View Full Version : I feel sorry for MPs
They work so hard and are only getting a £3360 pay rise in April.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-pay-rise-coronavirus-furlough-scheme-expenses-economy-b910428.html
Their pay is calculated by an independent body and "now is not the time to change the system". No, I guess not.
They work so hard and are only getting a £3360 pay rise in April.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-pay-rise-coronavirus-furlough-scheme-expenses-economy-b910428.html
Their pay is calculated by an independent body and "now is not the time to change the system". No, I guess not.
I think you'll find that is to cover their drop in earnings when they have to take a less high profile position within parliament having been caught fiddling their expenses. 🙄
SV650rules
09-10-20, 04:22 PM
Rather MPs than people like Lineker and Norton who the BBC think it is OK to give millions a year of BBC tax money to.....
Rather MPs than people like Lineker and Norton who the BBC think it is OK to give millions a year of BBC tax money to.....
I'll have to disagree there. Lineker and Norton are entertainers, I'm not a football fan so I don't how good a pundit Lineker is, I enjoy Norton's chat show so I get some value from him.
My MP is Martin Vickers who has done nothing for me and when I asked him what he'd done for the area he never answered. When I asked him to intervene (or even speak out) in the GKN hostile takeover (by Melrose), he said he agreed with me but followed the party line. I have asked him about any successes that privatisation has brought - still waiting for that answer (from 2 years ago).
So returning from your "whataboutism", I find it annoying when people are losing their jobs and the economy is tanking that politicians are getting a raise and hiding behind "it's the system, there's nothing we can do but take the money".
Biker Biggles
09-10-20, 05:25 PM
How much of a pay rise are Lineker and Norton getting? I thought the BBC was cutting a lot of its top presenters pay to save money and deal with historic gender discrimination. MPs on the other hand-------
I find it hard to square this against my own situation:
I currently work for a government owned arm's-length infrastructure company, so ultimately the same paymaster, I suppose. I've just had to suck up losing my entire bonus entitlement for last year (i.e. earned pre-Covid except for 2 weeks) under the performance-related-pay system because of the current economic and political climate.
Whatever you think about such bonus schemes, it seemed easy enough to change the system applicable to me and my colleagues. Apparently one rule for them, one rule for us, that's what unpleasantly sticks in the throat!
-------------------------------------------------
P.S. I do appreciate I'm fortunate to have been spared the worst of employment problems recently, although I would note that personally I've been working harder than ever managing the repeated changes to circumstances (no furloughed summer off for me and rapidly changing planning horizons and project delivery constraints), I am now additionally supporting No.1 son who lost his job due to Covid (Agency/Zero hours worker, no entitlement to furlough etc.) as well as No.2 son who has returned to the country and is finding it far more difficult than expected to find work. I'm not seeking sympathy or support for my position but please don't suggest I've been unaffected.
... followed the party line. ...
This is what I find so aggravating about our current parliamentary system.
If everyone simply aligns with the party line why do we need 600+ MPs? I reckon we could get away with 5-10% of that, maybe less, for same level of "representation".
SV650rules
09-10-20, 05:53 PM
How much of a pay rise are Lineker and Norton getting? I thought the BBC was cutting a lot of its top presenters pay to save money and deal with historic gender discrimination. MPs on the other hand-------
Lineker got £1.7million of BBC taxpayers money last year and the year before etc. Zoe Ball gets 1.36milion for a radio show, Graham Norton over £2 million, and they are not the only ones. Something really bad happening when celebrities get >10x the amount Prime minister gets paid....
History has taught us nothing if it hasn't driven home the fact that all politicians since the dawn of time are well n truly bent in one way, shape, or form. Why are we and why would we be surprised about any of this. Tbh, the last time I voted was the last time the Tories got in and that was based purely for my own selfish reasons, of which one was the unchanging retirement age, and the Tories said this ... quote ' if we are elected... we will NOT be raising the retirement age' unquote. LIES, LIES, LIES. As that is exactly what they did. None of them would know what a day's work was if it jumped up n bit them in the bo#$@$ks, so why on earth would we expect any MP to actually earn their salaries and be able to justify their pay rises?. Let's see how true to his word the chancellor of the exchequer is with regards to abolishing inheritance tax by 2021, I think we have more chance of being punched in the face by the Pope than that actually happening! I won't hold my breath.
