Tory Minister quits over 'intolerable' salary and expenses

MaxwellBygraves

Story

Mr Simmonds is paid £89,435 a year as a minister and MP and is entitled to £27,875 a year to rent and pay for a flat with him and his family.

However he said this did not “stretch” far enough and so he stayed in hotels during the week when he was in London. His wife is also paid up to £25,000 a year to act as his office manager.

Cry me a f*cking river pal.

pblakeney

The flip side to this story is - What does his other job pay?

It is all relative but yes, it is hard to find some sympathy.

markhewitt1978

He was saying the issue is that he has to basically spend all week in a hotel in London, away from his family in Boston. And £28k a year isn't enough to rent a flat big enough for him and his family.

Yes; they are paid vast sums; however it doesn't matter how much you're paid, being away from your family all week and most of the weekend is not acceptable for anyone.

pblakeney

markhewitt1978 wrote:

He was saying the issue is that he has to basically spend all week in a hotel in London, away from his family in Boston. And £28k a year isn't enough to rent a flat big enough for him and his family.

Yes; they are paid vast sums; however it doesn't matter how much you're paid, being away from your family all week and most of the weekend is not acceptable for anyone.

Ask those in the Forces, or those that work offshore.
There are thousands of people in this Country who do a lot more for a lot less.

ballysmate

Some people have no choice but to work away from their families. He obviously is in a position to exercise a choice and has decided accordingly.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Some people have no choice but to work away from their families. He obviously is in a position to exercise a choice and has decided accordingly.

Everyone has a choice. The consequences of that choice are a whole lot more uncomfortable.

“The allowance that is allocated to rent accommodation when we are away from our main home, and I live in Boston in my constituency, means that it does not stretch to renting a flat,” he said.
“So I have to stay in a different hotel room every week and any parent would hate that — and I do.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -lift.html

That sounds like he would have been happy if the budget would have stretched to a flat of his choice.

peat

Depends on your situation though doesn't it. No-one, in this country, has a gun to their head to join the forces/work on an oil rig. It's up to the individual to determine if the reward is worth the sacrifice.

I'm usually the first to stick the boot in on politicians, but this story is just tabloid piddle.

secretsam

Ballysmate wrote:

Some people have no choice but to work away from their families. He obviously is in a position to exercise a choice and has decided accordingly.

Well, they do have a choice, they can quit.

But as someone whose job often requires staying away, let me tell you - it sucks. Even with Skype, etc.

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Some people have no choice but to work away from their families. He obviously is in a position to exercise a choice and has decided accordingly.

Everyone has a choice. The consequences of that choice are a whole lot more uncomfortable.

Some people have to make sacrifices to put food on the table and have very little choice if their work takes them away, assuming they want to provide for their families. This guy doesn't have to do so and has decided not to.
I too can find little sympathy for the angle that this guy is bleating that he can't get by on 120 grand,

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Some people have no choice but to work away from their families. He obviously is in a position to exercise a choice and has decided accordingly.

Everyone has a choice. The consequences of that choice are a whole lot more uncomfortable.

Some people have to make sacrifices to put food on the table and have very little choice if their work takes them away, assuming they want to provide for their families. This guy doesn't have to do so and has decided not to.
I too can find little sympathy for the angle that this guy is bleating that he can't get by on 120 grand,

It is still a choice, even if uncomfortable.
There are a lot of people leaving the Forces just now facing the possibility of being on the breadline but think that the sacrifice will be worth it. Their choice.
If he hadn't mentioned the financial side of things and focussed on the family issue then there would be more understanding.

arran77

I think Mr Bygraves is being a little selective in his quotes.

Yes, those are the sums of money involved but as markhewitt1978 said the problem this MP had was that he found he could not justify being away from his family all week so has chosen to leave for this reason because despite what might appear very generous allowances for living it would not cover the cost of his family being with him.

Paulie W

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Some people have no choice but to work away from their families. He obviously is in a position to exercise a choice and has decided accordingly.

Everyone has a choice. The consequences of that choice are a whole lot more uncomfortable.

“The allowance that is allocated to rent accommodation when we are away from our main home, and I live in Boston in my constituency, means that it does not stretch to renting a flat,” he said.
“So I have to stay in a different hotel room every week and any parent would hate that — and I do.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -lift.html

That sounds like he would have been happy if the budget would have stretched to a flat of his choice.

The problem for the MP is that a quick search showed hundreds of 4-5 bedroom properties within 30 minutes of Westminster within his price range.

pblakeney

Paulie W wrote:

The problem for the MP is that a quick search showed hundreds of 4-5 bedroom properties within 30 minutes of Westminster within his price range.

Exactly!
So what kind of property was his expectation? A Chelsea penthouse would have made being away from the family bearable, no doubt.

markhewitt1978

I had a job a few years ago where I was away through the week staying in hotels, although I didn't hate it, once my daughter was born it would have been impossible. So I took a job where I could be at home every night - and a substantial pay cut.

