Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A few years ago I was invited along with a few other people from my secondary school to go an meet the MP of my constituency, Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay - Liberal Democrat) who gave us a talk on University. He also gave us the opportunity to ask him a few questions.

    He answered one of the questions and included this statement ''I'm on £60,000'' and claimed ''this isn't enough money''. Note this is not including MP expenses.

    What's your opinions guys? Are MPs on 'enough' money? If not, what is 'enough' and how much should MPs be on?

    Personally I think this reflects the work they do, anymore would be undermining the hard work that millions of workers do each year such as the police, council, army etc.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think MPs wages should be increased to attract the brightest minds to the profession and to prevent MPs from having other jobs in the side.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    They're on average pay right now, given the salaries of legislators in the West. I think cutting is just vindictive, and would simply provoke unintended consequences - and wouldn't save much money. It would dissuade more virtuous people from working in politics and attract less capable people because, let's face it, being a politician nowadays in a thankless task as everyone assumes you're in on the take.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I totally agree... But I was a bit shocked when he did say it's wasn't enough though. It kind of gives you the impression they only do it for the money in a way. I also thought he was a bit of a knob saying so as well haha


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What annoys me is that in Cornwall the average salary is approximately £17,500 a year therefores he's 42,500 above this average which is an enormous salary in that sense! To even be on 42,500 in Cornwall is pretty good money, let alone 60,000. I do feel the salary is right though, definitely justifies the work they do, being an MP isn't easy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It puts it on a level with other high-achievers careers - lawyers, consultants, well paid dentists, a whole host of middle-managers. The expenses (yes, including a second housing allowance) are there to make up for the fact that being an MP is a hugely inconvenient job, involving a lot of travel etc. Expenses being abused is another matter entirely, much like defrauding any employer.

    In my opinion it's roughly the right salary. I don't see the argument "It's more than the average salary" as being particularly valid, as these are well-educated, intelligent, hard-working people - above average employees and should be paid as such. It makes a lot more sense to compare their salary to the average salaries of those in careers requiring similar levels of success. I can see an argument for it being more, as it is underpaid in the long-term when compared to the progression possible in other, more mercenary careers; however it would be political suicide to bring it before parliament and is therefore unlikely to happen and therefore something I can't be bothered to form a strong opinion about.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst it isn't secure work, you're hardly going to be fired in disgrace unless you actually have done something wrong. If we look at the expenses they're able to claim (on average they claim more than the national average salary), as well as the massive holidays they get, plus the fact that even when they are working they have enough spare time to take on other jobs, I think they have easily more than enough money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rob da Mop)
    It puts it on a level with other high-achievers careers - lawyers, consultants, well paid dentists, a whole host of middle-managers. The expenses (yes, including a second housing allowance) are there to make up for the fact that being an MP is a hugely inconvenient job, involving a lot of travel etc. Expenses being abused is another matter entirely, much like defrauding any employer.

    In my opinion it's roughly the right salary. I don't see the argument "It's more than the average salary" as being particularly valid, as these are well-educated, intelligent, hard-working people - above average employees and should be paid as such. It makes a lot more sense to compare their salary to the average salaries of those in careers requiring similar levels of success. I can see an argument for it being more, as it is underpaid in the long-term when compared to the progression possible in other, more mercenary careers; however it would be political suicide to bring it before parliament and is therefore unlikely to happen and therefore something I can't be bothered to form a strong opinion about.
    So, you'd call them high-achievers careers? I'd call the a shower of ****
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    So, you'd call them high-achievers careers? I'd call the a shower of ****
    I sometimes (often, in fact) disagree with decisions they make, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that they're intelligent and work very hard. Not to mention the fact that they have to keep their personal lives pretty clean or very well hidden or face the wrath of the media.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rob da Mop)
    I sometimes (often, in fact) disagree with decisions they make, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that they're intelligent and work very hard. Not to mention the fact that they have to keep their personal lives pretty clean or very well hidden or face the wrath of the media.
    Sure, they're intelligent, and have to work hard, but do they work hard enough and often enough for £100k (including expenses)? They have longer than average holidays, and their workload isn't so great that they can't hold down other jobs as well.

