The Student Room Group

MPs set for a 10% payrise

What to do you think? Apparently David Cameron is opposed to this... Hmm

Scroll to see replies

Regardless of whether he'd opposed to it, it's something that MPs cannot stop, because a few years ago, it was deemed wrong for MPs to set their own pay.

So those who criticise MPs for 'accepting' this pay rise need to explain why they think MPs should be allowed to set their own pay again.
I think it's wrong.

Not that high MP wages are bad, they prevent corruption (Rifkind etc.), but not at this time.
Reply 3
Original post by gladders
Regardless of whether he'd opposed to it, it's something that MPs cannot stop, because a few years ago, it was deemed wrong for MPs to set their own pay.

So those who criticise MPs for 'accepting' this pay rise need to explain why they think MPs should be allowed to set their own pay again.


It's not whether they're wrong to accept it, it's whether whoever it is that sets their pay is right/wrong to give them a payrise. At this point in time, there are TONS of people who are struggling to make ends meet, there's a rise in the usage of food banks etc, so why does whoever it is that's proposing a payrise think it's a good idea when millions of people across the country are struggling.
Original post by stemmery
It's not whether they're wrong to accept it, it's whether whoever it is that sets their pay is right/wrong to give them a payrise. At this point in time, there are TONS of people who are struggling to make ends meet, there's a rise in the usage of food banks etc, so why does whoever it is that's proposing a payrise think it's a good idea when millions of people across the country are struggling.


Forgive me, elsewhere I have been faced with endless attacks on the Members as if they had greedily engineered this offer and that they should be 'made' to reject it.

I have no strong opinion either way personally, as British MPs are quite modestly paid on an international comparison and politically there is never an acceptable time to increase their wages. The objection you offer I can expect to be made at any future time.
Original post by gladders
politically there is never an acceptable time to increase their wages.


I think this is a good point.

No one ever agrees with higher MP wages, but they need to be done. I guess one of my conflicts with this is that it's faster than the inflation increase, and that the economy is still smaller than in 2008 when the wages were the same, so theoretically they didn't make anything better, but that doesn't mean they can't get a rise.
I think we should sort out our own problems before we start giving anyone in parliament a pay rise.
Reply 7
Not really bothered by it. Basic MP salary seems fairly low for what the job should entail. Most people also seem opposed to MP's working second jobs, either we can have well paid MP's or they can work two jobs, pick one.
There are only 650 MPs in the UK. The extra annual spending on their salary due to this increase is absolutely tiny in comparison to many other issues; an extra 15p per taxpayer per year. Compare this to Trident, which costs each taxpayer £80 per year. Being an MP is a high pressure and important job, which puts you under the spotlight of the media in, usually, a negative manner - you are accountable for everything (as a collective). They all fought hard in the General Election to earn their seat.

Let them have their pay rise.
Reply 9
Original post by stemmery
It's not whether they're wrong to accept it, it's whether whoever it is that sets their pay is right/wrong to give them a payrise. At this point in time, there are TONS of people who are struggling to make ends meet, there's a rise in the usage of food banks etc, so why does whoever it is that's proposing a payrise think it's a good idea when millions of people across the country are struggling.


The compensation package isn't rising though is it?
Original post by Star Light
There are only 650 MPs in the UK.Being an MP is a high pressure and important job,


Yes I can imagine how the 5 Sinn Fein MPs struggle to cope under all the pressure they have from visiting the Parliament weekly and answering to their constituents.
Yet again we'll get the same fallacies trotted out. Like "increasing their pay stops corruption" or "they'll do a better job if they're paid more".

Increasing MPs pay will not stop the sort of scandals we've seen, like cash for access. They will still do that sort of thing because they still like the extra money. They do that out of greed, not need.

And if you just increase the pay for all existing MPs, that will not improve quality of politicians at all - you're just paying them all more regardless of how good a job they're doing, and the bad ones won't improve because they've suddenly got more money. Improving quality should come before any pay rise, not after.


I'm not the sort of person who wants MPs to live off a minimum wage - you want people on low incomes to be able to afford to get into politics, they do an important job, and they do spend a lot of time in London where the cost of living is higher. But let's not be in any doubt here - they are already paid quite a lot of money and are not struggling financially at all. You also need to take expenses into account.
Look at it this way: if they're paid more, we can expect more of them and hold them accountable to an even higher degree.
Reply 13
Original post by Reluire
Look at it this way: if they're paid more, we can expect more of them and hold them accountable to an even higher degree.


But over the Parliament we can expect less of our ministers and hold them to account to a lower degree?
They can have a below inflation pay rise like so many in the country :mad:

But on the other hand it is fine for the likes of David Cameron who has a load of money anyway.
Reply 15
Original post by Reluire
Look at it this way: if they're paid more, we can expect more of them and hold them accountable to an even higher degree.


How? If they're paid more, they'll still be doing the same thing they're doing now, just earning more money from it. If for example, they went above and beyond what their job entails and actually made significant progress in what they're doing, then they would have earned that payrise, but I don't know whether they have or not.

Your logic is flawed, if a singer is paid more, does that mean we should expect better music from them?

Pay-rise's should be earned, not just given out randomly and unnecessarily. Being an MP is a job, just like every other job available, so pay-rises should be treated and given in the same way as they would in any other job. I don't recall people working in many other jobs/sectors being given 10% pay rise for doing the same job they've been doing the whole time.
Apparently some of the senior MP's have promised to give that 10% to charities, at least that's what I head on the radio in my car this morning. It may only mean a small amount, but I would rather see other people get a 10% pay rise. Not MP's.
David Cameron must make it clear that Tory MPs must not accept this money. Give it to children's cancer charities.
Original post by Quady
But over the Parliament we can expect less of our ministers and hold them to account to a lower degree?


Ministers are MPs too if I'm not mistaken?

Original post by stemmery
How? If they're paid more, they'll still be doing the same thing they're doing now, just earning more money from it. If for example, they went above and beyond what their job entails and actually made significant progress in what they're doing, then they would have earned that payrise, but I don't know whether they have or not.

Your logic is flawed, if a singer is paid more, does that mean we should expect better music from them?

Pay-rise's should be earned, not just given out randomly and unnecessarily. Being an MP is a job, just like every other job available, so pay-rises should be treated and given in the same way as they would in any other job. I don't recall people working in many other jobs/sectors being given 10% pay rise for doing the same job they've been doing the whole time.


The more they effectively 'take' from the tax payer, the more the tax payer can expect to receive in return. MPs aren't paid on an individual basis, so there's no way to make a reward incentive work. If not Caroline Lucas, for example, would be rolling in it.

How can you compare being in the entertainment industry to being a civil servant? Different careers with totally different expectations and demands.

An independent commission determined they were worthy of the pay rise, so we have to trust that.
Reply 19
Original post by Reluire
Ministers are MPs too if I'm not mistaken?



The more they effectively 'take' from the tax payer, the more the tax payer can expect to receive in return. MPs aren't paid on an individual basis, so there's no way to make a reward incentive work. If not Caroline Lucas, for example, would be rolling in it.

How can you compare being in the entertainment industry to being a civil servant? Different careers with totally different expectations and demands.

An independent commission determined they were worthy of the pay rise, so we have to trust that.


I was giving an example, your logic is flawed.
I understand that but 10% is too much and you know it's a sh*tty move when even the MPs themselves are against it, what does that tell you?
The fact that there are so many people who get at best a 1% rise for doing their jobs which some can be incredibly demanding and stressful etc, shows how unfair the idea of MPs getting a pay rise is. Not to say that their job isn't stressful or demanding, I'm sure it is, but 10% is a lot. Especially when they already earn a fair good amount of money, I'm sure none of them are struggling to get by in life.

Quick Reply

Latest