Conservative MP Speaks Out About £81k Salary

Watch
hotpud
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 week ago
#21
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Yet given that the expenses of their job are covered, including the home they live in, I'd say that their current salary is far more than enough to compensate them for this work. I'd be laughing with an £80k salary on top of having my staff, office and accomodation all paid for.
Oh - hang on. Not quite. Yes, they used to be able to do all sorts of dodgy dealings but I think that has stopped. They get expenses to accommodation either in London or in their constituency which is entirely reasonable and only in line with anyone who as ever travelled with a company. Similarly, they get expenses for running the office that helps them perform their duties... just like GPs get. GPs get a wodge of money but some of that is used to provide a surgery with nursing and admin staff.

I am sure that as an MP, you could live on expenses but that is a pretty rubbish life. Having a home to go home to is another matter all together. If you have ever done any extended travel for business you will know that eating out every night starts to become pretty wearisome.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 week ago
#22
I saw a rather funny article where a comedian started a go fund me page for him and his poor tottering finances :lol:
Some great jokes coming out of this as well, the one about their being panic buying of tiny violins being a goody
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 week ago
#23
(Original post by hotpud)
You are right. MPs don't run the country. But they do hold the executive to account. They are also a strong voice and advocate for constituents who need help in all manner of issues. They can also raise concerns to the executive. I think you will find MPs work much harder than you think and during the week can be called into parliament to vote at 10pm. Hardly family hours.
Tbh 10pm isn't some sort of god forsaken hour of the night and if they want family hours they should get a different job.

Also my MP only sits 41 hrs a week when he is back in the constituency. If we're generous and assume that they work 50 weeks a year at an average of 50 hours, they will be making £32 an hour + expenses and staff.
3
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 week ago
#24
While he is not wrong that some MP's must take a paycut to serve in parliament and that being a good MP is an incredibly time consuming and difficult job (note I used the word good, some do sit on their majorities) it is sadly statements like this that demonstrate stupidity and a lack of political intelligence.

Moreover while I would only freeze their salaries, being an MP is an honour and as alluded to this is a salary more than twice the national average. I have little sympathy and invite him to stand aside.
3
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 week ago
#25
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
I completely agree that it is a completely out of touch and stupid comment by a senile old fool.

That said I agree that MPs should be paid more with the caveat that it should be paid for by reducing the number of MPs (and HoL) by half.

Whilst it's a popular idea that MPs should be paid less or on minimum wage in practise that would mean that only wealthy people with additional incomes could afford to be an MP and corruption would be an increasingly attractive proposition (much more than it already is)
Agree fully with this. If you can find yourself a tory safe seat in the shires, you basically have a very cushty job for life because you'll never be voted out, just acting as lobby fodder.

Oh and elect them using PR.
Last edited by DSilva; 1 week ago
3
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 week ago
#26
(Original post by DSilva)
Agree fully with this. If you can find yourself a tory safe seat in the shires, you basically have a very cushty job for life because you'll never be voted out, just acting as lobby fodder.

Oh and elect them using PR.
Don’t forget. Then you’ll get pedalled into the lords so you can pick up your daily fee for doing absolutely next to nothing.
1
reply
hotpud
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 week ago
#27
(Original post by Gaddafi)
Tbh 10pm isn't some sort of god forsaken hour of the night and if they want family hours they should get a different job.

Also my MP only sits 41 hrs a week when he is back in the constituency. If we're generous and assume that they work 50 weeks a year at an average of 50 hours, they will be making £32 an hour + expenses and staff.
What an arrogant thing to say. There are 19.4 million family households in the UK. Why shouldn't those households be represented in parliament? The workings of the parliament date back to the days when gentlemen of honour and riches ruled the country. Is that really how you think a modern parliament should work?

And yes - 41 hours of sitting in the house + any constituency work which for the majority of MPs forms the basis of their role.
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
(Original post by hotpud)
What an arrogant thing to say. There are 19.4 million family households in the UK. Why shouldn't those households be represented in parliament? The workings of the parliament date back to the days when gentlemen of honour and riches ruled the country. Is that really how you think a modern parliament should work?

And yes - 41 hours of sitting in the house + any constituency work which for the majority of MPs forms the basis of their role.
Those households should be and are represented in Parliament. Those who represent those households shouldn't be demanding easy treatment and flexible hours though. If you want to be at home playing around with your kids or getting pregnant, that's all fine and dandy but don't get elected. Don't bother standing then. You have the public to serve.

