Swindon MP still reluctantly accepting pay hike as Prime Minister tells regulator to reconsider

Swindon Advertiser: Swindon South MP Robert Buckland Swindon South MP Robert Buckland

SWINDON South MP Robert Buckland has reiterated he would "reluctantly" accept an 11 per cent pay rise after Prime Minister David Cameron urged the pay regulator to "think again" over plans for the hike.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said salaries would go up from the current level of £66,000 to £74,000 after the general election in 2015.

It insisted that pensions will be curbed and other benefits trimmed to ensure the overall changes are cost-neutral.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's World At One, the local conservative MP admitted the increase would be "a very difficult pill to swallow" for voters facing a squeeze on their own incomes, but he would accept whatever increase (Ipsa) recommended.

Mr Buckland said: "As I believe in an independent regulator, I have to accept whatever they said. Let's say Ipsa had suggested a cut, I'd have had to have accepted that.

"I think it would be wrong for me personally to start trying to pre-empt or usurp what an independent regulator has said, so if I was re-elected, reluctantly, I think I would go along with the recommendation and perhaps adjust how I spent the money accordingly.

"All of us will give a proportion of what we earn to good causes and I think there's a case for MPs individually to look at how they spend any increase in income."

But the Prime Minister repeated his thinly veiled threat to the body that he would not "rule out... taking action " if it presses ahead with the proposed rise, which is due to be confirmed after the 2015 election.

Mr Cameron told BBC WM: "This isn't a final recommendation. They should think again and I very much hope they do. I don't rule out, and I don't think anyone rules out, taking action if they don't modify this proposal."

Labour leader Ed Miliband and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have also spoken out against the proposed rise.

Ipsa chairman Sir Ian Kennedy insisted that the package put together by the regulator could not be "unpicked".

"This is a package, a package of reforms," he said in a round of broadcast interviews. "You cannot unpick it. You can't say that bit we like and that bit we do not."

Sir Ian said the research done by Ipsa indicated that the overall package had "significant support" from the public.

Asked about the political backlash against the changes, Sir Ian said: "Part of the package is the part that they don't like, but the package as a whole has significant support from the public, for example. The public is in favour of changing the pensions..."

He added: "The public is far more sophisticated than a lot of people think they are. When we have done our work - and we have done the research and we have asked people - when they appreciate that the package is a long-awaited package of reforms and it won't cost the taxpayer a penny more, then they are more inclined to agree with it."

Many MPs and candidates for 2015 have already said they will not accept the slated salary increase.

But Ipsa made clear that it will pay the sums into their bank accounts regardless.

"We understand that, in advance of the election, candidates are likely to come under pressure to refuse to accept the pay rise," the report said.

"Indeed, some MPs have already indicated that, should they be re-elected, they will not accept the full amount to which they are entitled.

"While the prospect of MPs taking less money from the taxpayer may be an attractive prospect to some members of the public, we do not believe that it would be acceptable, as it would result in a race to the bottom and favour those with personal wealth.

"In accordance with our legislation, we will pay all MPs their full salary each month, after appropriate deductions for tax, national insurance and pension contributions.

"We will not agree to any request from an MP for a reduction in their salary. However, just like any other citizen, should they wish to give away their salary themselves, they will be free to do so.

"No candidate should therefore feel obliged - or tempted - to make any promise about taking a reduced salary if elected. All candidates should be clear that such promises will have no effect on the arrangements operated by Ipsa."

Ministers have refused to take increases in their MP salary since 2010, but they have done so by cutting the ministerial element of their pay.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:30pm Thu 12 Dec 13

nigelej says...

So go back to parliament and give he fire brigade the increase the independent body wanted to give to them .and put all public and private sector in the hands of independent advice . Easy then I will respect you mr Buckland
So go back to parliament and give he fire brigade the increase the independent body wanted to give to them .and put all public and private sector in the hands of independent advice . Easy then I will respect you mr Buckland nigelej

3:45pm Thu 12 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

He can reluctantly accept the payrise and give it to good causes....but I guess we all know that he will not,
Everyday I feel more disgusted by politicians, our PM once said that "We are all in it together" I know now what he meant: Banksters, CEOs and Politicians milking the system at the expense of the working people.
He can reluctantly accept the payrise and give it to good causes....but I guess we all know that he will not, Everyday I feel more disgusted by politicians, our PM once said that "We are all in it together" I know now what he meant: Banksters, CEOs and Politicians milking the system at the expense of the working people. A.Baron-Cohen

4:06pm Thu 12 Dec 13

twasadawf says...