SV650rules
09-10-20, 07:13 PM
It was an EU directive that caused problems with pensions in UK, the directive is dated 1978 but UK put off implementing it as long as they could. The directive mandated governments to treat men and women equally in matters of social security.
Since 1978 the then European Economic Community (EEC) set in place regulation to force members to bring in pension age equality, so men and women benefit equally. The EU continued this policy and as such Member States could choose the rate at which they changed the pension age, within reason – making the state pension age the same for men and women – at some point. Now, with the UK at age equality, there have been many suggestions from legal minds that Labour’s policy of refunding the women affected ( so called WASPI women) would go against EU legislation, as it would treat men and women differently (See Council Directive 79/7/EEC (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31979L0007)).
Craig380
10-10-20, 07:22 AM
That EU Council Directive has been wrongly blamed for pension shortfalls by Governments and by the pension funds themselves to cover up their own mistakes and mismanagement.
What really caused pension fund shortfalls and raising of pension ages at most major public and private funds in the UK is:
a) The inconvenient fact that people live longer, and therefore claim more of their pension. In 1970, the average male life expectancy was 68.9 years. By 1990 it was 73.5 years. However, most funds' calculations failed to take account of this - so the funds were being emptied faster. This essentially led to the collapse of Equitable Life, one of the UK's biggest pension providers, because they tried to renege on the 'guaranteed income' funds that they had been selling for decades when they realised the funds were draining fast.
b) Systematic use and abuse of pension funds as an internal resource that could be borrowed from or used as a trading asset to prop up private businesses.
It was an EU directive that caused problems with pensions in UK, the directive is dated 1978 but UK put off implementing it as long as they could. The directive mandated governments to treat men and women equally in matters of social security.
Since 1978 the then European Economic Community (EEC) set in place regulation to force members to bring in pension age equality, so men and women benefit equally. The EU continued this policy and as such Member States could choose the rate at which they changed the pension age, within reason – making the state pension age the same for men and women – at some point. Now, with the UK at age equality, there have been many suggestions from legal minds that Labour’s policy of refunding the women affected ( so called WASPI women) would go against EU legislation, as it would treat men and women differently (See Council Directive 79/7/EEC (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31979L0007)).
Point taken, so why did they announce before election that it would not increase under their watch if the decision was ultimately not theirs to implement or make?
To secure votes and another term.
I really don't want to turn this thread into a political debate but as far as I'm concerned (being a simple tax paying law abiding citizen) it's one of the best things this country has done in recent years... getting out of the EU clutches and hopefully being able to make our own decisions ... bad or good .. it will be our decision to make.
SV650rules
10-10-20, 08:46 AM
That EU Council Directive has been wrongly blamed for pension shortfalls by Governments and by the pension funds themselves to cover up their own mistakes and mismanagement.
What really caused pension fund shortfalls and raising of pension ages at most major public and private funds in the UK is:
a) The inconvenient fact that people live longer, and therefore claim more of their pension. In 1970, the average male life expectancy was 68.9 years. By 1990 it was 73.5 years. However, most funds' calculations failed to take account of this - so the funds were being emptied faster. This essentially led to the collapse of Equitable Life, one of the UK's biggest pension providers, because they tried to renege on the 'guaranteed income' funds that they had been selling for decades when they realised the funds were draining fast.
b) Systematic use and abuse of pension funds as an internal resource that could be borrowed from or used as a trading asset to prop up private businesses.
What the private sector do with their un-ringfenced pension schemes is a disgrace, but that is responsible for the demise of final salary pension schemes, not the changing of the pension age for women ( and later men ). It is sad that governments of all shades did not bring in laws to regulate pension funds better.
Craig380
10-10-20, 10:06 AM
It is sad that governments of all shades did not bring in laws to regulate pension funds better.
