Will Worcestershire MPs give recommended pay rise to charity?

MEMBERS: The £74,000 question

MEMBERS: The £74,000 question

First published in News
Last updated
Evesham Journal: Tom Edwards by , Political Reporter

ONE Worcestershire MP is prepared to give a proposed pay rise to charity – admitting that none of them can justify an 11 per cent increase.

Harriett Baldwin has revealed she is not willing to accept a rise of £7,600 as residents are suffering pay freezes, or small increases of one or two per cent.

The Conservative, who represents West Worcestershire, said the only way a rise could be justified would be by cutting 50 MPs, so the 600 who remained got heavier workloads.

Amid mounting anger over the expected pay rise, she also believes the body which is calling for it should be scrapped.

A report is due out on Thursday from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), suggesting the 11 per cent rise should take force from 2015, taking MPs’ pay to £74,000.

The authority wants to make up for it by cutting pensions and other perks, saying wages in parliament have been frozen for too long.

But Mrs Baldwin said she would give away her rise.

“If IPSA succeed in pushing through this measure and I am re-elected in 2015, I look forward to supporting local charities even more than I already do,” she said.

“I wrote into the consultation and said that given the fact that public sector pay is being restrained in the way that it is, we should only have the same sort of increases as average public sector [workers] are having.”

Related links

She also said old Conservative plans to cut the size of parliament from 650 MPs to 600, which fell apart after a lack of Liberal Democrat support, should have been accepted.

She said the independent body, set up in 2009 after the expenses scandal, now costs £6 million per year when it could be done by a private company “for a fraction of the cost”. Downing Street has tried to kick the issue into the long grass by saying it will be reviewed in 2015.

Meanwhile, other MPs in the county have refused to make the same offer, saying that it is right any decisions over pay are made independently.

Worcester MP Robin Walker said: “It shoudn’t be our decision. Rhe whole point of this was to take it out of our hands.

“I have done no lobbying, either for or against a pay rise. “The question [if he would he give it to charity] is purely hypothetical and I won’t get into that.”

Wyre Forest MP, Mark Garnier, said: “IPSA has to decide what MPs get and we can’t interfere – if it’s going to work, it must work in both directions.

“We can’t have cabinet members or party leaders saying to us ‘I’ll give it back because I’m richer than you’ and taking the moral highground.”

MPs currently receive a yearly salary of £66,396.

Peter Luff, who represents Mid-Worcestershire, said he would make no comment, because he is retiring in 2015.

In an anonymous survey conducted earlier this year, MPs suggested that they should be paid an average of £86,250, with one-fifth of those questioned saying they should get £95,000 or more.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:05am Tue 10 Dec 13

denon says...

In the poll above I voted to say that MP's deserve an 11% pay rise however they should not get one given the present economic state of the country.

As for them giving it to Charity that is tosh too. Their pay comes from taxation, if you don't tax us in the first place, we the tax payer can choose how it is spent from out of our pocket .

It is said they cannot refuse to take the pay increase if that is the case then the law should be changed
In the poll above I voted to say that MP's deserve an 11% pay rise however they should not get one given the present economic state of the country. As for them giving it to Charity that is tosh too. Their pay comes from taxation, if you don't tax us in the first place, we the tax payer can choose how it is spent from out of our pocket . It is said they cannot refuse to take the pay increase if that is the case then the law should be changed denon
  • Score: 7

5:09pm Tue 10 Dec 13

lilboo says...

Utter disgrace, another example of the Tories getting the rich richer! People are relying on food banks and these smug 'representatives' of the people sit back and watch their income rise by way over the rate of inflation! Bring in the elections!
Utter disgrace, another example of the Tories getting the rich richer! People are relying on food banks and these smug 'representatives' of the people sit back and watch their income rise by way over the rate of inflation! Bring in the elections! lilboo
  • Score: 2

5:11pm Tue 10 Dec 13

notANOTHERbrilliantheadline says...

I won't but I think they should seeing as they take whatever they can and spend it on useless junk ( second home expenses ). I mean I do understand that they NEED a massive tv and luxury furniture in their 2nd home whilst people can't afford to live in a decent way.steal from the poor, give to the rich.. Scumbags
I won't but I think they should seeing as they take whatever they can and spend it on useless junk ( second home expenses ). I mean I do understand that they NEED a massive tv and luxury furniture in their 2nd home whilst people can't afford to live in a decent way.steal from the poor, give to the rich.. Scumbags notANOTHERbrilliantheadline
  • Score: 1

6:07pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Guy66 says...

