Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Poll Result: MPs Pay

400 of you have voted in the MPs' pay poll.

25% think it should remain at £65,000
7 % think MPs shouldn't be paid at all
6% think MPs should get the national average wage
10% think MPs should be paid £45,000
18% think £80,000 is an appropriate remuneration
10% think £95,000 is the right figure
16% agree with Sir Patrick Cormack - £130k but no allowances

And one person emailed me to say he wanted to vote for £250,000 - seriously.

So al in all 25% say the current figure is right, 23% lower and 42% higher. I am not sure those figures would be reflected in the population as a whole. Has any national polling company done any work in this area?


Rob said...

It wasn't Alan Duncan who emailed you was it?

Man in the Street said...

Talking of arseholes, remind me again why the fuc* Iraq was invaded.

Soho Politico said...

"And one person emailed me to say he wanted to vote for £250,000 - seriously."

In regular contact with Alan Duncan, are we?

Sten Hankewitz said...

I was one who voted for 130K and no allowances for one reason: no allowances.

I actually think they should have an optimal salary - be it 70-80K, or perhaps even 100K (130 sounds like too much), BUT they should not, I repeat, NOT have any allowance system. I.e. the salary is all they get and what they do with it is their business, but there would not be any idiotic allowance system that they could find ways to abuse.

Perhaps tying the MPs' salary to national average would be a good idea? There are countries where MPs' salary is, for example 4 times national average salary. That would of course mean that they get more money when the national average rises, and when their salary rises, the national average rises, too, but sometimes national average declines as well.

I honestly don't know which is the best system for calculating the MPs' salary, but I do know this - there should be no allowance system, no claiming "expenses" for anything. Just salary, and they would have to manage with that.

Magic Bath said...

I wouldn't mind if MPs earned £250,000 a year. By and large people aren't overly concerned that even rubbish footballers earn more than that a year, and all they do is kick a ball. Frank Lampard earns over £7 million a year.

Anonymous said...

What about the £120,000pa option that I think I voted for?

Unknown said...

I voted for £120,000 also!

Old Codger said...

Only just arrived here so too late for the poll.

I believe the current salary is just about right but should be reduced since the next government will have to tackle public sector pay and pensions. MPs pensions should be replaced with a money purchase scheme with the taxpayer's contributions no more than the MPs contributions. All allowances should be covered by a single allowance set at a level which enables someone from the lower income groups to be an MP without suffering more than minimal inconvenience. This requirement should be laid down in law.

Quietzapple said...

MPs in Inner London don't need second homes. If there are to be no expenses it is crazy to pay them the same as those who live further away.

It would make being a London MP unduly advantageous, when politics are already too London centric.

There are acres of cheap office space in London, so the need for a localish office is not a compensating item.

Nor is the need for a place to hold surgeries a balancing item: some Drs are holding the odd private surgery, market research companies interviewing in suitable premises rentable by the hour/day.

Nope, some sort of expense system is necessary.

Anonymous said...

Iain, I'm afraid YOU have muddied the waters by including the 130k with no allowances option.

If you knock that out, it looks a bit more like a...

Quarter saying Stick
Quarter saying Twist
Quarter saying Lower, lower

So generally the balance seems to be with sticking...

There doesn't seem to be an appetite to increase the total amount they are paid [if you factor in allowances..]

Lord Blagger said...

Why no mention of performance related pay?

Perhaps its because their performance is so crap.

7.2 trillion in debt, off the books.

0.8 trillion on the books.


Boo said...

I have a simple solution. Cut down the number of MPs, and divide the remaining salary between those that remain.
While the salary costs would remain the same, you would still save money by reducing overheads

Anonymous said...

Not a bad idea Boo.

I think pay them a salary and only expenses allowed are travel ones. Must be completely transparent.

Anonymous said...

All give MPs government owned property furnished in London. If MPs want to upgrade their furniture let them pay for it themselves.

Unknown said...

Is £250,000 any more ridiculous a suggestion than the that of the cretins who said that they shouldn't be paid at all?