Something really bizarre occured this morning. I was listening to the radio and found myself agreeing with something Anne Widdecombe said. I'm hoping I'm going to recover soon
( Read more... )
But we *pay MPs*. In fact we *pay MPs a lot of money*. MPs are paid more than twice what I am paid - I pay for my living costs with what I earn, if I had twice as much I could pay for my living costs twice over!
MPs decide the minimum wage, they get to stand there and try to say with a straight face that people can, and should, be living on what works out at about 10,000 pounds/year (if you comply with the Working Time Directive). And then they claim that they can't possibly keep two homes on >60,000 pounds/year. They are apparently stupid or massively out of touch.
My preferred proposal is to buy a block of flats and give each MP a flat in it under the same terms that people who get free council housing get housed (that is, the same amenities and level of comfort and so forth) at the public's expense.
Yes, poor people should be able to become MPs, this is why it is right and proper that MPs are paid.
The second home in an additional cost we are asking some (not all - some constituencies are in a commutable distance) MPs to pay. It makes sense, therefore for this to be separate from what they are paid.
How much this allowance is and how much they are paid other than this is a separate issue.
If you calculated the allowance based on the London Living Wage, then that's around £15,000 a year, which would rent a reasonable flat.
What MPs are paid needs to reflect their work and it seems fair that this should be on par with top level managers for members of the cabinet. To be fair, it would be nice to think that running a country was highly skilled work and their wage will also need to reflect how much they necessarily have to answer for their work to the public as a whole.
But if the "honourable" member for Chippings-on-the-Road only claims £20,000 for his second home, instead of the maximum £24,000 (?), that £4,000 woun't go to other MPs; it just means a reduction in the overall tax bill.
Comments 4
MPs decide the minimum wage, they get to stand there and try to say with a straight face that people can, and should, be living on what works out at about 10,000 pounds/year (if you comply with the Working Time Directive). And then they claim that they can't possibly keep two homes on >60,000 pounds/year. They are apparently stupid or massively out of touch.
My preferred proposal is to buy a block of flats and give each MP a flat in it under the same terms that people who get free council housing get housed (that is, the same amenities and level of comfort and so forth) at the public's expense.
Yes, poor people should be able to become MPs, this is why it is right and proper that MPs are paid.
Reply
How much this allowance is and how much they are paid other than this is a separate issue.
If you calculated the allowance based on the London Living Wage, then that's around £15,000 a year, which would rent a reasonable flat.
What MPs are paid needs to reflect their work and it seems fair that this should be on par with top level managers for members of the cabinet. To be fair, it would be nice to think that running a country was highly skilled work and their wage will also need to reflect how much they necessarily have to answer for their work to the public as a whole.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment