Here we go again

Guinness · 24-10-2012, 15:29

Don't they ever learn...yet another expense scandal is breaking that they claim 'is within the rules' but so against 'the spirit of the rules'

Pigs feeding at the trough

If anyone on benefits were caught doing this they'd end up in pokey

I will never a long as I live put my X against any of the major political parties candidates again. I'm sick to the back teeth of the sleazebags that infest our political system, the double standards, the lies, the misinformation and the false promises. So many of our politicians behave like third world dictators

Expenses scandal: 27 MPs let one home and claim for another - Telegraph

Shadow health minister Andy Burnham caught up in new expenses row | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk

Rent-Swapper MacShame Exposed - Guy Fawkes' blog

Wynonie Harris · 24-10-2012, 17:15

...and the Speaker tried to prevent the publication of the identities of MPs involved in this nice little earner. Disgraceful. I wonder if Accyweb members of the Conservative and Labour parties will come on here and give their opinions on this?

Ssshhh...I can hear the sound of a pin dropping.

ToffeeGuy · 24-10-2012, 23:09

The simple fact is, and it is a difficult one for most taxpayers to swallow, that MPs aren't paid enough. I'll say that again, they aren't paid enough.

Since the 1980s MPs have been scared to award themselves pay rises which are commensurate with the job they are doing and in line with other high level public and private sector jobs. This was due to an expected backlash from taxpayers.

Therefore, as far as I can see, the expenses system was used to 'top-up' MPs salaries to a level which they should have been at if they had kept in line with other occupations during the past 30 years.

The answer to this is for MPs to be on a salary which is at the same level as other occupations. However, MPs are afraid to do this due to voter outrage. Perhaps the voters have to be a bit more mature about their attitudes to MPs.

The simple fact is that to attract the best people you have to pay the best money. I know the public like to belittle MPs but some of them are highly qualified people who are lawyers, businessmen etc in the wider world. They should be rewarded to this level in order to get the best.

People could also argue that it should be a vocation, but that is an idealist point of view. Look at the current lot. We are getting either career politicians (who have one eye on a lucrative career post-Westminster) or rich Tory boys with trust funds. We need to be attracting heads of business, headmasters, doctors, lawyers into Parliament but why should they come if the financial recompence isn't there?

Wynonie Harris · 25-10-2012, 00:02

So a salary of £60,000 +, plus generous (legitimate) expenses, plus the sort of pension fund most of us can only dream of isn't enough? Not only that, their work load has actually gone down over the years as they hand more and more of our sovereign powers over to the corrupt, unaccountable EU that you love so much.

Nice try at a wind-up but I'm not biting!

Barrie Yates · 25-10-2012, 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

So a salary of £60,000 +, plus generous (legitimate) expenses, plus the sort of pension fund most of us can only dream of isn't enough? Not only that, their work load has actually gone down over the years as they hand more and more of our sovereign powers over to the corrupt, unaccountable EU that you love so much.

Nice try at a wind-up but I'm not biting!

One must also take into account the additional earnings as "Advisors" or similar which many have - allegedely our own MP rakes in £10,000 per annum as some sort of advisor, and he is low down the scale.
Also, if people in business performed to the same standards - such as screwing the economy and flogging off our gold reserves, do you think they would still retain the same position - No, they would have been sacked, and not all with a gold plated pension.

ToffeeGuy · 25-10-2012, 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

So a salary of £60,000 +, plus generous (legitimate) expenses, plus the sort of pension fund most of us can only dream of isn't enough? Not only that, their work load has actually gone down over the years as they hand more and more of our sovereign powers over to the corrupt, unaccountable EU that you love so much.

Nice try at a wind-up but I'm not biting!

Many Headmasters get paid more that £100,000 with some doctors getting near to £200,000.

I agree it is more than most of us can ever dream of. But so is the salary of those I've stated plus those of business people and lawyers. There should be an incentive for high-ranking professionals with a working knowledge of health, business, law and education to enter parliament.

£60,000 is a lot of money but, to state the obvious, it is a precarious position where for some it is only really guaranteed for 4 or 5 years, excluding safe seats. Why should a Headmaster step down from a relatively safe job and career progression, then take a pay cut, for what could only be four years?

Wynonie Harris · 25-10-2012, 01:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

Many Headmasters get paid more that £100,000 with some doctors getting near to £200,000.

I agree it is more than most of us can ever dream of. But so is the salary of those I've stated plus those of business people and lawyers. There should be an incentive for high-ranking professionals with a working knowledge of health, business, law and education to enter parliament.