notANOTHERbrillianth
eadline
wrote:
I won't but I think they should seeing as they take whatever they can and spend it on useless junk ( second home expenses ). I mean I do understand that they NEED a massive tv and luxury furniture in their 2nd home whilst people can't afford to live in a decent way.steal from the poor, give to the rich.. Scumbags
Massive TV and lux furnituire - don't forget SKY and a laptop for all in the household and broadband and an Xbox one for the kid and a PS4 for dad....oooh wait I find myself describing a benefit layabout!
[quote][p][bold]notANOTHERbrillianth eadline[/bold] wrote: I won't but I think they should seeing as they take whatever they can and spend it on useless junk ( second home expenses ). I mean I do understand that they NEED a massive tv and luxury furniture in their 2nd home whilst people can't afford to live in a decent way.steal from the poor, give to the rich.. Scumbags[/p][/quote]Massive TV and lux furnituire - don't forget SKY and a laptop for all in the household and broadband and an Xbox one for the kid and a PS4 for dad....oooh wait I find myself describing a benefit layabout! Guy66
  • Score: 2

6:33pm Tue 10 Dec 13

sunnside says...

why should they be able to vote on their own increases and why dont they use empty army barracks in london that way the money they claim for second luxury pads could go to a better cause like nhs,education or even paying of the countries debt
why should they be able to vote on their own increases and why dont they use empty army barracks in london that way the money they claim for second luxury pads could go to a better cause like nhs,education or even paying of the countries debt sunnside
  • Score: 2

7:43pm Tue 10 Dec 13

grumpy woman says...

Well done Harriet Baldwin. It will be remembered at the next election.
Well done Harriet Baldwin. It will be remembered at the next election. grumpy woman
  • Score: 4

9:28pm Tue 10 Dec 13

notANOTHERbrilliantheadline says...

Guy66 wrote:
notANOTHERbrillianth

eadline
wrote:
I won't but I think they should seeing as they take whatever they can and spend it on useless junk ( second home expenses ). I mean I do understand that they NEED a massive tv and luxury furniture in their 2nd home whilst people can't afford to live in a decent way.steal from the poor, give to the rich.. Scumbags
Massive TV and lux furnituire - don't forget SKY and a laptop for all in the household and broadband and an Xbox one for the kid and a PS4 for dad....oooh wait I find myself describing a benefit layabout!
Possibly.. But people in politics have decent lives and people on benefits have boring lives and buy these things because it makes their lives more interesting.
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notANOTHERbrillianth eadline[/bold] wrote: I won't but I think they should seeing as they take whatever they can and spend it on useless junk ( second home expenses ). I mean I do understand that they NEED a massive tv and luxury furniture in their 2nd home whilst people can't afford to live in a decent way.steal from the poor, give to the rich.. Scumbags[/p][/quote]Massive TV and lux furnituire - don't forget SKY and a laptop for all in the household and broadband and an Xbox one for the kid and a PS4 for dad....oooh wait I find myself describing a benefit layabout![/p][/quote]Possibly.. But people in politics have decent lives and people on benefits have boring lives and buy these things because it makes their lives more interesting. notANOTHERbrilliantheadline
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Keith B says...

sunnside wrote:
why should they be able to vote on their own increases and why dont they use empty army barracks in london that way the money they claim for second luxury pads could go to a better cause like nhs,education or even paying of the countries debt
They don't vote on their increases - it's done by an independent body - that's the whole point. The increase was awarded to them taking all factors into account by people who would not themselves benefit.

The rise is actually 2% not the claimed 11. Our MP's are hugely underpaid for the job they do. I want the best people running the country - top managers who can command £150 - £200k a year - not some Union time server from the shop floor or a thick Hooray Henry who happened to go to the right school.

I'd double their salary - people like Mrs Baldwin play politics but what she'd ultimately do is to exclude anyone without independent income from going to Parliament - just as it was at the turn of the 20thC.

For the status and responsibility of the job MP's are very much underpaid.
[quote][p][bold]sunnside[/bold] wrote: why should they be able to vote on their own increases and why dont they use empty army barracks in london that way the money they claim for second luxury pads could go to a better cause like nhs,education or even paying of the countries debt[/p][/quote]They don't vote on their increases - it's done by an independent body - that's the whole point. The increase was awarded to them taking all factors into account by people who would not themselves benefit. The rise is actually 2% not the claimed 11. Our MP's are hugely underpaid for the job they do. I want the best people running the country - top managers who can command £150 - £200k a year - not some Union time server from the shop floor or a thick Hooray Henry who happened to go to the right school. I'd double their salary - people like Mrs Baldwin play politics but what she'd ultimately do is to exclude anyone without independent income from going to Parliament - just as it was at the turn of the 20thC. For the status and responsibility of the job MP's are very much underpaid. Keith B
  • Score: 3

