MPs 10% pay rise to go through

[truman]

There aren't many jobs that require appointment by a selection panel of at least thousands,

 

No most jobs require interview by people who know what they are doing..

 

with staking the chance of keeping that job based on performance every 5 years

 

I'm appraised every year in my job and I won't get a 65k handshake if I'm kicked out because I don't come up to scratch..

 

, and which consist of engaging in law-making for the country

 

You mean going into which ever lobby the whips tell them to?

 

For all that, she's still more worthy of £74k than a head teacher is worthy of £78k to £110k.

 

Do you really believe that?

Edited July 17, 2015 by truman

[L00b]

No most jobs require interview by people who know what they are doing..

Well, ain't you just full of kind sentiments for the average voter?

I'm appraised every year in my job and I won't get a 65k handshake if I'm kicked out because I don't come up to scratch..

Who's stopping you going for a top civil servant slot?

You mean going into which ever lobby the whips tell them to?

I'm trying to have a grown up conversation here, and am really not interested in MP bashing on the back of populist sound bites.

 

If you believe that all an MP does for its £68k or £74k is turn up at the Commons and vote like the Whip says, I think we'd best leave it here

Do you really believe that?

Yes. But then, I appreciate what an MP does, day in day out, and know first hand what a head teacher does, day in day out. Ain't exactly a photo finish.

[Hesther]

MPs should not be receiving a 10% increase, when public sector pay is in effect frozen yet again. If the public sector increase is equivalent to 1% over four years, or whatever draconian offer they've presented in the last budget, then that is also what MPs should get. No more, no less.

 

Also, as school support staff in the public sector are all on pro rata salaries and don't get paid for school holidays, MPs should also be pro rata - they have more holidays than school staff. They should not be above the public sector deals they offer.

[truman]

MPs should not be receiving a 10% increase, when public sector pay is in effect frozen yet again. If the public sector increase is equivalent to 1% over four years, or whatever draconian offer they've presented in the last budget, then that is also what MPs should get. No more, no less.

 

Also, as school support staff in the public sector are all on pro rata salaries and don't get paid for school holidays, MPs should also be pro rata - they have more holidays than school staff. They should not be above the public sector deals they offer.

 

What holidays do MPs get?

[Hesther]

What holidays do MPs get?

 

For starters:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5187758/MPs-to-take-three-month-summer-holiday.html

[truman]

For starters:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5187758/MPs-to-take-three-month-summer-holiday.html

 

That's only when the HoC is closed..don't you think that they will be doing constituency work during that period? (Plus your article is 6 years old)

[alchemist]

£74k gross, with trimmed expenses and pension?

 

It's not that much at all for the job and responsibilities.

 

Superintendents, Headteachers and GPs get paid more.

 

What responsibilities do the backbenchers actually have? Apart from, that is, going where the whips tell them

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2015 at 13:13 ----------

 

How much experience/training/time served for them to get that...? Compare that to the 20 year old SNP MP.... do you think she's worth £74k of our money? Genuine question....

 

Nope, the newbies should be paid about the same as any new trainee teacher/nurse/policeman etc

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2015 at 13:15 ----------

 

She's quite the exception, so hardly worthy of making a point. 'Youngest MP ever, since records began' unless my memory fails me.

 

 

Shes only an exception of the newgies by age, the older ones have just as much parliamentary experiance. They should be paid a trainees wage. Their CV has nothing to do with it unless they have already served as an MP in a previous post of course

[L00b]

What responsibilities do the backbenchers actually have?

The same as any other MP.

 

MPs represent their constituency's interests in parliament when new laws or issues are debated, optionally reflecting their party's views and policies.

 

During a working day, they may typically:

• attend sessions in parliament
  
• debate issues and raise questions in parliament
  
• vote on new laws and policies
  
• sit on committees and attend meetings and conferences
  
• sit on boards of inquiries
  
• hold surgeries and advice sessions in their constituency
  
• take up constituents’ issues and concerns with relevant ministers
  
• visit people in places like schools and businesses to get insight into local issues
  
• study reports and research on relevant issues
  
• attend official functions and appointments (Mon-Sun)
  
• make speeches (Mon-Sun)
  
• give interviews to the media (Mon-Sun)

 

‘Sitting’ or meeting hours in the House of Commons are until 10.30pm on some evenings, and parliamentary debates sometimes continue into the night.

 

Subject to the party of belonging and the current Government majority in place, then they may also get the workload of a government minister. The MP's job doesn't go away with the ministerial post, it still needs to be done just the same (there is extra pay for the minister job).

Apart from, that is, going where the whips tell them

As I posted in reply to truman, if you believe that all an MP does for its £68k or £74k is turn up at the Commons and vote like the Whip says, I think we'd best leave it here.

Shes only an exception of the newgies by age, the older ones have just as much parliamentary experiance. They should be paid a trainees wage. Their CV has nothing to do with it unless they have already served as an MP in a previous post of course

I didn't bring the CV (or, well, 'pay according to experience') into it, truman suggested it and I asked him to clarify.

 

Pay peanuts, get monkeys. Do you really want UK law to be made by monkeys?

[truman]

Pay peanuts, get monkeys. Do you really want UK law to be made by monkeys?

 

Does paying more guarantee better performance?

[L00b]

Does paying more guarantee better performance?

Not always, but it frequently does.

 

e.g. (i) you can pay me £4k for a full patent specification of a standard suitable for filing as any or all of a UK, US, European or international patent application and eventually prosecuting to grant;

 

or (ii) you can pay (some of) the competition £1.5k for a 3 pages patent specification of a standard suitable to secure a date of filing in the UK but hardly suitable for prosecuting to grant, and they'll be knocking on your door before 12 months is up to 'do it properly for the UK, US, EP, PCT' for £4k;

 

or (iii) you can do-it-all-yourself at the cost of your own time, and (in my experience, typically-) output a patent specification of a standard substantially according to (ii, initial version, unsuitable for prosecution) above.

 

You pays your money, you gets your value, so says Life 101 since the year dot

 

But, topically, the job of MP is not exactly a commodity-type service, last time I checked, so quality of performance is unlikely to scale very much (linearly or otherwise) whether you're paying them £68k or £74k. No MP (and MEP and Député) that I've met personally, has ever looked or seemed to me to be the type who does the job for the pay/perks.

Edited July 17, 2015 by L00b