Quote:
Originally Posted by WHISTLED
Both silly ideas..
MP's dont pop to london for the odd day here and there, you cant expect them to live out of a suitcase.
Central admin would cause more problems than help - Same as it does in business, no account of your own priorities.
|
Lots of people live out of a suitcase and all they have is a basic salary, commission and travelling expenses.
What problems do you see with central admin? Lots of businesses manage with a mixture of typing pools, secretaries and PAs.
MPs forget that they are civil servants answerable to the electorate not political joyriders living a luxurious lifestyle at the expense of the taxpayers.
---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:32 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by frogstamper
I have to agree with this, on its own 50k is not a lot compared to jobs MPs could no doubt get in the city, but when you add pensions and expenses it adds up to a more realistic figure. It just comes across as under-hand the way MPs get their money, imo it should be payed in full and open to scrutiny, a realistic sum for a back-bench MP today would be around 100k.
|
There seems to be this ridiculous argument that if you pay somebody a vast salary they will automatically be more efficient. If that the case why is the Royal Mail failing when Adam Crozier's being paid millions.
We need to get Parliament and Public Services to get their heads out of the clouds and employing the long tested method that if you are not up to the job then you are sacked.
Too much public money is wasted on golden hellos, golden handshakes, overinflated salaries & overgenerous pensions. If MPs want 100K and perks let them earn it by giving us efficient, effective, transparent government characterized by high moral values and integrity.