9:43am Wed 11 Dec 13

Guy66 says...

notANOTHERbrillianth
eadline
wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
notANOTHERbrillianth


eadline
wrote:
I won't but I think they should seeing as they take whatever they can and spend it on useless junk ( second home expenses ). I mean I do understand that they NEED a massive tv and luxury furniture in their 2nd home whilst people can't afford to live in a decent way.steal from the poor, give to the rich.. Scumbags
Massive TV and lux furnituire - don't forget SKY and a laptop for all in the household and broadband and an Xbox one for the kid and a PS4 for dad....oooh wait I find myself describing a benefit layabout!
Possibly.. But people in politics have decent lives and people on benefits have boring lives and buy these things because it makes their lives more interesting.
You missed the point entirely - the welfare system is there to support someone back into full time work not as a life choice. So owning all the consoles, several large TV, paying for Sky, smoking, drinking etc are things that you should NOT expect the state to subsidize.
[quote][p][bold]notANOTHERbrillianth eadline[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notANOTHERbrillianth eadline[/bold] wrote: I won't but I think they should seeing as they take whatever they can and spend it on useless junk ( second home expenses ). I mean I do understand that they NEED a massive tv and luxury furniture in their 2nd home whilst people can't afford to live in a decent way.steal from the poor, give to the rich.. Scumbags[/p][/quote]Massive TV and lux furnituire - don't forget SKY and a laptop for all in the household and broadband and an Xbox one for the kid and a PS4 for dad....oooh wait I find myself describing a benefit layabout![/p][/quote]Possibly.. But people in politics have decent lives and people on benefits have boring lives and buy these things because it makes their lives more interesting.[/p][/quote]You missed the point entirely - the welfare system is there to support someone back into full time work not as a life choice. So owning all the consoles, several large TV, paying for Sky, smoking, drinking etc are things that you should NOT expect the state to subsidize. Guy66
  • Score: 1

1:17pm Wed 11 Dec 13

notANOTHERbrilliantheadline says...

Guy66 wrote:
notANOTHERbrillianth

eadline
wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
notANOTHERbrillianth



eadline
wrote:
I won't but I think they should seeing as they take whatever they can and spend it on useless junk ( second home expenses ). I mean I do understand that they NEED a massive tv and luxury furniture in their 2nd home whilst people can't afford to live in a decent way.steal from the poor, give to the rich.. Scumbags
Massive TV and lux furnituire - don't forget SKY and a laptop for all in the household and broadband and an Xbox one for the kid and a PS4 for dad....oooh wait I find myself describing a benefit layabout!
Possibly.. But people in politics have decent lives and people on benefits have boring lives and buy these things because it makes their lives more interesting.
You missed the point entirely - the welfare system is there to support someone back into full time work not as a life choice. So owning all the consoles, several large TV, paying for Sky, smoking, drinking etc are things that you should NOT expect the state to subsidize.
Yes, but are you saying nobody on benefits takes the pi55?
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notANOTHERbrillianth eadline[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notANOTHERbrillianth eadline[/bold] wrote: I won't but I think they should seeing as they take whatever they can and spend it on useless junk ( second home expenses ). I mean I do understand that they NEED a massive tv and luxury furniture in their 2nd home whilst people can't afford to live in a decent way.steal from the poor, give to the rich.. Scumbags[/p][/quote]Massive TV and lux furnituire - don't forget SKY and a laptop for all in the household and broadband and an Xbox one for the kid and a PS4 for dad....oooh wait I find myself describing a benefit layabout![/p][/quote]Possibly.. But people in politics have decent lives and people on benefits have boring lives and buy these things because it makes their lives more interesting.[/p][/quote]You missed the point entirely - the welfare system is there to support someone back into full time work not as a life choice. So owning all the consoles, several large TV, paying for Sky, smoking, drinking etc are things that you should NOT expect the state to subsidize.[/p][/quote]Yes, but are you saying nobody on benefits takes the pi55? notANOTHERbrilliantheadline
  • Score: 1

3:45pm Wed 11 Dec 13

DanMacc says...

Good for them, if people on benefits want more money they should work hard and become MPs.
Good for them, if people on benefits want more money they should work hard and become MPs. DanMacc
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Wed 11 Dec 13

daffy says...

why did robin walker avoid answering the question, i personally take it then that he would keep the money as would other politicians who refuse to answer.
why did robin walker avoid answering the question, i personally take it then that he would keep the money as would other politicians who refuse to answer. daffy
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree