MP's Pay

Originally Posted by Chris

According to the Coalition Agreement, by now we should have been looking forward to a Commons made up of no more than 500 MPs - a reduction of about 150 from today's numbers. Unfortunately, Nick Clegg threw his rattle out of the pram when Lords reform fell through and ensured Commons reform also failed. This despite commons reform being a Lib Dem manifesto pledge in 2010 and a long-standing Lib Dem wish for years even before that.

The Liberal Democrats are duplicitous, cheap-talking opportunists and (horror of horrors) I am beginning to think that single party government is so much more desirable than coalition that a term of a purely Labour administration would be preferable to any government in which any Lib Dem played a part.

The Liberal Democrats pulled commons reform as the Conservatives pulled Lords reform breaking the agreement they had. It's neither throwing your 'rattle out of the pram' nor 'duplicitous' to withhold your side of the agreement if the other party has already broken theres. Additionally the manifesto commitment specified they wanted to reduce MPs by changing the voting system, not by boundary reform as the Conservatives wanted. So when the referendum failed they came up with the agreement to reform the boundary changes in exchange for their other manifesto commitment, Lords reform.

You may wish the Liberal Democrats were not in Government but they are as the Conservatives failed to secure a majority even when set up against a unpopular and ineffective Prime Minster presiding over one of the largest economic busts in decades. As a result the Tories need to govern in coalition with the Lib Dems and if they cannot do that, if they are presumptions enough to expect to break an agreement whilst still getting what they asked for in return, then they're going to see some of their policies fail.

Besides manifestos are largely useless. The Conservatives had a commitment to protecting civil liberties and rolling back Labour's intrusive state. What a joke that turned out to be.

I'm sorry but that makes about as much sense as throwing a hissy fit because you don't like the colour of your bus in the morning. It will still get you where you need to be - in the case of the Lib Dems, they either believe in reducing the number of MPs or they don't. They had the opportunity to achieve it but put score-settling on the agenda instead.

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm sorry but that makes about as much sense as throwing a hissy fit because you don't like the colour of your bus in the morning. It will still get you where you need to be - in the case of the Lib Dems, they either believe in reducing the number of MPs or they don't. They had the opportunity to achieve it but put score-settling on the agenda instead.

The Tories could have prevented it by upholding their side of the agreement. What's the point of making your support of something conditional on getting something else in return if you go ahead and doing it anyway when that agreement is broken? It's just an invitation to not be taken seriously for the rest of the Parliament.

Originally Posted by Damien

The Tories could have prevented it by upholding their side of the agreement. What's the point of making your support of something conditional on getting something else in return if you go ahead and doing it anyway when that agreement is broken? It's just an invitation to not be taken seriously for the rest of the Parliament.

As the headmaster said to the pupil, whilst thrashing him with a cane, "this is hurting me more than it's hurting you ... "

This actually has nothing to do with the Tories at all, unless you're happy to swallow the Liberal Democrat excuses for ratting on their principles in order to score political points.

Certainly, in the context of reduced numbers of MPs, and therefore a lower parliamentary wage bill, it could have happened. It would have happened. The one and only thing that stopped it happening was the withholding of Lib Dem votes.

Originally Posted by Chris

As the headmaster said to the pupil, whilst thrashing him with a cane, "this is hurting me more than it's hurting you ... "

This actually has nothing to do with the Tories at all, unless you're happy to swallow the Liberal Democrat excuses for ratting on their principles in order to score political points.

Certainly, in the context of reduced numbers of MPs, and therefore a lower parliamentary wage bill, it could have happened. It would have happened. The one and only thing that stopped it happening was the withholding of Lib Dem votes.

It was a mistake for the Lib Dems to make such an agreement in the first place if it's something that they would have wanted regardless. Maybe they thought it was a win-win scenario and maybe the Conservatives thought they were bluffing so felt confident in scrapping Lords reform.

However the deal was made and the Tories do share the blame for reneging on their part of the agreement. Once that happened it would have been bad politics to go ahead as the Tories could have pulled support for other parts of the coalition agreement they didn't like in the belief the Liberal Democrats would fold on every issue. Agreements are useless otherwise.

The Tories were told quite clearly the consequences of breaking their side of the agreement and went ahead anyway. They can't then play victim that the Liberal Democrats didn't then support their side of the bargain. It's a naive, almost arrogant, approach to politics the type of which probably explains why they found themselves needing a coalition in the first place.

EDIT: Actually thinking about it this was probably what Cameron wanted anyway. No one really cares about commons/lords reform. He probably would have had trouble with his party over Lords reform so he could just ditch it, blame the Lib Dems for commons reform, and no voters care enough anyway.

[richard s]

Originally Posted by richard s

Time to reform Parliament, I think we should only have 1 MP per county and the heads of every County and Borough Council (at no extra pay) should have more input and report to the MP. This will save tax payers a load of dosh.

As for the MPs pay rise - NO WAY.

Just to add there would only be 84 MPs in the whole country. What a difference this would make instead of 650 at present.

[TheDaddy]

Apparently us plebs support the pay hike according to ipsa chairman, Dave can win the election if he follows through his threat and scraps the authority, he might even get my vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...e-mps-watchdog

... at which point we're back with MPs setting their own pay.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

... at which point we're back with MPs setting their own pay.

And the other option is rewarding them with a payrise for previous dishonesty, who'd have thought they'd end up getting paid more when they were caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.

Sounds a good idea - only problem is the expenses part.

They will be away from home through the week - when I worked away from home (which I did quite a lot), I got my travel, hotel, and food expenses paid for by the company; not sure if that is sustainable for a five year period.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Lets make one thing clear, I am on a basic wage of 19kg per year, l get a london weighting allowance - l do a bloody hard job looking after the vulnerable people of our society. I had MY first pay increase of 1% which means an increase of 35 quid per month. So l do not know where people think l am on 28 kg per year. I wish l was.

These prats that we vote for are taking the people of this country for a ride, by 'saying we are in this together' what a bunch of hypocrites.

You tell the people that are forced into poverty, you tell the people who cannot pay their rent due to cost of living, yes l am whinging about the government.

Osborne said in the papers today, that he will make more cuts to to benefit system. At Xmas the government will sit down to the best food and booze possible, and all this will be on the taxman - at our expense.

Bloody disgusting

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Lets make one thing clear, I am on a basic wage of 19kg per year, l get a london weighting allowance - l do a bloody hard job looking after the vulnerable people of our society. I had MY first pay increase of 1% which means an increase of 35 quid per month. So l do not know where people think l am on 28 kg per year. I wish l was.

They where under the impression you got paid in money not sugar

[idiosyncratic]

Originally Posted by martyh

They where under the impression you got paid in money not sugar

If £35 per month is a 1% rise, then the salary it was based on is £3,500 per month - £3,500 per month is £42,000 a year.

£19,000 a year is £1583 per month - 1% of that is £15.83 per month, not £35 - looks like it was a 2.2% rise, not 1%!

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I can assure you it was 1%, l am part of public services. My union is trying for 3%, but l am happy to settle for that.

I would rather have a job then not at all. asking for 3% is like asking for gold, but after reading about MPs getting this pay rise, it just makes me vomit

Originally Posted by idiosyncratic

If £35 per month is a 1% rise, then the salary it was based on is £3,500 per month - £3,500 per month is £42,000 a year.

£19,000 a year is £1583 per month - 1% of that is £15.83 per month, not £35 - looks like it was a 2.2% rise, not 1%!

So that's in line with inflation then