No argument there. Both Labour and Conservative governments have been far too willing to believe the smooth assurances of the financial sector that it should be allowed to regulate itself without interference ... then the City types come crying to the Government for bailouts when things go wrong.
like them or not they are needed to do a job and that job is to keep our country ticking, not bad for around £1mil in wages each year for the whole 650 members. ok so thats not counting expenses etc.etc but still its a good bargain considering that some consultations from the private sector can cost many millions. being an mp can also be a short lived vocation.
yes there are certain individuals who are not deserving of their title but its their constituents that put them there. poorer constituency's have hard working mp's as poor people complain more. there is only a certain amount of things an mp can do, they do not serve the individual but the collective.
lets face facts. if you only had 4 years in a job you would want the maximum pay you could get in that time. you also have to remember that they pay tax just like all the rest of us so anything over the threshold is at the higher rate which in a way is giving back to the people.
like them or not they are needed to do a job and that job is to keep our country ticking, not bad for around £1mil in wages each year for the whole 650 members. ok so thats not counting expenses etc.etc but still its a good bargain considering that some consultations from the private sector can cost many millions. being an mp can also be a short lived vocation.
yes there are certain individuals who are not deserving of their title but its their constituents that put them there. poorer constituency's have hard working mp's as poor people complain more. there is only a certain amount of things an mp can do, they do not serve the individual but the collective.
lets face facts. if you only had 4 years in a job you would want the maximum pay you could get in that time. you also have to remember that they pay tax just like all the rest of us so anything over the threshold is at the higher rate which in a way is giving back to the people.
Sorry but I'm a little confused, Are you saying that unless a particular party are actually in power their parliamentry members cease to be paid? If so .. their chosen vocation could potentially be very short lived indeed!
Not sure where you got your information from but the annual basic wage bill for ALL MP's as a collective far exceeds £1m, plus the expenses which can and frequently has exceeded their annual basic wage for several high ranking Mp's.
Yes you are correct, we do need MP's to run the country, just NOT bent ones or members that are just riding that gravy train.
We all know they can fall foul of the law and frequently do then having to resign their position rather than face a possible incarceration, only to find them handed a less high profile position within the house that pays almost as well.
I don't feel sorry for them in any way, I've never seen or even heard of an MP living on the bread line, they are appointed to do a job they are apparently qualified for and get paid accordingly, the ridiculous pay rises for continually failing to meet the targets they set out when they were vying for votes or even actually do that job just reinforces my mistrust in our government as a whole.
Tbh, nothing hacks me off more than people promising to do things and then not actually doing them, broken promises are paramount to lies in my book. Which brings me to the conclusion that every MP I've ever met are just plain and simple liars, they're no better than estate agents for telling the truth or actually being able to deliver what they say.
People seem to forget ... they are public servants, we pay them for the privilege of running this country for the good of our nation and for the good of our people,
Not to stitch us up at every available opportunity.
Sorry but I'm a little confused, Are you saying that unless a particular party are actually in power their parliamentry members cease to be paid? If so .. their chosen vocation could potentially be very short lived indeed!
Not sure where you got your information from but the annual basic wage bill for ALL MP's as a collective far exceeds £1m, plus the expenses which can and frequently has exceeded their annual basic wage for several high ranking Mp's.
Yes you are correct, we do need MP's to run the country, just NOT bent ones or members that are just riding that gravy train.
We all know they can fall foul of the law and frequently do then having to resign their position rather than face a possible incarceration, only to find them handed a less high profile position within the house that pays almost as well.
I don't feel sorry for them in any way, I've never seen or even heard of an MP living on the bread line, they are appointed to do a job they are apparently qualified for and get paid accordingly, the ridiculous pay rises for continually failing to meet the targets they set out when they were vying for votes or even actually do that job just reinforces my mistrust in our government as a whole.
Tbh, nothing hacks me off more than people promising to do things and then not actually doing them, broken promises are paramount to lies in my book. Which brings me to the conclusion that every MP I've ever met are just plain and simple liars, they're no better than estate agents for telling the truth or actually being able to deliver what they say.
