# 'We're all in it together'



## Northerner (Jan 11, 2013)

*MPs call for '32% salary increase'*

MPs have suggested a 32% hike in their pay to the Commons expenses watchdog, it has been revealed.

Members said they deserved an ?86,250 salary in an anonymous survey conducted by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa).

The research also found more than a third think they should keep final salary pensions.

The findings emerged as Ipsa published a report on its initial consultation into pay and pensions.

The Commons voted against a 1% pay rise in 2011 and, last year, agreed to extend the pay freeze into 2013.

But the survey found that 69% thought they were underpaid on their current salary of ?65,738.

The average level suggested for the appropriate level of pay was ?86,250.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20978487


----------



## Steff (Jan 11, 2013)

Should this not be in the news section?


----------



## Caroline (Jan 11, 2013)

I find MPs pay rises and final slary pensions very annoying. Where I work we have had a pay freeze for the last 3 or 4 years and there is talk of an average salary pension. I still have to contend with thinngs like a hike in the rail fares of above inflation, and gas and electricity companies makeing massive profits while putting prices up. What do I give up first?

Right off me soap box now before I say something I shouldn't!


----------



## Pumper_Sue (Jan 11, 2013)

Northerner said:


> *MPs call for '32% salary increase'*
> 
> MPs have suggested a 32% hike in their pay to the Commons expenses watchdog, it has been revealed.
> 
> ...



Now I see why they insist that the people unfortunate to be on JSA or sickness benefit have only ?71/week to live on, the money is needed to pay for their pay. 

Please also don't forget the MP's also claim expenses for duck houses on their ponds etc


----------



## Northerner (Jan 11, 2013)

Pumper_Sue said:


> Now I see why they insist that the people unfortunate to be on JSA or sickness benefit have only ?71/week to live on, the money is needed to pay for their pay.
> 
> Please also don't forget the MP's also claim expenses for duck houses on their ponds etc



They also mostly have other jobs/positions that they get paid lots for. For some of them their salaries are probably pin money...

I don't begrudge them a decent recompense for what is a very responsible and demanding job, but clearly a lot of them begrudge what they are getting!

Interesting to see the expectations from MPs of different parties.


----------



## LeeLee (Jan 11, 2013)

What will the MPs do if they don't get it?  

Strike?  Would anyone except the news programmes really notice?  The country is actually run by the staff rather than the politicians who set the policies they work to.  They would no doubt carry on for the most part, despite their measly 1%.  

Resign en masse?  That would prompt elections, so we could get a better lot in (but on the other hand, maybe not).


----------



## trophywench (Jan 11, 2013)

And the worst bit?

_MPs have a funded final-salary pension scheme; they pay a fixed contribution and the Exchequer is liable for the balance._

WHAAAAAAT?


----------



## FM001 (Jan 11, 2013)

In the Commons debate on welfare cuts, Tory backbenchers' mouths were almost salivating at the prospect of making the poorest even poorer

Whenever I visit the *Colosseum I can?t help wondering what it must have felt like as the ancient Romans bayed for blood.

How a detached observer would feel seeing the mob get off on a primeval testosterone hit as *cruelty was inflicted on helpless beasts.

And then I watched Tuesday?s Commons debate on welfare cuts, saw the joy on the faces of Tory backbenchers as they raised their thumbs to back the kill, mouths almost salivating at the prospect of making the poorest among us even poorer, and I needed a *vomitorium.

As David Miliband so soundly put it, the whole debate was *?rancid?. And the Tories wallowed in it.

They *snorted, harrumphed and mocked Labour MPs who tried to paint a genuine picture of families who are forced to choose between *eating and heating.

Their mouths kept saying ?we take no pleasure in this?, but their faces told a different story.

They were getting high on demonising the mythical ?enemy within?.

Tories always need an enemy within. It?s part of the *divide-and-rule philosophy that sets the lower orders against each other.

Back in the 70s it was black and Asian *immigrants as they warned of rivers of blood.

Under Thatcher it was the unions and single *mothers, under Cameron it?s benefit claimants, or ?shirkers? as they?re now to be known, even though the real enemy within this country is the lack of economic growth that forces millions to claim benefits.

I get why we need to cut our debts and I get why we need to cut our welfare bill.

What I don?t get is why the *poorest are hit hardest when there are sounder *alternatives ? and the pleasure taken among *right-wingers in doing so. Real, proper pleasure.

David Miliband derided the laughable notion that the burden is being shared around, pointing out that while Chancellor George *Osborne is raising ?5.6billion by capping benefits and tax credits over the next three years, reduction of *pension tax relief for the rich will only raise *?1.1billion because it?s merely being trimmed.

