The MPs in the UK are just so thick, they still do not get the fact that a majority of the public are seething with anger about the expenses scandal. Now they want a pay rise. This from the Telegraph:
MPs' expenses: pay rise for MPs to stop rebellion
MPs are to be offered a pay rise to make up for a loss of income from expenses claims under plans drawn up by Gordon Brown to quell a growing back-bench rebellion.
<!-- Make sure there is no whitespoace at the end of the bline -->By
Andrew Porter, Political Editor
Published: 10:26PM BST 20 Oct 2009
Many MPs have argued throughout the expenses scandal that MPs need a significant pay rise Photo: EPA
The Prime Minister is desperate to avoid a Commons mutiny over next month’s report by Sir Christopher Kelly, which is expected to sweep away many of the MPs’ allowances.
Under Mr Brown’s plan, any rise in an MP’s basic salary of £64,766 would be paid for by a reduction in ministers’ wages. Currently, 98 MPs serve as members of the Government, earning between £96,000 and £197,000. If they took a £20,000 pay cut, it would save almost £2 million and mean all 646 MPs could be paid around £3,000 more without further cost to the taxpayer.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
The prospect of a pay rise for MPs just months after the expenses scandal would risk uproar. However, Mr Brown is desperate to avoid further criticism from his own MPs after Sir Thomas Legg’s insistence that they pay back thousands of pounds in excessive or incorrect claims.
Some have threatened to ignore his requests to repay public money.
The Prime Minister believes that Sir Christopher’s report will represent a bigger challenge to party leaders than the Legg inquiry as it is likely to recommend a series of measures that will severely curtail the expenses and allowances MPs are allowed to claim.
In particular, it is understood that he will forbid MPs from employing family members, a move that is certain to cause considerable anger among backbenchers.
Mr Brown has already said he will accept Sir Christopher’s findings. With MPs growing increasingly fearful of a stricter regime, he wants to offer them a deal that effectively buys their silence.
“If we show that ministers are being paid less and the overall bill in terms of salary is not going up then it could be done,” a Downing Street source said.
The total ministerial wage bill stands at almost £12.3 million, including the salaries of 18 members of the Lords who serve as ministers. The Prime Minister’s salary is £197,000 and he draws £192,414. Cabinet ministers are entitled to £144,520 a year, but have chosen to draw £140,176. Junior ministers earn £106,000 and ministerial aides £96,000. Members of the Lords who serve as ministers have a starting salary of just over £73,000.
Many MPs, including some who wrote to Sir Christopher, have argued throughout the
expenses scandal provoked by The Daily Telegraph’s disclosures, that MPs need a significant pay rise. They have maintained that MPs assumed the expenses and allowances were effectively part of the salary to which they were entitled.
It is doubtful, therefore, that many backbenchers would be content with a modest pay rise. But they are also aware that any suggestions of an increase will be met with considerable public anger.
Mr Brown hopes to persuade voters that the move would make MPs’ pay more transparent and less reliant on “top-up” allowances.
Any increase would have to be agreed by the Senior Salaries Review Body, but Mr Brown believes that if he can get agreement between party leaders the new salary levels could be in place by next year.
The move will be seen as an attempt by Mr Brown to outflank the Conservatives by taking the initiative on expenses reform.
The Prime Minister has been criticised for being slower to respond to the scandal than David Cameron.
Mr Cameron has already indicated that he is willing to cut the cost of government. He has said that, under his premiership, ministers may have to do more work for less money.
The Conservative leader has also hinted that his Cabinet will be smaller than Labour’s and a host of junior roles could be swept aside.
According to Downing Street sources, Mr Brown realised the full extent of MPs’ anger following this week’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Labour MPs are angry that they will be forced to sack wives or husbands, who work for as little as £16,000 a year, in order to comply with the new rules.
Sir Christopher is known to favour the system used by the US House of Representatives which bans family members from working for elected representatives.
MPs are likely to face a wholesale shake-up in the way they can claim for their second homes after widespread abuse of the system was exposed by The Daily Telegraph including the practice of “flipping.”
Sir Christopher Kelly’s report is expected to call for MPs to rent homes in London or their constituency rather than buy a house which can be exploited for personal gain.
Mr Brown will have a particularly difficult job persuading the public that MPs deserve a pay rise following the Treasury announcement earlier this month of a pay freeze among large parts of the public sector.
Last week Mr Brown was assailed by Labour MPs angry that Sir Thomas Legg had made retrospective demands for expenses legitimately claimed to be paid back.
Backbenchers believe Mr Brown blundered by allowing Sir Thomas to make the wholesale requests for repayment and that the Prime Minister, by agreeing to pay back £12,500, was forcing them to abide by the ruling.
blank
arameter parameter="dart.server" /--><!-- END: Module - Advert:Top -->
