The Daily Telegraph understands that members of the House of Commons Commission, who have been considering the matter on behalf of MPs, will submit a suggested pay rise soon to Sir John of between £10,000 and £15,000.
A Commons source said: "All the experts the committee consulted agreed that MPs were underpaid by between £10,000 and £15,000, so that is the amount they will submit.
"They have come to accept that the public and media will never reconcile themselves to pay rises for MPs, so they have decided that they will just have to take the hit, soak up the criticism, and move on with a more sustainable pay scale in future that better reflects the professional status of being a Member of Parliament."
They\’ve swallowed the Kool-Aid there I think.
Lots of lovely comparisons about equal worth, the time the job entails, the qualifications desirable, the status even that is granted by a certain income. All done by a committee employing no doubt the latest spread sheet macros.
The thing is, we already have a system which calculates all of these things for us. Without being so subjective about it as well. Called a market, that interplay of supply and demand. As with the way that the pay for most other jobs in the economy are worked out. How much do we have to pay to get the properly qualified people we need?
Given that at each General Election there are some thousands of people, all of whom are by definition in a democracy qualified to do the job, chasing some 600 ish seats, the market is telling us that wages for MPs should fall, not rise.
Oh, one further point. This will almost undoubtedly be finessed by the claim that it\’s not so much a pay raise, rather a move of what wa previously one or other of the allowances to the pay packet. Hmm, but don\’t forget that that will mean that the higher sum will now count towards the pension, that scheme which is already the best in the country.