He likened the Tory message that there is ?equality of sacrifice? to Labour?s 1929 general election poster, when all classes were on a ladder, with the man at the bottom up to his neck in water and the man at the top shouting: ?Let?s all step down one rung!?

If ever you wanted proof of where the *country will go if the Bullingdon Boys gain an overall majority at the next election and are allowed to give full rein to their prejudices, here was a chilling glimpse of the future.

A rich elite cut off from the reality faced by the majority, so wrapped up in vengeance they cannot see the knock-on effects in the poorest areas on crime, health, domestic violence and children?s welfare.

I?m surprised when they won Tuesday?s vote that they didn?t break into a rousing rendition of ?Food banks, glorious food banks, there?s nothing quite like them...?

Because for many thousands of families at the bottom ? with food prices poised to rise 5% this year ? there will be no alternative but to visit them.

And tragically, the Tories believe that is where they belong.


----------



## FM001 (Jan 11, 2013)

The above is from the comments section of the Daily Mirror on Tuesdays debate.

Saying today that the Tories are wanting rid of the free tv license, travel and winter fuel payments for pensioners, rather than have these benefits means tested they are planning to scrap them regardless of income.

Can't put into words what I think of this Coalition government


----------



## Caroline (Jan 11, 2013)

toby said:


> Can't put into words what I think of this Coalition government



I can but not on an open forum


----------



## Northerner (Jan 11, 2013)

toby said:


> ...He likened the Tory message that there is ?equality of sacrifice? to Labour?s 1929 general election poster, when all classes were on a ladder, with the man at the bottom up to his neck in water and the man at the top shouting: ?Let?s all step down one rung!?
> ...



That is a terrific analogy! For me, the whole point is that those on high incomes are most likely to have benefited  from the excesses of the banking/housing boom years, being in a position to invest large amounts without affecting their standard of living. They will always be able to live comfortably. Now, those on high incomes may have to (but for many, probably not) think twice about some of life's luxuries, but people on that bottom rung may be struggling to actually feed their families. 

The tragedy of the situation is that the Opposition, which should be wiping the floor with this inept and self-serving government, seems ineffectual and only climbing the polls due to the dreadful and frequent mistakes and u-turns of the coalition.


----------



## trophywench (Jan 11, 2013)

Well I have to castigate you then Toby for copying what someone else has TOTALLY quoted out of context.

The 'Rivers of Blood' speech and yes, I heard ALL of it at the time it was made - was from Enoch Powell MP for Wolverhampton South at the time, backed by ALL of his contituents, and about 50% were either from the Windies or India/Pakistan!  They liked him as much as the whites.

What he said was, we welcomed these peoples to our shores.  We exploited them entirely because they were happy to take all the really shitty jobs in foundries and all the unsociable hours ones like bus drivers and conductors, that white people just didn't want and manufacturing industries couldn't produce as much and because their export markets were drying up since not being able to get British drain covers or whatever it was, during the War - they'd had to start making their own - so the mfrs here were getting into trouble.  Or would be soon.  Furthermore the immigrants worked bloody hard and dragged themselves up with their boot straps.  so they were aspiring to better things, if not for themselves, certainly for their children.   None of em came here for an easy life - they didn't actually even want one.  They expected to work.

But now, he said, we are continuing with this policy even though there aren't now enough jobs for our indigenous poulation (or there won't be in a few years time!) so let's just slow it down now, can we? - otherwise both sides - white and black - are predicting 'Rivers of Blood' and it will all end in tears........



Much misquoted over the years, and positively villified at the time.

How right that man was.

We could have done with a few more like him all along, but actually Knocker, it's too bloody late now .......


----------



## Northerner (Jan 12, 2013)

*Life on benefits: The starving of the 11 million*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-the-starving-of-the-11-million-8448685.html

I remember Matthew Parris doing something similar for a week under the last Tory government - he ran out of money before the end of the week too. Some poor food choices in this report - I wouldn't be spending over ?2 on frozen pizzas, he could have bought sausages, potatoes and veg and got more for his money. Cheese sandwiches are cheaper than ham, and he could have got a couple of tomatoes to go with them. The thing is, whilst these people doing these experiments barely manage a week, they know it's not going to last any longer - thousands of people spend years living hand to mouth like this, so a cut of just a few pounds a week can make a huge difference.


----------



## FM001 (Jan 12, 2013)

From April things will get much worse for the poorer people of the land, a 10% cut in council tax support to local governments will see people paying council tax  for the first time by around ?200 a year, not great for those already struggling with benefit cuts and rising houseghold bills.