£60,000 is a lot of money but, to state the obvious, it is a precarious position where for some it is only really guaranteed for 4 or 5 years, excluding safe seats. Why should a Headmaster step down from a relatively safe job and career progression, then take a pay cut, for what could only be four years?

Strange then, that there's never any shortage of candidates, including many from lucrative jobs, whenever an election (or bye-election) rolls around. The fact is that £60,000 is only the basic salary and MPs can bump up their dosh by far more than this. As for the "precariousness" of their position, there's always some well-paid job on some committee, quango or other talking shop at the end of a parliamentary career...not to mention the ultimate prize - a seat on the EU gravy train which opens the floodgates to a life of well-padded luxury and considerable financial rewards at the expense of the poor old taxpayer. Just ask the Welsh windbag and his wife!

Margaret Pilkington · 25-10-2012, 07:17

As wel las the money they get as an MP they are frequently 'employed'(if that is the right word) in a consultancy capacity...they can employ their wives and families....they need to live in the real world, they need to know the difficulties that their constituents face every single day.

Doctors and headmasters actually contribute to the fabric of society........I'm not really convinced that MP's do.

cashman · 25-10-2012, 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

Many Headmasters get paid more that £100,000 with some doctors getting near to £200,000.

I agree it is more than most of us can ever dream of. But so is the salary of those I've stated plus those of business people and lawyers. There should be an incentive for high-ranking professionals with a working knowledge of health, business, law and education to enter parliament.

£60,000 is a lot of money but, to state the obvious, it is a precarious position where for some it is only really guaranteed for 4 or 5 years, excluding safe seats. Why should a Headmaster step down from a relatively safe job and career progression, then take a pay cut, for what could only be four years?

Rubbish, High ranking professionals earn good money and earn it. How the hell can yeh call n M.P. one of those? What rank or degree do yeh need to be n M.P.? Joe Bloggs off the street can be one,if hes got political leanings, He certainly cannot just become a High Ranking Professional.

churchfcrules · 25-10-2012, 08:05

we require so called "high ranking professionals" to run the country, if we want it run as a business, but what about if we want it run as a country, a place where we all want to live work and play?

would mps not serve their constituents better if they didnt get paid, and only received "out of pocket expenses", if you care about something and you believe in it strongly enough, would you not do it for free, as some of you know i ran a football club for 8 years, for free, for the love of it, for the joy it gave me and others. do others not do charitable work for free because they believe in the cause, are these not the kind of people that we want representing us, rather than career politicians?

i cant remember the last time i saw a politician who had "passion", they are all scared of upsetting someone and losing their "job", so take the job away in the first place, in this day and age we could have "video parliament" no need to have everyone in one place, it could be done in the evenings, allowing people to work, i realise cabinet members do have a little more work to do, but not many of them compared to how many mps we have.

Ken Moss · 25-10-2012, 11:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

would mps not serve their constituents better if they didnt get paid, and only received "out of pocket expenses", if you care about something and you believe in it strongly enough, would you not do it for free, as some of you know i ran a football club for 8 years, for free, for the love of it, for the joy it gave me and others. do others not do charitable work for free because they believe in the cause, are these not the kind of people that we want representing us, rather than career politicians?

i cant remember the last time i saw a politician who had "passion", they are all scared of upsetting someone and losing their "job", so take the job away in the first place, in this day and age we could have "video parliament" no need to have everyone in one place, it could be done in the evenings, allowing people to work, i realise cabinet members do have a little more work to do, but not many of them compared to how many mps we have.

Rather you than me. Jaysay has said several times on Accyweb that if you pay peanuts you only get monkeys.

I've said many times before that I wouldn't fancy being an MP due to the work involved and having seen the pace of Graham's life since he became the Hyndburn member that's pretty much sealed it for me. Your life is even less your own than as a Councillor and unless you live in London to start with it is a huge upheaval spending so much time away from your family. £60k+ sounds like a fortune and compared to most in the North West it is but even those at the top level don't get the massive perks that the general public perceive.

Personally speaking, I was glad when the expenses scandal broke because there were those who were milking the system for all that they could get and were caught red-handed. It made national politics accountable for the first time once the public started asking where their money was going and cleaned up a system open to abuse. If some MPs are still trying to get more out than they should then they really only have themselves to blame once they're caught out.

Local politics has undergone the same reformation and if you look at the expenses claims being made by certain Councillors over the years you can see who is only taking what they are due and those 'who have to live'.