If they put it up to £100,000 a year i would stand for parliament ,if not i can't be bothered
If they put it up to £100,000 a year i would stand for parliament ,if not i can't be bothered twasadawf

4:11pm Thu 12 Dec 13

nigelej says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
He can reluctantly accept the payrise and give it to good causes....but I guess we all know that he will not,
Everyday I feel more disgusted by politicians, our PM once said that "We are all in it together" I know now what he meant: Banksters, CEOs and Politicians milking the system at the expense of the working people.
You are so right there . What with there outrageous claims for there second homes and energy bills especially the one who was claiming to heat his horses . Why was he not charged with fraud . He paid it back and clam edit was an error only after the papers published what he was claiming for.if I was caught fiddling my companies or the benefits I wouldn't be allowed to claim error on my part I'd be in court .the only trouble is I don't have the answers to who would be best to run the country .any thoughts on a different system .
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: He can reluctantly accept the payrise and give it to good causes....but I guess we all know that he will not, Everyday I feel more disgusted by politicians, our PM once said that "We are all in it together" I know now what he meant: Banksters, CEOs and Politicians milking the system at the expense of the working people.[/p][/quote]You are so right there . What with there outrageous claims for there second homes and energy bills especially the one who was claiming to heat his horses . Why was he not charged with fraud . He paid it back and clam edit was an error only after the papers published what he was claiming for.if I was caught fiddling my companies or the benefits I wouldn't be allowed to claim error on my part I'd be in court .the only trouble is I don't have the answers to who would be best to run the country .any thoughts on a different system . nigelej

4:11pm Thu 12 Dec 13

nigelej says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
He can reluctantly accept the payrise and give it to good causes....but I guess we all know that he will not,
Everyday I feel more disgusted by politicians, our PM once said that "We are all in it together" I know now what he meant: Banksters, CEOs and Politicians milking the system at the expense of the working people.
You are so right there . What with there outrageous claims for there second homes and energy bills especially the one who was claiming to heat his horses . Why was he not charged with fraud . He paid it back and clam edit was an error only after the papers published what he was claiming for.if I was caught fiddling my companies or the benefits I wouldn't be allowed to claim error on my part I'd be in court .the only trouble is I don't have the answers to who would be best to run the country .any thoughts on a different system .
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: He can reluctantly accept the payrise and give it to good causes....but I guess we all know that he will not, Everyday I feel more disgusted by politicians, our PM once said that "We are all in it together" I know now what he meant: Banksters, CEOs and Politicians milking the system at the expense of the working people.[/p][/quote]You are so right there . What with there outrageous claims for there second homes and energy bills especially the one who was claiming to heat his horses . Why was he not charged with fraud . He paid it back and clam edit was an error only after the papers published what he was claiming for.if I was caught fiddling my companies or the benefits I wouldn't be allowed to claim error on my part I'd be in court .the only trouble is I don't have the answers to who would be best to run the country .any thoughts on a different system . nigelej

4:35pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
He can reluctantly accept the payrise and give it to good causes....but I guess we all know that he will not,
Everyday I feel more disgusted by politicians, our PM once said that "We are all in it together" I know now what he meant: Banksters, CEOs and Politicians milking the system at the expense of the working people.
I accept your sentiment, but bankers, CEO's and politicians are "working people" too.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: He can reluctantly accept the payrise and give it to good causes....but I guess we all know that he will not, Everyday I feel more disgusted by politicians, our PM once said that "We are all in it together" I know now what he meant: Banksters, CEOs and Politicians milking the system at the expense of the working people.[/p][/quote]I accept your sentiment, but bankers, CEO's and politicians are "working people" too. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

4:37pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

What do people think would be a salary for MPs that they would find acceptable?

£26,000pa?

£50,000pa?

