather than a Yank contract.

Certainly a back bench MP has far less responsibility than a battalion Commanding Officer (the defining Lt Col rank job) and, remember, that the equivalent rank structure is way biased towards the Civil Service grades (a civil servant has quicker promotion but earns far less than a military officer of 'equivalent rank'). A junior Minister or the chair of a Select Committee - the same responsibility as a Brigadier? Quite possibly, if you exclude the 1 or 2 operational Brigades we have fighting at any one time.

Hythlodaeus said...

I voted for either £80k or £90k (can't remember which) on the basis that MPs should be well paid and use some of that pay in order to pay some of there office expenses and so on.

They should also have a flat rate grant to provide at least one member of staff and a constituency office. This could be topped up by the MP to get a better office or extra staff.
Incidentally, all of that grant should go from the Parliament to staff/landowner directly, without the MPs touching it.

I don't accept that MPs should be well paid in order to attract talent though. You don't want people who are after money to be representing the people.
The President of the US sets a great example by being one of the lowest paid senior government figures in the US.

wisnaeme said...

I have always had the impression, perhaps erroneously that the policeman acting as a bouncer outside No 10's door should in reality be facing the other way and be observing inward, writing down notes of any supicious behaviour or actions within which may lead him to believe criminal intentions or criminal actions within are being planned or perpertrated by person or persons known to us for self gain against and to the detriment of the common good of this here UK and it's long suffering citizenry. A UK citizenry who for far too long have been at the mercy of the whims,depredations and down right thievery self interests of Westmidden's hoi poi and their graitutous 'within their rules' swindling at our expense.

I was going to suggest that they only be paid commission or given reward on achieved results.

But many of them already do, don't they. What with the lobbying, the dispencing of consultations, the special interests and the rewards of jobs for the boys and girls in the boardroom or whatever in life here after Westmidden.

So after much soul searching and deliberation, the only logical solution that seems to offer any hope of readdressing this dire situation, is to have no Westmidden MP's at all.

and for us Scots to get ourselves to hell out of that disreputable institution and all that it now represents, decamp to another place where such things as integrity,morality,transparancy, accountability,competancy are deemed self evident amongst the the vast majority of the members in that fit for purpose, best value institution of governance.

anyways,in answer to the question of how much should we pay Westmidden MP's and the costs associated with them ...
The answer is nought for Scotland won't have any Westmidden MP's if common good and common sense is to prevail, in Scotland leastways..

But many of them already do

subrosa said...

S Evil, I think Strathturret's thinking of the forces many years ago rather than the modern one. I agree many majors earn more SE, but it's on an incremental basis, they don't just jump up the levels on a whim.

I would entirely agree with you about the average MP having far less responsibility. Perhaps using a military pay scale is the wrong idea because I certainly wouldn't class any MP, except perhaps the MP, in line with a Brigadier.

subrosa said...

The poll was for basic pay Hythodaeus, but I understand where you're coming from. Problem is that staffing can vary depending on the constituency office.

Completely agree that office/building rents shouldn't be touched by MPs though but they should be scrutinised annually. Just to assure the taxpayer that the payee isn't the wife/husband of the MP to cite just one example.

subrosa said...

Oh wisnaeme, that conjures up a superb picture :)

Commission for results? Don't think that would be a runner somehow.

That would be the perfect solution I admit. Do you think there are people of integrity, morality, transparency, accountability and competency who are interested in politics? I have my doubts.

wisnaeme said...

Aye weel Subrosa, If the Westmidden mercenry parasites are incapable of redeeming themselves and are content with the status quo by putting their own self interests above the common good then they are beyond redemption.

...and so only two options remain, will Westmidden and it's baggage depart from us in Scotland or does Scotland depart and removes its-self from Westmidden.
I will be content with either option being put into practice in full measure. :)

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

I didn't vote in the poll for the simple reason I couldn't find any relevant value to attach to them.

In the end I decided we shouldn't pay them at all - the party they choose to represent should pay them.

Then we might have a chance of getting more living than dead wood.

Strathturret said...

Sorry majors are middle managers.

MP decide whether we go to war and set the budget. That's 'senior management' stuff IMO.

Don't start that EU 80% of laws nonsense. Important stuff like Iraq, budget,Afghanistan and Trident are decided at Westminster not EU. See Netherlands decision to pull out of Afghanistan.

subrosa said...

Either option would suit me too wisnaeme. I think we'll have to wait and see the result of the GE before we can move forward.

subrosa said...

I would agree majors are middle managers Strathturret. They can also be responsible for very big budgets. In fact, much of the work regarding military budgets is done by majors, Lt. Cols and Cols.

If you believe only politicians set the budget then you're wrong. If it was left to only politicians we'd have no military or none to speak of. Today's military is far more educated and qualified than most MPs.

The budget is a negotiation between the forces and the government. A negotiation. Politicians know if they mess it up too much then the military will react as they have done in recent years.

Our armed forces are the most dependable service we have in this country and perhaps one of the worst served by government, but they're a patient bunch. Without them we'd be in a horrendous mess. Without half of our politicians I doubt if we'd see much change.

I don't have time to look for the piles of evidence Strathturret, but I'm sure you're aware many rulings made by courts here are now challenged in the EC who often fall against our government.

That isn't democracy when another group of countries can judge on our laws.

Related Posts with Thumbnails