The ''lets all step down one rung'' is a good analogy Northerner and very adapt to the to the coalitions way of thinking, talking to Andrew Marrs last weekend Cameron says he wants another 5 years


----------



## trophywench (Jan 12, 2013)

And the other thing Northie, is the way most people - savvy people who aren't rich but aren't on the breadline - shop.

eg we get through a 300g jar of Nescafe original every week.  It's nearly ?8 a jar.  If we hear that it's on special for ?5 at a supermarket, we go there and buy at least 6 jars.  Often more, if we have less than 2 in reserve!

Also like giant boxes of Weetabix, because it's a lot cheaper per biscuit to buy a box of 72 than the smaller packs.

Same with loo roll and washing powder or whatever.  Fairy Liquid, 3 for the price of 2 or whatever it is.

When you have no 'spare money' - you can't do that so you land up paying top dollar for it every time.  The only things you can buy in small quantities without paying extra are small fruit and veg, though what a single person does when they fancy cauli or cabbage I don't know !  They don't last all that long once you start dismembering them, do they?  We have stopped buying melons for instance.  We like it, but not every day for nearly a week - I for one can't gorge on it - for obvious reasons.  And if you buy the small packs of diced melon, the price is silly.


----------



## trophywench (Jan 12, 2013)

That link keeps 'hanging' this puter ......


----------



## Vicsetter (Jan 12, 2013)

trophywench said:


> That link keeps 'hanging' this puter ......



Sounds like you need to spring clean your puter if you can't get that link to work and you couldn't logon to Pulse the other day.


----------



## ypauly (Jan 12, 2013)

Interesting that somebody mentions David Milliband, he has earned over ?1 million since the election and still collected his salary. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...s-125k-for-15-days-work-at-Sunderland-FC.html

Nice work if you can get it.


But onto the main story, it is juts a poll not a proposal and I think if you did a poll in any workplace you would have exactly the same results. The conservatives however had already discussed MP's pay when the expenses scandal happened and they decided that euro MP's were paid the right amount which may be why there is a difference as your MEP'S are paid far more.


----------



## trophywench (Jan 12, 2013)

Odd sort of workplace where the employees decide the salary scale, innit?

Perhaps pensioners should decide their own pensions and disabled/unemployed/ill people should decide their income too?


----------



## ypauly (Jan 12, 2013)

trophywench said:


> Odd sort of workplace where the employees decide the salary scale, innit?
> 
> Perhaps pensioners should decide their own pensions and disabled/unemployed/ill people should decide their income too?


Very true, Perhaps pay should be link to results. but I would add that when the coalition took office every cabinet minister took 5% pay cut.



Meanwhile http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...rd-Mandelson-how-to-profit-from-politics.html



It's very easy to have a go at the conservatives because every time they take office from Labour they have a huge financial mess to sort out.

It would appear that we arn't all in it together as New Labour seem to be doing very nicely indeed.


----------



## ypauly (Jan 12, 2013)

They should all take a leaf out of lady thatchers book.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20800549


----------



## runner (Jan 13, 2013)

toby said:


> In the Commons debate on welfare cuts, Tory backbenchers' mouths were almost salivating at the prospect of making the poorest even poorer
> 
> Whenever I visit the *Colosseum I can?t help wondering what it must have felt like as the ancient Romans bayed for blood.
> 
> ...



You just said it all for me Toby - thanks.  I get so angry about the promotion of the picture of the unemployed laying in be with curtains closed etc.  How dare they demonise all those people who have worked hard and contributed to this country and are now made redundant, are forced to work part-time, or those who are simply unable to work.


----------



## runner (Jan 13, 2013)

Northerner said:


> That is a terrific analogy! For me, the whole point is that those on high incomes are most likely to have benefited  from the excesses of the banking/housing boom years, being in a position to invest large amounts without affecting their standard of living. They will always be able to live comfortably. Now, those on high incomes may have to (but for many, probably not) think twice about some of life's luxuries, but people on that bottom rung may be struggling to actually feed their families.
> 
> The tragedy of the situation is that the Opposition, which should be wiping the floor with this inept and self-serving government, seems ineffectual and only climbing the polls due to the dreadful and frequent mistakes and u-turns of the coalition.



Indeed.  Sadly theft is on the increase, and it's not T.Vs and other 'luxury' items, its basic food items, baby milk and food, nappies....


----------



## Nicky1970 (Jan 13, 2013)

> It's very easy to have a go at the conservatives because every time they take office from Labour they have a huge financial mess to sort out.