    It's easy to keep your personal life clean. Sure, you're under more scrutiny than a normal person would be, but if you're not cheating on your spouse then you don't have to go to any effort to hide it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They probably deserve a wage increase but that wouldn't sit well with the public especially during 'austerity'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe they should increase wages but decrease expenses?

    I'm not sure how high MP expenses are... Guess it depends on whether your back bench or not etc. Farage did mention he gets 2 million (I think) expenses being an MEP which is very high. MPs must get a lot but obviously not as much as an MEP.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You're *


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AaronJWade)
    Maybe they should increase wages but decrease expenses?

    I'm not sure how high MP expenses are... Guess it depends on whether your back bench or not etc. Farage did mention he gets 2 million (I think) expenses being an MEP which is very high. MPs must get a lot but obviously not as much as an MEP.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    2 ****ing million in expenses? Are you serious?! :eek:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I believe alot of MP's give up much higher paid jobs to become MP's.

    60,000, put into perspective, is quite low pay. Service directors in local goverment earn more, the corporate director of Islingston Council is on higher pay than the Prime Minister!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    I believe alot of MP's give up much higher paid jobs to become MP's.

    60,000, put into perspective, is quite low pay. Service directors in local goverment earn more, the corporate director of Islingston Council is on higher pay than the Prime Minister!
    What about expenses? And the holidays they get and hours they work?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    What about expenses? And the holidays they get and hours they work?
    If you were an MP im sure youd use them. I know i probably would. The hours etc, well, the fact is people in a constituency voted for said person in the first place. You cant really have digs at them all the time, they do a job (most of them)

    Although ive had to sit through boring politics classes listening to how my MP rebelled against the Blair government, was dull.

    But still, theyre are people who earn a lot more for doing a lot less.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    If you were an MP im sure youd use them. I know i probably would. The hours etc, well, the fact is people in a constituency voted for said person in the first place. You cant really have digs at them all the time, they do a job (most of them)
    I'm not saying they shouldn't use their expenses, but I think you should include their expenses on top of their base salary rather than saying 60k isn't much. Plus it isn't a full-time job in the way normal people would have a full time job - they get loads of holidays and have enough time on the side to have several jobs at once.

    Although ive had to sit through boring politics classes listening to how my MP rebelled against the Blair government, was dull.

    But still, theyre are people who earn a lot more for doing a lot less.
    I think it makes sense that the PM should be the highest paid public sector employee, but to compare it to the private sector is unfair - people complain about private sector salaries (which are passed on to the customer in the form of higher prices) by buying stuff from elsewhere, but we don't have that option in the public sector (where high salaries are passed on to us in the form of higher taxes) so clearly we have to be more vocal.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    I'm not saying they shouldn't use their expenses, but I think you should include their expenses on top of their base salary rather than saying 60k isn't much. Plus it isn't a full-time job in the way normal people would have a full time job - they get loads of holidays and have enough time on the side to have several jobs at once.

    I think it makes sense that the PM should be the highest paid public sector employee, but to compare it to the private sector is unfair - people complain about private sector salaries (which are passed on to the customer in the form of higher prices) by buying stuff from elsewhere, but we don't have that option in the public sector (where high salaries are passed on to us in the form of higher taxes) so clearly we have to be more vocal.
    1st: Expenses cant be generalised on every MP, some abuse them, some barely use them. So theyre only relative to the argument, but cant really be used overall.

    2nd: I didnt say anything about private sector, im all for businesses paying what they like etc, i was talking about public sector jobs paying alot for less.
    Example being: Some london underground train drivers earn 60,000, you can thank the twit Bob Crowe for that one, whereas London Bus Drivers earn something nearer to 30,000.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    2 ****ing million in expenses? Are you serious?! :eek:
    Yes Farage was bragging about how much he gets to add to reasoning why we should drop out of the EU. A lot of money isn't it?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.