Local Labour MP living in a £450K country estate

[boomer101 10]

I know - it's pathetic that people take what the media say and let them dictate what we should think. It's apparently OK for a footballer to earn £200,000 per week, but is not ok for the country to pay our politicians properly and thereby encourage the most capable in to the job. The chief executives of very many public bodies, local authorities etc earn far more than the Prime Minister. Clearly that is a nonsense.

[hsb98c 19]

I know - it's pathetic that people take what the media say and let them dictate what we should think. It's apparently OK for a footballer to earn £200,000 per week, but is not ok for the country to pay our politicians properly and thereby encourage the most capable in to the job. The chief executives of very many public bodies, local authorities etc earn far more than the Prime Minister. Clearly that is a nonsense.

 

There are over 60,943,912 (July 2008 ) people in this country, with ONLY 646 MPs to represent them. That's roughly 94,000 people per MP.

 

Yet we seem to treat them as lower than the filth on our shoes.

 

Please don't forget, ANYONE can become an MP. All it takes is a £500 deposit.

 

If people feel so strongly, put yourself up and campaign and make a difference. It's the corner stone of our constitution and open to all.

[alchresearch 215]

They should be paid a proper wage in the first place and we should stop being so pathetic and sensitive about it all.

 

I think a £65,000 basic salary is more than a "proper wage". If they don't like it and feel the money isn't enough, they shouldn't do the job at all and look for something else.

 

It's just like the MPs who leave to "spend more time with their family". They know the commitments and time that being an MP requires, so should have thought of that before they became an MP.

[boomer101 10]

Oh my dear lord! Please try and have a little bit of perspective beyond what you may pick up from the media. £65,000 for what is in reality a seven day week job? £65,000 to keep two homes - one of which must be within easy travelling distance from Westminster (otherwise you'll get criticised for claiming for taxis). Please, please, please get real.

 

I suppose they should have to pay for their own travel between their constituencies and London? And their own paper, and post. And they don't need staff, do they? They could answer all the letters and emails they get in their spare time. In fact, why don't we go back to the good old days when our politicians were all rich people who didn't get paid at all? And who didn't represent anyone.

 

That way we'd end up with a truly representative society - and a Prime Minister who was educated at Eton.... Oh!

[Whatif wewin 10]

I know - it's pathetic that people take what the media say and let them dictate what we should think. It's apparently OK for a footballer to earn £200,000 per week, but is not ok for the country to pay our politicians properly and thereby encourage the most capable in to the job. The chief executives of very many public bodies, local authorities etc earn far more than the Prime Minister. Clearly that is a nonsense.

 

A footballer will only earn what the club value him at. Most of this value is his ability to draw in the crowds i.e. increase the clubs revenue. It is the same with highly paid film stars.

Now I don't know of any MPs who give this value.

There may well be some highly paid execs who do give value, but going on recent experience of highly paid bankers;this does not appear to be true of most of them.

[boomer101 10]

my point is not about the relative value of an MP in terms of 'bums on seats', it's about our society's acceptance of a person who offers very little to the benefit of society, being paid £200k per week. and yet we castigate people who do try and make a difference to our society.

 

I can't think that there is any MP who goes into politics to get rich (unlike actors, sports people and 'celebs'). Who would want to go through that? I find it really, really sad that our country will end up being run by the worst media in the world.

[hsb98c 19]

I'll admit that a few MPs have pushed the boundaries when it comes to expenses and taken liberties with our money. They are, and have, been pushed out or will be ejected in the next year.

 

But note: Not all MPs are like the media make out. Most have worked their socks off to get to where they are and anyone in the private sector working that hard would be retired in the Bahamas by 40.

 

However, if people think it's such a cushy number and 'anyone can do it' then please put £500 where your mouth is and go for it. You'll get your deposit back if you get enough votes so you could be quids in (4 years on 'proper wages', travel paid for)

[Cyclone 10]

Oh my dear lord! Please try and have a little bit of perspective beyond what you may pick up from the media. £65,000 for what is in reality a seven day week job? £65,000 to keep two homes - one of which must be within easy travelling distance from Westminster (otherwise you'll get criticised for claiming for taxis). Please, please, please get real.

7 days a week, with an allowance for assistants, a job that has more breaks than teachers, a fully expensed second home in London and if they become any good a lucrative second income.

 

I suppose they should have to pay for their own travel between their constituencies and London? And their own paper, and post. And they don't need staff, do they? They could answer all the letters and emails they get in their spare time. In fact, why don't we go back to the good old days when our politicians were all rich people who didn't get paid at all? And who didn't represent anyone.

The salary they are paid is nearly 3 times the average, if they think they could make more at private companies then no one is forcing them to stay. I doubt that many of them are doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

[Cyclone 10]

my point is not about the relative value of an MP in terms of 'bums on seats', it's about our society's acceptance of a person who offers very little to the benefit of society, being paid £200k per week. and yet we castigate people who do try and make a difference to our society.

 

I can't think that there is any MP who goes into politics to get rich (unlike actors, sports people and 'celebs'). Who would want to go through that? I find it really, really sad that our country will end up being run by the worst media in the world.

 

Maybe if film stars and footballers were paid out of our taxation then we'd be more concerned about it.

[boomer101 10]

Mr/Miss Cyclone. You make it sound so great, so why don't you have a go at it yourself? You're right no-one is forcing them to stay. And many of them really could earn an awful lot more in the private sector. So why do they do it? It certainly isn't for the glory is it? Perhaps, just perhaps, some of them might well be doing it because they think they can make the world a better place.

 

If I may point out another weakness in your argument, I think you will find that the Parliamentary recess does not automatically mean 'MPs holidays'. This misrepresentation tires me out too. Ring an MP's office this summer. It will still be open. People will be working. MPs will be working. Now, don't get me wrong, they might have the odd two or three weeks off ON HOLIDAY, but they do not have 13 weeks.

 

Clearly film stars and footballers are paid by us, but you're right not through taxation. But then film stars and footballers do a different job to MPs.

 

Britain is a democracy and like it or not we need to have representatives. As I've pointed out, we can't expect politics to be the domain of the rich only.

[Joe-Public 10]

Why dont the house of commons build a purpose built hotel style accomodation for MPs

like other corporate companies.

 

This would be able to be used by MPs at any time and we the tax payer wouldnt have to pay for second homes etc.

 

MP's should be treated no better and no less than the rest of us.

They would have their own canteen/restaurant, and no need to claim for food ,repairs to their property, etc.

[hsb98c 19]

Why dont the house of commons build a purpose built hotel style accomodation for MPs

like other corporate companies.

 

This would be able to be used by MPs at any time and we the tax payer wouldnt have to pay for second homes etc.

 

MP's should be treated no better and no less than the rest of us.

They would have their own canteen/restaurant, and no need to claim for food ,repairs to their property, etc.

 

You're right about treating MPs the same as the rest of us, but looking at some of the posts on here a minority don't even want to treat them as human.

 

Maybe offering accomodation to MPs is an idea, but not mandatory. there are a lot that would make use of it, especially ones who have their second home in London. You've got to remember those MPs whose second homes are in their constituencies throughout the country and already have a house in London.

 

You've got to remember, house prices can go up as well as down. A lot of MPs will have taken out 100% mortgages to buy places in London (even they don't have 300-400K laying around to buy a new pad) and could be left with a huge negative equity at the moment.

 

They can ONLY claim for interest. In a level world they would only gain some material things (TVs etc) that most haven't even claimed for.