Why are MPs not subject to the public pay cap?

equalsql

I mean they're employees of the public sector, we pay for them, so why are they not capped in line with everyone else?
A bit of their own medicine would do wonders wouldn't it?

Funkfingers

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, innit?

prowla

4 legs good, 2 legs bad.

joeyowen

To be fair, as a lecturer... If they gave me a choice I would totally raise mine and cap theirs 

Hoof

Because they make the rules and you fucking follow them.

Bridgehouse

Maybe they should get performance related pay.

£5 a year sounds about fair.

equalsql

Bridgehouse said:

Maybe they should get performance related pay.

£5 a year sounds about fair.

Far too bloody generous if you ask me.

Chalky

Cos they are feckin shite, whichever party they belong to.

Bridgehouse

equalsql said:

Bridgehouse said:

Maybe they should get performance related pay.

£5 a year sounds about fair.

Far too bloody generous if you ask me.

Yeah, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt

Fretwired

Hoof said:

Because they make the rules and you fucking follow them.

Because MPs pay is handled independently - they are not allowed to set it. And don't forget some of the rises are in lieu of certain expenses. Personally I don't think they get paid enough - the HoC has too many people like JR Mogg who has lots of money ... the pay puts a lot of people off.

octatonic

Fretwired said:

Hoof said:

Because they make the rules and you fucking follow them.

Because MPs pay is handled independently - they are not allowed to set it. And don't forget some of the rises are in lieu of certain expenses. Personally I don't think they get paid enough - the HoC has too many people like JR Mogg who has lots of money ... the pay puts a lot of people off.

This.

Many of the truly talented people are running companies, not countries.
Why would you make a max £74k plus expenses when you could make £300k+ a year plus stock options and you would not have to deal with all of the media aggro- at least not at the same level.

mart

octatonic said:
...

Many of the truly talented people are running companies, not countries.
Why would you make a max £74k plus expenses when you could make £300k+ a year plus stock options and you would not have to deal with all of the media aggro- at least not at the same level.

Absolutely. Philip Green would make a great PM.

octatonic

mart said:

octatonic said:
...

Many of the truly talented people are running companies, not countries.
Why would you make a max £74k plus expenses when you could make £300k+ a year plus stock options and you would not have to deal with all of the media aggro- at least not at the same level.

Absolutely. Philip Green would make a great PM.

I don't necessarily mean owners of companies.
I could name a dozen or so pharma industry (because I know a bit about this industry) people who are at the VP to CFO level who would be excellent MP's.
But it would be a massive step down for them- like 1/4 of their salaries.

mellowsun

octatonic said:

Why would you make a max £74k plus expenses when you could make £300k+ a year plus stock options and you would not have to deal with all of the media aggro- at least not at the same level.

Maybe because you've already earned your money in that 300k a year job and you want to do something else?

Also most MPs will go on to earn far more when they leave parliament, so for some, putting up with only 74k per year is an investment in their future.

Its not always about the money.

Chalky

mart said:

octatonic said:
...

Many of the truly talented people are running companies, not countries.
Why would you make a max £74k plus expenses when you could make £300k+ a year plus stock options and you would not have to deal with all of the media aggro- at least not at the same level.

Absolutely. Philip Green would make a great PM.

Spilt my drink laughing at that one...

robgilmo

MP's make way more money from their job (contacts) than they actually get paid, that's why they do it. How much was Blairs business interests worth? Was it 70 million or something along those lines?

ICBM

prowla said:

4 legs good, 2 legs better.

FTFY


The problem with applying the pay cap to them is that they're not actually public employees.

I also think they should be paid more - it sounds wrong, but if you look at it unemotionally and logically then they really should… because as already said it would make it less unattractive as a career for capable people. I don't believe that you always 'have to pay the going rate to get the right people' - in fact I think it can actually attract the *wrong* people, ie you get greedy but second-rate ones - but there does come a point where it takes a certain kind of fool to want to do it for the little they really get - or one with a second source of income, ie not giving the job their full attention.

In the grand scheme of things even the combined wages of 650 MPs is pretty trivial anyway.

robgilmo

You mean having a house in London bought and furnished by us so they don't have to commute 20 miles isn't enough for them? or claiming expenses for such things as free view? poor we darlings

ICBM

robgilmo said:

You mean having a house in London bought and furnished by us so they don't have to commute 20 miles isn't enough for them? or claiming expenses for such things as free view? poor we darlings

No, I mean they should be paid a proper salary so they don't need to - and shouldn't be allowed to - pull stunts like that. The whole expenses scandal has its origins in exactly this - in order to avoid the publicly unpopular increase in MPs' pay, a previous government (Thatcher's, I think) decided to allow them to claim much more in the way of expenses instead. Then many of them - as people often do when given a golden opportunity with no obvious catch - took the piss.

Although not all, it's fair to say.

Funkfingers

The thing that I never understood was all the fuss about MP expense fiddles but not a peep about all of the equally widespread local government corruption.

robgilmo

Possibly because most think people who lead should lead by example? But then again its not just our government who are corrupt, but when a government introduces pay caps and cuts and basically put people in the situation where they have toi rely on food banks to survive claiming for a second home and lush furnishings doesn't really fill people with confidence.