People seem to forget ... they are public servants, we pay them for the privilege of running this country for the good of our nation and for the good of our people,
Not to stitch us up at every available opportunity.
I think what people forget is they can't simply put in place what they want to do, without it being voted through in Parliament, House of Lords, sworn in to Law etc (depending what it is).
You have to be realistic in believing what they say vs what is actually achievable in those 4 years in power - remembering how slow the approvals process of lots of things are. No 1 Government will/can make a radical change in only 4 years, over multiple terms there is the potential to do so.
I don't know if you have tried emailing your MP. I should point out that I live in an area that is Conservative and is unlikely to ever change. Cleethorpes is grouped in with a mainly farming community and they always vote Tory so I've had the same MP for a while.
In the early days when I would email asking him to vote in a certain way, he would respond to maybe 1 in 10 emails usually long after the vote and always with the government. At that time I was emailing once a month. Since I called all Tories "untrustworthy", he informed me that he would no longer respond unless I wanted something doing - an unlikely scenario since he has never agreed with any of my emails (except the GKN takeover but he voted with the party anyway - so much for ethics!).
Prior to the "cutoff" :rolleyes: I challenged him on privatisation (the East Coast mainline had been brought back into government ownership again and was making a profit but was being franchised out again - and that later failed). I challenged him on austerity telling him that money was cheap (to borrow) use it to repair the crumbling infrastructure - at least we would have something to show for it (something that BoZo was talking about before covid). I asked him to protect vital companies - he said they couldn't, although they are now talking about it.
Since I no longer get a response and rather than shout at the tv, I've upped my game. I have emailed him 25 times in the last month usually pointing out the incompetence of the government. It's cathartic for me - he collects his money but does nothing (I asked him for one thing he'd done to benefit the area - when he was still talking - I'm still waiting). I have a very low opinion of MPs and an equally low opinion of Eton that is supposed to provide us with leaders. They really should be teaching ethics.
So, do they earn their money and deserve a rise? Absolutely not. Pay by results. This virus has proven how inept they are and how unwilling to take responsibility for their mistakes.
All good and valid points of discussion above and I totally understand all that is promised may or may not be delivered on time if at all, but I stand by my (code of ethics) if you will .... if you say you're going to do something, first make sure it is at least achievable and then .... deliver. Plain n simple, it's all to easy and common practice nower days to blame everything on 'the economic climate' in order move the goalposts to suit. That covers a wide range of potential cockups and gives MP's the perfect excuse to absolve themselves from any responsibility.
I'm very much aware I'm an analogue guy living in a digital world, I like things plain and uncomplicated, easy to understand, i talk straight and do what I say, I know what I like and like what I know, politics and politicians aren't on that list I'm afraid, I've lived long enough to see many of them come n go and to me ... they're all cut from the same cloth, I wouldn't trust a single one of them to change the batteries in my torch properly.
One last comment (I promise). This is the voting record of my MP:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24814/martin_vickers/cleethorpes/votes
SV650rules
11-10-20, 09:10 AM
I don't know if you have tried emailing your MP. I should point out that I live in an area that is Conservative and is unlikely to ever change. Cleethorpes is grouped in with a mainly farming community and they always vote Tory so I've had the same MP for a while.
In the early days when I would email asking him to vote in a certain way, he would respond to maybe 1 in 10 emails usually long after the vote and always with the government. At that time I was emailing once a month. Since I called all Tories "untrustworthy", he informed me that he would no longer respond unless I wanted something doing - an unlikely scenario since he has never agreed with any of my emails (except the GKN takeover but he voted with the party anyway - so much for ethics!).
Prior to the "cutoff" :rolleyes: I challenged him on privatisation (the East Coast mainline had been brought back into government ownership again and was making a profit but was being franchised out again - and that later failed). I challenged him on austerity telling him that money was cheap (to borrow) use it to repair the crumbling infrastructure - at least we would have something to show for it (something that BoZo was talking about before covid). I asked him to protect vital companies - he said they couldn't, although they are now talking about it.