Members' Allowances

DaveinGermany · 25-10-2012, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

I've said many times before that I wouldn't fancy being an MP due to the work involved and having seen the pace of Graham's life since he became the Hyndburn member that's pretty much sealed it for me. Your life is even less your own than as a Councillor and unless you live in London to start with it is a huge upheaval spending so much time away from your family. £60k+ sounds like a fortune and compared to most in the North West it is but even those at the top level don't get the massive perks that the general public perceive.

Really, try telling that to the Infantryman patrolling in Nar-e-saraj & living in a mud hut compound.

Salary

As you will no doubt be aware, there is a rank system in operation within the British Army and, as such, pay scales often go along with that ranking. Other factors include your length of service and what specific specialities you pick up too.

New recruits in training earn around £13,000 a year, for the duration of their training

Privates can look to earn anything from £15,000 to £18,000 a year, rising up to around £19-20,000 on first promotion to Lance Corporal.

Higher ranks go on an incremental scale, with senior ranks earning up to £45,000 per annum.

Of course, these figures are rough guides only and can change dependent on the factors already mentioned above.

Responsibilities

The work of an infantry soldier is varied depending on where they are day-to-day, but basic duties can include:

If on base, keeping fitness levels up and attending briefings, lectures and other training as required
Keeping weapons clean and functional
Patrols around areas if on deployment, including reconaissance work such as taking in information on the area of patrol and reporting back
Carrying out operations as directed by officers and superiors, including aggressive actions
Assisting with humanitarian and/or peacekeeping efforts, supervising food deliveries or guarding important buildings, for example

Working Conditions

The working conditions for an infantry soldier can at times be stressful and dangerous. The majority of an infantry soldier's work is conducted out of doors, with fitness training, and patrol and mission duties predominantly carried out there. As the army have presence everywhere from the deserts of the Middle East to the windswept islands of The Falklands, conditions will vary enormously. Even when not on deployment there will be a lot of training for an infantry soldier to attend and a lot of this will be conducted out-of-doors too. Having said that, modern army bases are well equipped and have a range of conveniences, so an infantry soldier's free time need not be spent in tedium.
As touched on before, an infantry soldier's job is one that requires nerve and endurance, as well as physical ability. Especially when carrying out a mission, the work can be perilous and will require great reserves of physical fitness. Combat zones are, by their very nature, fraught and dangerous, and there will be times, as an infantry soldier, when you will have to work within them.
Finally, to nail down hours for an infantry soldier is a difficult task. When on exercise or on operations, hours can be highly irregular and/or long, dependent on the situation. Normal hours on a base begin early morning and can go on until the evening, again, dependent on what training and work you are carrying out at the time.

So, try again to convince me that politicians are value for money.

Ken Moss · 25-10-2012, 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Really, try telling that to the Infantryman patrolling in Nar-e-saraj & living in a mud hut compound.

So, try again to convince me that politicians are value for money.

We could all copy and paste examples of other pay structures but we're talking about MPs here. I would never knock our armed forces but it's still not an argument that I regard as valid when comparing two completely different jobs.

However, for much the same reason in both cases I wouldn't step into either line of fire.

Margaret Pilkington · 25-10-2012, 13:13

It seems that those who give the most(giving your life for your country - well, you can't give more than that, can you?)get the least, both in financial terms, and in terms of recognition and respect.
But then some people do not live their lives with a constant eye on 'what's in it for me'.
Doing the deed, the job of work, is a reward in itself.
Somewhere along the way the values of the world seem to have become skewed....and the mighty dollar/pound/euro has become the be all and end all.

All our politicians(the major players anyway) seem to be 'career politicians'.......not many of them have done a proper job.
They have no concept of what it is like to be on a fixed income and struggle to make ends meet....perhaps if they did they would be more 'human'...more compassionate even.

DaveinGermany · 25-10-2012, 13:29

Different jobs Ken ? Two sides of the same coin, servants of the public I think you'll find they're both supposed to be, looking out for the best interests & defence of the British people, their way of life. To stand up for & defend to the very last instance, despite personal feelings or concerns, it ain't always beer & skittles, some times you've got to man up & take your hits so the folks back home don't have to.

Far as I can see there's only one group of these public servants, taking the kickings for Joe public & it isn't the gob she-ites in Westminster. Hell they've not even got the balls to fight for our Countries rights when the enemy is just bandying about words ! Politicians make all the noises, spout rhetoric & threats but who is it that has to sort the problem in the end ? Aye, the 18 year old with the rifle !

So again I ask you, who's the better value for money ?