Bearing in mind that average salary for a middle-management public sector worker these days is around £35,000.
What do people think would be a salary for MPs that they would find acceptable? £26,000pa? £50,000pa? Bearing in mind that average salary for a middle-management public sector worker these days is around £35,000. Ringer

5:32pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

"Cuts have to be made" "We're all in it together" Hypocrisy and lies!
Such a large % pay rise kicks all those struggling on measly rises and others seeing cuts in the teeth.
"Cuts have to be made" "We're all in it together" Hypocrisy and lies! Such a large % pay rise kicks all those struggling on measly rises and others seeing cuts in the teeth. Davey Gravey

6:24pm Thu 12 Dec 13

GalaxyMan says...

Give it to charity then, Buckland.
Give it to charity then, Buckland. GalaxyMan

6:54pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
"Cuts have to be made" "We're all in it together" Hypocrisy and lies!
Such a large % pay rise kicks all those struggling on measly rises and others seeing cuts in the teeth.
What amount would you say is an acceptable salary for an MP then Davey?

The 5.2% rise all benefit recipients got, of our money, was quite juicy as well - didn't hear you whinging about that though.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: "Cuts have to be made" "We're all in it together" Hypocrisy and lies! Such a large % pay rise kicks all those struggling on measly rises and others seeing cuts in the teeth.[/p][/quote]What amount would you say is an acceptable salary for an MP then Davey? The 5.2% rise all benefit recipients got, of our money, was quite juicy as well - didn't hear you whinging about that though. Ringer

6:58pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

GalaxyMan wrote:
Give it to charity then, Buckland.
Would you give your pay rise to charity?
[quote][p][bold]GalaxyMan[/bold] wrote: Give it to charity then, Buckland.[/p][/quote]Would you give your pay rise to charity? Ringer

7:15pm Thu 12 Dec 13

nigelej says...

Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
"Cuts have to be made" "We're all in it together" Hypocrisy and lies!
Such a large % pay rise kicks all those struggling on measly rises and others seeing cuts in the teeth.
What amount would you say is an acceptable salary for an MP then Davey?

The 5.2% rise all benefit recipients got, of our money, was quite juicy as well - didn't hear you whinging about that though.
5.2% of £72 per week is not quite like 11%of £65 000. Is it really so don't quite get your argument there .
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: "Cuts have to be made" "We're all in it together" Hypocrisy and lies! Such a large % pay rise kicks all those struggling on measly rises and others seeing cuts in the teeth.[/p][/quote]What amount would you say is an acceptable salary for an MP then Davey? The 5.2% rise all benefit recipients got, of our money, was quite juicy as well - didn't hear you whinging about that though.[/p][/quote]5.2% of £72 per week is not quite like 11%of £65 000. Is it really so don't quite get your argument there . nigelej

7:16pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
"Cuts have to be made" "We're all in it together" Hypocrisy and lies!
Such a large % pay rise kicks all those struggling on measly rises and others seeing cuts in the teeth.
What amount would you say is an acceptable salary for an MP then Davey?

The 5.2% rise all benefit recipients got, of our money, was quite juicy as well - didn't hear you whinging about that though.
So some people on the breadline got a few quid increase on their small benefits entitlements. This compared to wealthy MP's getting a few grand increase on their large wage entitlements. A ridiculous comparison.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: "Cuts have to be made" "We're all in it together" Hypocrisy and lies! Such a large % pay rise kicks all those struggling on measly rises and others seeing cuts in the teeth.[/p][/quote]What amount would you say is an acceptable salary for an MP then Davey? The 5.2% rise all benefit recipients got, of our money, was quite juicy as well - didn't hear you whinging about that though.[/p][/quote]So some people on the breadline got a few quid increase on their small benefits entitlements. This compared to wealthy MP's getting a few grand increase on their large wage entitlements. A ridiculous comparison. Davey Gravey

8:14pm Thu 12 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Ringer wrote:
What do people think would be a salary for MPs that they would find acceptable?

£26,000pa?

£50,000pa?

Bearing in mind that average salary for a middle-management public sector worker these days is around £35,000.
£35,000 sounds about right then as they are about as inept as each other!
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: What do people think would be a salary for MPs that they would find acceptable? £26,000pa? £50,000pa? Bearing in mind that average salary for a middle-management public sector worker these days is around £35,000.[/p][/quote]£35,000 sounds about right then as they are about as inept as each other! house on the hill

9:18pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

Again I ask, who here would turn down a payrise if it were offered to them (excluding Union members of course).
Again I ask, who here would turn down a payrise if it were offered to them (excluding Union members of course). Hmmmf

11:13pm Thu 12 Dec 13

barlizard says...