Frankly I do think a modern parliament should work like this.

Also, you didn't read my comment properly, I said "my MP only sits 41 hrs a week when he is back in the constituency". This is when he is in his office in my town not London. So for a good chunk of the year he has a 41hr week for £6827 monthly salary.

In Parliament they sit for less then 41hrs a week.
Last edited by Gaddafi; 1 week ago
0
reply
hotpud
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#29
Report 6 days ago
#29
(Original post by Gaddafi)
Those households should be and are represented in Parliament. Those who represent those households shouldn't be demanding easy treatment and flexible hours though.
Why not? Why does the house need to sit till 10pm when it starts at 12am? Why couldn't the house start sitting at a normal time like 9am and worth through till 5 / 6pm like every other "normal" office in the country. Why do MPs have to continue with the medieval practice of working through a lobby to have their vote counted?

You are talking like a dinosaur.
0
reply
Talkative Toad
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#30
Report 6 days ago
#30
(Original post by Rakas21)
While he is not wrong that some MP's must take a paycut to serve in parliament and that being a good MP is an incredibly time consuming and difficult job (note I used the word good, some do sit on their majorities) it is sadly statements like this that demonstrate stupidity and a lack of political intelligence.

Moreover while I would only freeze their salaries, being an MP is an honour and as alluded to this is a salary more than twice the national average. I have little sympathy and invite him to stand aside.
(Original post by Gaddafi)
Tbh 10pm isn't some sort of god forsaken hour of the night and if they want family hours they should get a different job.

Also my MP only sits 41 hrs a week when he is back in the constituency. If we're generous and assume that they work 50 weeks a year at an average of 50 hours, they will be making £32 an hour + expenses and staff.
Fully agreed with both if you. MPs are overpaid (maybe not all of them but some have got to go).
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 6 days ago
#31
While £80k is certainly more than enough to get by comfortably and should enough to avoid temptation of corruption, it isn't a reliable income. Sure, you get your minimum 5 years, but then it could all drop off because your party leader said something stupid and loses the next election in a landslide.

However, I think a decent MP who was elected against through no fault of their own should have no problem getting a job elsewhere. Even the dishonest Nick Clegg and criminal Chris Huhne of the Lib Dems managed it when it was their fault they lost their seat, and as part of a second-string political party.

I don't think there's a justification to push it higher, and we could probably do with it being lower too. We don't really want to be attracting people whose primary concern is their own bank account, and actually, people who don't think £80k is enough are probably still going to want more money and be susceptible to bribery whatever you pay them.
1
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 5 days ago
#32
If anything I’d say it’s too low.

A person who has the calibre to win an election and do a good job as an MP in charge of a whole constituency could easily earn around double that amount of money in the private sector, going into consulting or law etc. There are kids in their 20’s earning that much basically just sitting at a desk and making PowerPoint slides or typing formulae into MS Excel. And that’s even before considering that an MP’s salary is very unstable in comparison; every 5 years is a new battle to hang onto your job.

For the people educated, qualified, skilled and experienced enough to do the job well, £81k is probably more likely to put them off than attract them. Sure, it’s much higher than the average salary in this country, but that’s to be expected; I would hope that when electing people to be leaders we’re not looking for average people.


Obviously the amount you can get paid in the public sector is always going to be more limited than in the private sector just based on affordability, so there’s not a lot we can do about it. But even still, I think that’s part of the reason why MPs always end up seeming to be so incompetent no matter who we vote for.
Last edited by tazarooni89; 5 days ago
1
reply
HansLuben
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 days ago
#33
Perhaps take a page out of New Hampshire's book and pay them almost nothing, or perhaps the average wage that citizens get instead, give them an incentive to raise it.
Last edited by HansLuben; 3 days ago
1
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 minute ago
#34
(Original post by SHallowvale)

The words 'totally out of touch' comes to mind.
How many GPs are there?

How many MPs are there?

One fewer than yesterday.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How are you feeling now you've started university?

I'm loving it! (45)
13.24%
I'm enjoying it but I'm still settling in (93)
27.35%
I'm a bit unsure (60)
17.65%
I'm finding things difficult (112)
32.94%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (30)
8.82%

Watched Threads

View All