Since I no longer get a response and rather than shout at the tv, I've upped my game. I have emailed him 25 times in the last month usually pointing out the incompetence of the government. It's cathartic for me - he collects his money but does nothing (I asked him for one thing he'd done to benefit the area - when he was still talking - I'm still waiting). I have a very low opinion of MPs and an equally low opinion of Eton that is supposed to provide us with leaders. They really should be teaching ethics.
So, do they earn their money and deserve a rise? Absolutely not. Pay by results. This virus has proven how inept they are and how unwilling to take responsibility for their mistakes.
If you want to get an answer from your MP send them a letter, emails get ignored by everyone these days not just MP's - for the same reason those online petitions mean zilch to the average MP - they are just too easy to do, one click of a mouse and your MP is supposed to fall over to do the bidding ? In these days emails are just considered spam, If you want to get anything moving a letter is the way to go, it shows you are at least a bit serious about things - I sent emails to my ISP, posted stuff on their online forum - nothing - sent a letter to their customer services at head office with my email address and phone number and next day had a phone call and an email saying a case had been opened and within a week had a refund and better speed.
So, do they earn their money and deserve a rise? Absolutely not.
On the other hand........
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/huge-cost-of-becoming-an-mp-pricing-people-out-of-politics-11489543
The fact that trying to become an MP is already a huge mountain to climb for 'ordinary' people of average means (and trying to remain an MP also a relatively precarious goal) probably helps explain why you end up with one of the two main political parties lead for a decade by out of touch fools such as Ed "Edstone" Miliband and Jeremy "Free Broadband" Corbyn.
If we want politicians that understand the concerns of the 'man in the street' I don't see how paying them less or putting them under even yet more scrutiny (through a payment by results system that sounds a nice idea in theory but pretty unworkable in practice) would help.
Just sounds like a recipe for increasing the number of "out of touch millionaire" MPs to me.
SV650rules
11-10-20, 01:19 PM
@Bike27, I agree, we are following the American path where you need to be rich to go into politics - and it is not a good thing. We are woefully short on conviction politicians though, for some it is just a day job and they will happily swap parties without a twinge of conscience.
Labour long ago ceased to be the party of the working man - they became the party of the metropolitan London based elite,, I just took traditional labour voters a long time to realise it - and a lot of them did in December 2019...
Since I no longer get a response and rather than shout at the tv, I've upped my game. I have emailed him 25 times in the last month usually pointing out the incompetence of the government.
maybe you should take a chill pill :rolleyes:
@Bike27, I agree........
Thought you might, as 16 MPs are better value for the taxpayer than one Zoe Ball, IMO.
Balky001
12-10-20, 02:25 PM
I wouldn't want to be an MP, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Plus any enthusiasm you have of going in to Parliament to make the country better and fairer soon dissipates when the whip/party pulls rank.
keith_d
12-10-20, 03:03 PM
One last comment (I promise). This is the voting record of my MP:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24814/martin_vickers/cleethorpes/votes
It would be more helpful to know how many of these votes were not along party lines. Unfortunately, our MPs don't seem to have much say in which way they're going to vote - it's all decided behind closed doors in party central office and enforced by the whips.
Occasionally you get an MP who will defy the whips on a point of principle or to protest something which affects their constituents. But these days they don't last long. Either resigning or being de-selected.
i have had the opposite of what Seeker has had. a good few years ago i complained about the condition of a mental health facility here in kirkcaldy. it was a outdated stinking, run down hell hole and not the kind of environment one would want to put mentally ill patients in. think of a pub from the 70's that has never had a lick of paint with sticky carpets and fag reek.
within two months the facility had a full revamp.
how this was done was due to emailing the correct MP's and heads involved to get them to liaison and come to a solution. they had no idea that the facility was so run down.
BTW it was not me who was admitted to the facility.
sometimes your local MP does care but sometimes there is nothing that they can do or its not their department. if you want answers then arrange for a slot at one of their surgery's.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.