OK so what was their excuse in the 1930s? 

I have a go at the Conservatives because they are a bunch of rich bullies and Little Englanders.  I have a go at the Conservatives because too many of their backbenchers are still members of the ultra-right wing Monday Club. I have a go at the Conservatives because they are stuck in the 1950s. I have a go at the Conservatives because,  their tax plans are geared towards helping the rich and big business at the expense of the poor and the self-employed/sole traders (who make up the majority of businesses and employers, incidentally), as well as a form of nannying through the back door (tax relief for married couples, for example).


----------



## Pumper_Sue (Jan 13, 2013)

runner said:


> You just said it all for me Toby - thanks.  I get so angry about the promotion of the picture of the unemployed laying in be with curtains closed etc.  How dare they demonise all those people who have worked hard and contributed to this country and are now made redundant, are forced to work part-time, or those who are simply unable to work.



What they also forget is that by denying the unemployed, sick, or diasabled any rise in benefits or as in this case drop due to hike in all prices, they will not spend any money, thus the economy suffers even more. So the government is making the situation worse not better.


----------



## Northerner (Jan 13, 2013)

This idea that new governments have to sort out a huge mess bequeathed to them is getting old and works both ways anyway. Thatcher set out to break the unions - admittedly some had become too strong - succeeded by picking off the weaker ones first, like steel, and moving on to the miners (who weren't helped by Scargill and the like), also privatising natural monopolies, starting with the most profitable and easy to sell off (and it was the rich who gained - we're all paying for it now), leaving a legacy of millions dependant on benefits, flogging off council houses, generating housing booms that raised prices of both homes and rents to unprecedented levels, wasting profits from natural resources, like North Sea gas and oil.

Now Cameron and his crew are embarking on a massive and costly reform of the NHS, all out attempts to shrink the public sector, cuts, cuts and cuts and no plans for growth (and keeping us in recession, as a consequence), and still using the now lame old excuse that it was the last government's fault (as if the UK was the only major economy affected by the global banking crisis and recession. If they'd actually managed to achieve something in the past 2.5 years I would applaud them, but as far as I see it, it's been one failure after another - but they are too comfortable and stubborn to reassess their strategies, their solution to the consequent increased welfare bill is to make more and more cuts to try and minimise the extra costs.


----------



## Nicky1970 (Jan 13, 2013)

Well said, Alan.


----------



## FM001 (Jan 13, 2013)

Nicky1970 said:


> Well said, Alan.




Second that.


----------



## runner (Jan 13, 2013)

Third that!


----------



## ypauly (Jan 13, 2013)

Northerner said:


> This idea that new governments have to sort out a huge mess bequeathed to them is getting old and works both ways anyway. Thatcher set out to break the unions - admittedly some had become too strong - succeeded by picking off the weaker ones first, like steel, and moving on to the miners (who weren't helped by Scargill and the like), also privatising natural monopolies, starting with the most profitable and easy to sell off (and it was the rich who gained - we're all paying for it now), leaving a legacy of millions dependant on benefits, flogging off council houses, generating housing booms that raised prices of both homes and rents to unprecedented levels, wasting profits from natural resources, like North Sea gas and oil.
> 
> Now Cameron and his crew are embarking on a massive and costly reform of the NHS, all out attempts to shrink the public sector, cuts, cuts and cuts and no plans for growth (and keeping us in recession, as a consequence), and still using the now lame old excuse that it was the last government's fault (as if the UK was the only major economy affected by the global banking crisis and recession. If they'd actually managed to achieve something in the past 2.5 years I would applaud them, but as far as I see it, it's been one failure after another - but they are too comfortable and stubborn to reassess their strategies, their solution to the consequent increased welfare bill is to make more and more cuts to try and minimise the extra costs.


The rapid economic decline lead by new labour playing games and gambling  with banks that they had no idea how to win. When it did all fall apart the brakes were applied by Gordon Brown increasing spending mainly capital expenditure, this was done with extra borrowing he also borrowed to save the banks rather than letting them fall.

Now we have a coalition that took office with a pledge to stop the borrowing as we could see this was causing massive problems in other nations such as Greece. Unfortunately stopping the borrowing/spending means the economy will then go back into it's original decline, managing that decline so to minimise suffering is the priority that they won't admit to as a positive view of our nation is very important for obvious reasons.

