krugerandsmith Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 My newbie Tory MP stood up in front of the camera and said, "This was awarded by an independent body, so I'm taking it." I'm so proud I voted UKIP! An independent body set up by the Government. The leader of this body receives £600 per day for 28 weeks..... Question.... would this man upset our MPs ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krugerandsmith Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 A lot of rig workers are on that kind of money. And deserve it. No risk of sour gas in the commons or offshore fires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krugerandsmith Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Given the job they are doing £74k is very low, i know they have all sorts of extras in housing allowance, travel, staff etc but its a highly responsible position £74k is a middle managers pay where i work Seniors or Heads of Department £90 - £140k and that's not based in London Most use their own families as staff .... Nice work if you can get it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scutt Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Performance related I wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djrwood Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Given the job they are doing £74k is very low, i know they have all sorts of extras in housing allowance, travel, staff etc but its a highly responsible position £74k is a middle managers pay where i work Seniors or Heads of Department £90 - £140k and that's not based in London I though exactly the same as per my earlier posts. Just been discussing this with the bloke at work and he highlighted to me that the expense system allows the MPs to claim back the money to most of their general bills such as utilities, mortgage etc. Therefore the 74k is pretty much beer money to them. They also have great opportunities in terms of securing a very well paid job when their time in politics comes to an end. However, I still think 74k is fair for the job they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Given the job they are doing £74k is very low, i know they have all sorts of extras in housing allowance, travel, staff etc but its a highly responsible position £74k is a middle managers pay where i work Seniors or Heads of Department £90 - £140k and that's not based in London Roughly half what a doctor gets, Probably about a quarter of what most dentists earns, on the other hand you need no qualifications to be an MP and most of them should have other jobs as well. It was never intended to be a career in its own right in its original concept. The fact that many of them now make it a career is in many ways to the detriment of the parliamentary system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bb Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Has the UKIP MP turned it down then? OK, I'll re-phrase that. I'm so proud that (for the first time ever) I didn't vote for the one that got in and took the rise without question. For info, UKIP came a very creditable second in what is an amazingly Conservative safe seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 It's all relative IMHO. As someone who is bent over by the taxman every month because I'm on PAYE with no opportunity to claim seemingly everything, including the kitchen sink, I can't get worked up over it. Everyone seems to be on the fiddle, from the local self employed plumber to the boardroom of every FTSE100 company. Why wouldn't Westminster? Atb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 They could have double that If they were made accountable for their actions and faced reprocussions when they stuffed things up, if labour did truly cause so much financial trouble when they were in power as many folks believe I would like to see the people held responsible and made to pay, politicians seem to be able to waste public money on their pet projects and ideas and when it fails we are just supposed to swallow it and write it off and pick up the tab. Top company managers may get paid more but have a lot more responsibility than any politician, I think it's called "parliamentary privilige"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'm not really bothered what they earn, but are they worth a 10% rise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Don't forget Osborn will take half of this (tax/NI) for the majority of them which is a few million pa to pay benefits from! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pothunter Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 These days they don't get any extra expenses at all above actuals - cost of trains they actually take (standard class only), etc. They get £150 night max for hotel or rent in london, again actuals. They're not allowed to employ family or similar as staff. They don't get any income at all above their salary, which is less than that of the head of an average-sized primary school. These are the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypig Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 These days they don't get any extra expenses at all above actuals - cost of trains they actually take (standard class only), etc. They get £150 night max for hotel or rent in london, again actuals. They're not allowed to employ family or similar as staff. They don't get any income at all above their salary, which is less than that of the head of an average-sized primary school. These are the facts. What actually claiming back the amount spent on travel without a cheeky sweetener for your trouble..... No employing the wife or child as a special adviser......!!! Boo hoo cry me a river.... I agree they are underpaid but I think they should have the expenses regime they had given the public sector applied to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFC Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 I know 74k is not massive these days but I'm with those who condemn the idea that all public sector workers get 1% and they get 10%. They get expenses equivalent to another wage and a second home paid for plus they can have as many other jobs as they like. I would also take issue with the idea that they have a responsible job. It is the lobbyists and big business that actually run the country. Most policies are written by them. They hand over billions of pounds of taxpayers money to companies that are proven fraudsters, they lie through their eye teeth about PFI saving money when it costs three times as much to borrow money like that instead of borrowing at standard rates. IT provision, military procurement, the NHS and infrastructure is a total chaotic, unworkable expensive shambles. They gallop through a revolving door to take up seats on the boards of companies that they've awarded contracts to. By the time they do make any decisions then, whatever it is they were deciding, it is either outdated or obsolete When the proverbial hits the fan then they don't take responsibility for anything. Aaaanndd reeelax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krugerandsmith Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 And deserve it. No risk of sour gas in the commons or offshore fires. Forgot to mention the ...... Offshore survival and Fire course at Aberdeen. Now I would love to see the MPs pass that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pothunter Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 What actually claiming back the amount spent on travel without a cheeky sweetener for your trouble..... No employing the wife or child as a special adviser......!!! Boo hoo cry me a river.... I agree they are underpaid but I think they should have the expenses regime they had given the public sector applied to them. I agree I'm not saying the new regime is wrong. I'm just pointing out that the various previous posts saying they get "virtually unlimited" expenses, all employ their wives etc are wrong. These days that's all been stopped and they get no more than anybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pothunter Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 They get expenses equivalent to another wage and a second home paid for. This is simply not true any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
955i Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 This is simply not true any more. Or so they tell us Doesn't stop someone else employing their wives/families etc as long as its not your own!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 These days they don't get any extra expenses at all above actuals - cost of trains they actually take (standard class only), etc. They get £150 night max for hotel or rent in london, again actuals. They're not allowed to employ family or similar as staff. They don't get any income at all above their salary, which is less than that of the head of an average-sized primary school. These are the facts. The facts are much less interesting than conjecture, rhetoric and bile though. The expense policy is still good relative to other professions, but now it is measured and does just reflect expenses incurred and isn't a top up to income. I might actually go as far to say that the expense policy is now fair and representative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krugerandsmith Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 I agree I'm not saying the new regime is wrong. I'm just pointing out that the various previous posts saying they get "virtually unlimited" expenses, all employ their wives etc are wrong. These days that's all been stopped and they get no more than anybody else. And the band played .... Believe me if you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.