I will vote for the MP who publicly states he will not accept the rise and will return it to the treasury!
I will vote for the MP who publicly states he will not accept the rise and will return it to the treasury! barlizard

7:57am Fri 13 Dec 13

Ringer says...

I note that the resident socialists STILL haven't answered the very simple question:

How much do you think MPs should be paid per year?
I note that the resident socialists STILL haven't answered the very simple question: How much do you think MPs should be paid per year? Ringer

8:22am Fri 13 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Again I ask, who here would turn down a payrise if it were offered to them (excluding Union members of course).
Absolutely, i bet there isn't a person in Swindon who would turn down 11% pay rise no matter when it was offered, so less of the hypocrisy thanks!
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: Again I ask, who here would turn down a payrise if it were offered to them (excluding Union members of course).[/p][/quote]Absolutely, i bet there isn't a person in Swindon who would turn down 11% pay rise no matter when it was offered, so less of the hypocrisy thanks! house on the hill

10:46am Fri 13 Dec 13

Synergie says...

Seems everybody is missing the real reason why MP's do not want this pay increase. By accepting the increase, they are also accepting the conditions of the settlement. The changes to conditions of employment include; replacing final salary pensions with a much lower career average pension. Also a reduction to resettlement payments when either entering or leaving parliament. Another condition is further reductions as to what can be claimed as expenses.
.
The phoney indignation currently being displayed by MP's is a smoke screen. The fact is, once the full payment increase conditions are implimented, the actual increase in salary will be less than rate of inflation.
Seems everybody is missing the real reason why MP's do not want this pay increase. By accepting the increase, they are also accepting the conditions of the settlement. The changes to conditions of employment include; replacing final salary pensions with a much lower career average pension. Also a reduction to resettlement payments when either entering or leaving parliament. Another condition is further reductions as to what can be claimed as expenses. . The phoney indignation currently being displayed by MP's is a smoke screen. The fact is, once the full payment increase conditions are implimented, the actual increase in salary will be less than rate of inflation. Synergie

1:09pm Fri 13 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Synergie wrote:
Seems everybody is missing the real reason why MP's do not want this pay increase. By accepting the increase, they are also accepting the conditions of the settlement. The changes to conditions of employment include; replacing final salary pensions with a much lower career average pension. Also a reduction to resettlement payments when either entering or leaving parliament. Another condition is further reductions as to what can be claimed as expenses.
.
The phoney indignation currently being displayed by MP's is a smoke screen. The fact is, once the full payment increase conditions are implimented, the actual increase in salary will be less than rate of inflation.
So thats puts them on a par with most of the private sector then who lost those sort of "perks" years ago but without the pay rise to go with it.
[quote][p][bold]Synergie[/bold] wrote: Seems everybody is missing the real reason why MP's do not want this pay increase. By accepting the increase, they are also accepting the conditions of the settlement. The changes to conditions of employment include; replacing final salary pensions with a much lower career average pension. Also a reduction to resettlement payments when either entering or leaving parliament. Another condition is further reductions as to what can be claimed as expenses. . The phoney indignation currently being displayed by MP's is a smoke screen. The fact is, once the full payment increase conditions are implimented, the actual increase in salary will be less than rate of inflation.[/p][/quote]So thats puts them on a par with most of the private sector then who lost those sort of "perks" years ago but without the pay rise to go with it. house on the hill

2:05pm Fri 13 Dec 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

barlizard wrote:
I will vote for the MP who publicly states he will not accept the rise and will return it to the treasury!
You can't vote for an MP; you vote for a candidate who stands for election. Once elected they become an MP..... :)
[quote][p][bold]barlizard[/bold] wrote: I will vote for the MP who publicly states he will not accept the rise and will return it to the treasury![/p][/quote]You can't vote for an MP; you vote for a candidate who stands for election. Once elected they become an MP..... :) LordAshOfTheBrake

10:38pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Phantom Poster says...

house on the hill wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
Again I ask, who here would turn down a payrise if it were offered to them (excluding Union members of course).
Absolutely, i bet there isn't a person in Swindon who would turn down 11% pay rise no matter when it was offered, so less of the hypocrisy thanks!
Hypocrisy - look it up in the dictionary ('all in it together', minimal public sector pay rises). Aren't MPs salaries coming out of the public purse?
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: Again I ask, who here would turn down a payrise if it were offered to them (excluding Union members of course).[/p][/quote]Absolutely, i bet there isn't a person in Swindon who would turn down 11% pay rise no matter when it was offered, so less of the hypocrisy thanks![/p][/quote]Hypocrisy - look it up in the dictionary ('all in it together', minimal public sector pay rises). Aren't MPs salaries coming out of the public purse? Phantom Poster

11:11pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Phantom Poster says...

