Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Expenses: Top Speaker candidate argues for £100k wage

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 May 2009
THE favourite to become the new Speaker of the House of Commons has argued that MPs should be paid the same as GPs and local authority chief executives, or equivalent to more than £100,000 a year.
Conservative MP John Bercow told a review of parliamentary salaries that it was "perverse" that MPs wages had not "kept pace" with comparable professions in the public sector.

He said their jobs were on a par with GPs and local authority chief exe
cutives who, on average, now earn between £100,000 and £110,000 year. If adopted, the increase would amount to a pay rise of £45,000 for MPs.

Bercow is 3-1 to become the new Speaker, following the resignation of Michael Martin last week and, if elected, will be charged with handling the Kelly Commission on standards in public life which is expected to offer recommendations on MPs pay and conditions later this year.

Many MPs are now privately claiming that any cut in their expenses brought about by the scandals of the last three weeks should be balanced by what they say is a long-overdue increase in their wage packets.

But taxpayers' groups last night said MPs were already among the best paid politicians in Europe and any attempt to increase their pay packets would be an insult following the tide of recent expenses abuses.

In 2006 Bercow laid out the case for increased pay. He said:

"I suggest that those responsibilities, in terms of breadth, scope and contact with the public are comparable with those of a general practitioner or the chief executive of a medium sized public authority."

Bercow failed to return calls and e-mails from Scotland on Sunday to explain his current position.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 May 2009 7:56 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Politicians' expenses
 
1

Curley Bill,

24/05/2009 00:07:05
My God, they just don't get it - each one is worse than the predecessor.
2

Warden Resurrected,

24/05/2009 01:02:01
The American equivalent to our member of parliament gets a basic wage of around £116,000. Parliament has been cheap on wages for years and has got away with it until now.
No Curley Bill you just don't get it.
3

Anonym,

24/05/2009 02:43:20
Warden, unlike us, the American's are not massively over represented and can therefore afford to pay better salaries.

I'm not entirely convinced that local authority chief executives ought to be on a par with GP's. What and where are all the high paying jobs that would otherwise lure them away from public service if they were not paid handsomely enough?
4

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 24/05/2009 06:37:17
#2 You don't get it, in The USA there are far fewer politicians pro rata, to reward these venal MP creeps with a 40% pay rise is appalling.
5

Jim A,

24/05/2009 08:34:20
So, they can't have their noses in the trough through expenses anymore so they want a payrise instead. Brass neck or what? They should be reminded they are elected and the self same electorate pay their wages, this lot have had enough of our money. They don't like it then stand down, resign. These scumbags have had all they are going to get, geez comparing themselves to Doctors, what next?
6

gus1940,

Edinburgh 24/05/2009 08:54:06
Can anybody provide a table of MP Salaries showing how they have risen over say the last 50 years?
7

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 24/05/2009 09:05:42
Not exactly the most sensitive proposal given public fury at the expenses fiddle. It would be OK if they earned the £100,000 but with rafts of EU legislation it's not hard work to rubber-stamp what they are presented with and the extra legislation introduced has just slowed down and hampered the country, e.g. ID cards. If they were paid on results they would be handing the taxpayer BACK £100,000 per year.



8

,

24/05/2009 09:10:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Bridged and tunnelled,

24/05/2009 09:39:02
The point would be to pay a higher salary, but almost no expenses.

That would simplify the system, and pay closer to the appropriate salary (better still if there was a reduction in the number of MPs and MSPs, say to 500 to 100 respectively).
10

Jay Kay,

24/05/2009 10:02:37
Tell you what you bunch of criminal Bastards, I will do it for £50,000 a year how about that, i will happily stand for my constituency for a mear £50k a year and I wont need expenses how do the greedy Mp's like that, you bunch of c**ts are all going to be booted out, its just a matter of time so get your noses in there while you still can.
11

Bridged and tunnelled,

24/05/2009 10:13:30
Ultimately, I'd prefer mildly venal to illiterate and ignorant.
12

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 24/05/2009 13:20:07
#1 & 2; what these arrogant retarded muppets in Westminster JUST DON'T get is that what they are WORTH is what they could command in salary in the outside world, where the rest of us earn a living. There's 5 or six applicants for every post, no educational or professional qualifications required; no experience necessary. So what IS the going rate for a clapped-out old sot of a trade union official, a wet-behind-the-ears student of politics or, lest I be accused of bias, an inbred, chinless-wonder, patrician Tory?
13

mr broon,

mr broon 24/05/2009 14:45:08
US politicians appear to be reasonably well paid but they still complain that the salary could be much higher?

However, US State and Federal politicians, including the President, have to declare their annual earnings and IRS returns which are made public to the US voters.

As a result, over the years, many local and Federal US politicians have been caught out with financial irregularities.

After standing down from politics, US elected officials also receive an excellent pension and go on to cash in on their previous office which, unlike the criticism here, is an accepted part of American life.


14

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 24/05/2009 15:09:47
#2 Warden,

The US has 435 members of The House Of Representatives and 100 members of the Senate. With a Population of 306 Million that means each member of the House on average represents over 700,000 people and the average for a Senators is over 3 Million.

In the UK a population of 60 Million is represented by 646 members of parliament and 727 Lords. That means that your average MP represents 92,000 People and your average Lord represents 82,000.

It would also be unfair to compare the two because while the US Congress is the Supreme legislative body for the worlds super power, the UK parliament is a subservient legislative body (EU) of a former world power.

A much better comparison for the UK in terms of size and scope of responsibility would be the California Legislature which like the UK parliament is also under sever strain from financial incompetence.
15

Joe Macdelta.,

24/05/2009 16:54:55
From what we have seen lately, they are not worth it, or anything like it.
Parliment seems to be full of ex-shop
stewards, and people who only went into politics to avoid having to work for a living, drawn by the perks no doubt and the fact that once elected, you can just ignore the promises and follow the party line.
16

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 24/05/2009 20:09:28
GPs swear the hippocratic oath. MPs swear the hypocritic oath.

One is to preserve life at all costs while the other is to enjoy life at all costs.
17

weeshooie1,

Wollongong 24/05/2009 23:16:44
Within 12 months he would be known as 'Bendy Bercow' as he is quickly moulded into another party tool and forced to comply with the wants and supposed needs of the members by deepening the trough :0(

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.