It was a no win for any government just like that of the great depression. However stopping the borrowing will mean a return to prosperity sooner. We went through arguably the best ten years of boom this nation has ever had  under labour and all they did was continue to borrow and as you mention it I have to ask,

How many council houses did they build?
How many pits were re-opened? and did you know that more pits have closed under labour government that conservative?
How much did the illegal wars they entered into cost?
Wasn't it labour that made sure that people were dependent on benefits by making sure that those that didn't even need them got them?
The NHS reform i disagree with as you know but they would have happened under Labour so blaming conservatives is a bit daft.



Like I said, they need to take a leaf out of Mrs T's book


I know one thing that is true though when you talk of all in it together and that new labour are more concerned with lining their pockets than any political group I have ever come across.


----------



## ypauly (Jan 13, 2013)

runner said:


> You just said it all for me Toby - thanks.  I get so angry about the promotion of the picture of the unemployed laying in be with curtains closed etc.  How dare they demonise all those people who have worked hard and contributed to this country and are now made redundant, are forced to work part-time, or those who are simply unable to work.


Those that stay in bed with the curtains closed are a completely different group to those getting up to find whatever work they can even if it's part time. I only ever hear the one group criticized those that are trying are always held in high regard as are those unable to work.


It is only those that couldn't care less that are demonised.


----------



## Northerner (Jan 13, 2013)

ypauly said:


> Those that stay in bed with the curtains closed are a completely different group to those getting up to find whatever work they can even if it's part time. I only ever hear the one group criticized those that are trying are always held in high regard as are those unable to work.
> 
> 
> It is only those that couldn't care less that are demonised.



Nonsense, even some Tories admit that all unemployed or people in work receiving benefits have been tarred with the same brush. Why would the tiny minority of people who do 'shirk work' be worth a mention in relation to their miniscule (relatively speaking) cost to the welfare bill? Why should such a focus be placed on this vague group if not to poison those who do not receive welfare against all who do?


----------



## ypauly (Jan 13, 2013)

Northerner said:


> Nonsense, even some Tories admit that all unemployed or people in work receiving benefits have been tarred with the same brush. Why would the tiny minority of people who do 'shirk work' be worth a mention in relation to their miniscule (relatively speaking) cost to the welfare bill? Why should such a focus be placed on this vague group if not to poison those who do not receive welfare against all who do?



What "Tory" or as the polite would say "conservative" has said this? do you have a link? Those claiming in work benefits are different and as far as I am aware and  the people tarred by this is Labour and not the claimants which is fair as the only people these in work benefits help is share holders. Or do you disagree with that too?


----------



## Northerner (Jan 13, 2013)

ypauly said:


> What "Tory" or as the polite would say "conservative" has said this? do you have a link? Those claiming in work benefits are different and as far as I am aware and  the people tarred by this is Labour and not the claimants which is fair as the only people these in work benefits help is share holders. Or do you disagree with that too?



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-attacks-on-welfare-scroungers-8442950.html


----------



## ypauly (Jan 13, 2013)

Northerner said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-attacks-on-welfare-scroungers-8442950.html



And how is that different from what I said?


----------



## Northerner (Jan 13, 2013)

ypauly said:


> And how is that different from what I said?



Sorry Paul, you know I have difficulty with your accent


----------



## ypauly (Jan 13, 2013)

Northerner said:


> Sorry Paul, you know I have difficulty with your accent



lol I need to get myself a posh one.


----------



## megga (Jan 13, 2013)

So with around 650 mp's would the raise no cost us around the 14 million mark?? so where is that money going to come from??
And if we have that sort of money not needed for anything, we could employ nearly 1000 jobs at minimun wage.

Trouble is the greedy swines are finding it harder (but not impossable) to swindle there expenses.

And they also go on at bankers and the like getting stupid wage rises and a nice fat bonus when the bank or company make a loss, well they dont seem to have met there target, the country is in a bigger state, the poor are getting poorer. I say they should only get a rise in line with what the public sector get.


----------



## Nicky1970 (Jan 13, 2013)

> And they also go on at bankers and the like getting stupid wage rises and a nice fat bonus when the bank or company make a loss, well they dont seem to have met there target, the country is in a bigger state, the poor are getting poorer. I say they should only get a rise in line with what the public sector get.



Hear Hear!


----------



## ypauly (Jan 13, 2013)

megga said:


> So with around 650 mp's would the raise no cost us around the 14 million mark?? so where is that money going to come from??
> And if we have that sort of money not needed for anything, we could employ nearly 1000 jobs at minimun wage.
> 
> Trouble is the greedy swines are finding it harder (but not impossable) to swindle there expenses.
> ...


It's not a proposal, in fact it isn't going to happen it was just a poll.


----------