AS "Ringer" and "House on the Hill" would say regarding public sector workers - we are in difficult times and public sector employees should have to accept the cutbacks which private sector have had to.

But wait - lets give MPs an 11% pay rise! Such utter, utter, unbelievable hypocrisy!

OK, I agree that the problem is mainly due to bad timing, but tough **** - 'we are all in it together'!
AS "Ringer" and "House on the Hill" would say regarding public sector workers - we are in difficult times and public sector employees should have to accept the cutbacks which private sector have had to. But wait - lets give MPs an 11% pay rise! Such utter, utter, unbelievable hypocrisy! OK, I agree that the problem is mainly due to bad timing, but tough **** - 'we are all in it together'! Phantom Poster

11:16pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Phantom Poster says...

I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I seem to recall that a few years back it was recommended that fireman's salaries were increased, but the government refused to do so. Hypocrisy?
I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I seem to recall that a few years back it was recommended that fireman's salaries were increased, but the government refused to do so. Hypocrisy? Phantom Poster

7:53am Sat 14 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
AS "Ringer" and "House on the Hill" would say regarding public sector workers - we are in difficult times and public sector employees should have to accept the cutbacks which private sector have had to.

But wait - lets give MPs an 11% pay rise! Such utter, utter, unbelievable hypocrisy!

OK, I agree that the problem is mainly due to bad timing, but tough **** - 'we are all in it together'!
But, of course, your point is a rather silly one.

There are, I believe, something in the region of 625 MPs.

The NHS, alone, employs 1.8 Million people.

So giving MPs an 11% pay increase is in no way comparable to giving NHS workers an 11% pay increase in terms of how much it costs you and I to award that increase.

The whole 'we're all in it together' thing doesn't mean we're all the same, or in the same situation, it just means we're all living through the same period of economic downturn that the last Labour government brought upon the nation. Are people really so thick as to not understand that?
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: AS "Ringer" and "House on the Hill" would say regarding public sector workers - we are in difficult times and public sector employees should have to accept the cutbacks which private sector have had to. But wait - lets give MPs an 11% pay rise! Such utter, utter, unbelievable hypocrisy! OK, I agree that the problem is mainly due to bad timing, but tough **** - 'we are all in it together'![/p][/quote]But, of course, your point is a rather silly one. There are, I believe, something in the region of 625 MPs. The NHS, alone, employs 1.8 Million people. So giving MPs an 11% pay increase is in no way comparable to giving NHS workers an 11% pay increase in terms of how much it costs you and I to award that increase. The whole 'we're all in it together' thing doesn't mean we're all the same, or in the same situation, it just means we're all living through the same period of economic downturn that the last Labour government brought upon the nation. Are people really so thick as to not understand that? Ringer

7:54am Sat 14 Dec 13

Ringer says...

But, of course, your point is a rather silly one.

There are, I believe, something in the region of 625 MPs.

The NHS, alone, employs 1.8 Million people.

So giving MPs an 11% pay increase is in no way comparable to giving NHS workers an 11% pay increase in terms of how much it costs you and I to award that increase.

The whole 'we're all in it together' thing doesn't mean we're all the same, or in the same situation, it just means we're all living through the same period of economic downturn that the last Labour government brought upon the nation. Are people really so thick as to not understand that?
But, of course, your point is a rather silly one. There are, I believe, something in the region of 625 MPs. The NHS, alone, employs 1.8 Million people. So giving MPs an 11% pay increase is in no way comparable to giving NHS workers an 11% pay increase in terms of how much it costs you and I to award that increase. The whole 'we're all in it together' thing doesn't mean we're all the same, or in the same situation, it just means we're all living through the same period of economic downturn that the last Labour government brought upon the nation. Are people really so thick as to not understand that? Ringer

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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