Colinthecop

I agree with VTech... 8)

Paulie W

The reality is that he could afford to move his family to somewhere within striking distance of Westminster. Presumably the options he had were not to his or his family's liking not when compared to a big house in the country in Lincolnshire

arran77

Colinthecop wrote:

I agree with VTech... 8)

tangled_metal

It's all a choice isn't it? Work away or work at home or move home to where work is. I know in a few years I am likely to have to leave my job and move if I am to live with my family. My choice and an easy one to make.

The only issue with MPs is their dual working/living situation made worse if north of th Watford gap. They have to work from their constituency and often have a house there or nearby (makes them more electable if considered committed to the local area). Then they have to work in term time at Westminster. Two homes if not commutable. They also work late nights (like a lot of people but sometimes past midnight then a commute home???). I'm not justifying anything but what would you do? Centre your family at the main place of work (Westminster) and stay away in constituency not to be seen as a "local" by electorate to lose joib at next election?? Everyone has a right to a family life or at least that is what the relevent article of the huiman rights convention states. he has chosen to exercise that. Should be commended not moaned about. He's giving his job up. Would you give it up if you got paid £60k+???

pblakeney

It is not sacrificing the job for the family that is the issue.

In his own words - The expenses would not cover the cost of a flat.

And clearly, they would. Just not to his satisfaction.

monkimark

£28,000 is plenty enough to rent a 4 bed flat within 5 miles of Westminster (hardly the 'outer reaches of London') and have change left over for taxis home on the days he's working later than the tube/trains run. It also effectively gives his family a second home in London if they want to come into town to see a show - not many jobs offer that.

If he wants to quit for a better family life then that's his choice but claiming that he doesn't get enough in expenses is simply not true.

plowmar

Just a thought, but as he has just resigned as a Foreign Office minister doesn't that mean that his base salary goes down?. Any one got a spare cardboard box?

solosuperia

Just a thought...............
He wants to spend more time with his family.
My memory is dimming but haven't I heard that refrain sometimes in the past.

Ho Hum

Giraffoto

I came up with the perfect solution to this, and a number of other issues with our parliament, in a previous thread about expenses: make parliament virtual.

• Have a constituency office in every constituency with teleconferencing capability.
• No London = No 2nd Home = No problem.
• Boost the UK's image as a technologically advanced country.
• Increase the MP's time in their constituency.
• Make them more accountable by gathering statistics of how much time they spend participating in parliamentary debates.
• Capture everyone's reaction to every word.
• No more shouting "Order, order".
• Invest in the UK's broadband network and teleconferencing technology to make it all possible (probably cheaper than all those mortgages).
• No more daft expenses like the House of Commons wine cellar or the free snuff allowance.

It just gets better and better . . .

tangled_metal

Like the idea but until they sort out decent broadband in the more rural areas it would not be as good an idea as your post sounds. From my reading of your idea that a virtual parliament could allow any constituent with an interest to view the debates and the MPs reactions and performance directly, thereby getting more involvement in the democracy we have. If the broadband is insufficient of non-existent in some constituents' areas or they just can't afford it then you are excluding these people from the process. Effectively creating different tiers of democratic participation or at least the potential for participation has tiers. I seriously doubt you would get people tapping in to virtual parliamentary debates in their droves but not having the infrastructure at the same level for all is an in-balance which is n-ot good (kind of a milder negativity than restricting voter registration but you are restricting voter participation or possible participation in select minorities).

Just my view anyway. Might still be better than what we have though.

pinno

I like the idea of the houses of parliament filled with 46" LCD screens.

I am not playing devil's advocate but I don't think MP's are paid enough. their basic salary:
A Does not attract the right people into the job and
B Pays less than a very average executive job.

As far as accommodation goes, why don't they build/procure some flats that are specific to MP's and they simply had the keys back at the end of their term of office? Rents kept to a minimum and paid directly out of their salaries. Owned by the taxpayer and it would save a lot of hassle.

MountainMonster

We had Mark Simmonds visit our company earlier in the year, shortly before the reshuffle. He was a genuinely nice guy, and had mentioned then the amount of time away from family was a burden. I could imagine so, considering he left London at 7am to get to our company on time, and this was happening every day that week.

rick_chasey

Think the OP and the press are being selective with the quotes.

Being an MP is a job, and if the chap felt the job was not rewarding him enough for the work, then it's entirely legitimate and fair to say enough is enough.

pinno

We do have this odd expectation of MP's in that they have to behave in a way the is not human. When the Monika Lewinski fiasco kicked off, the Gruaniad printed the different reactions to the affair:

France - 'Ces't L'amour'
Germany - Couldn't give a toss
Italy - 'How romantic'

In Blighty, we scrutinise them to death (literally). Why should he have to justify his decision? If he was good at his job (that's subjective, I don't know), then we should be talking along the lines of 'It's a pity...'.

If a politician is doing his job properly, then I don't care what he/she is doing, smoking, shagging outside of their profession.

arran77

Rick Chasey wrote:

Think the OP and the press are being selective with the quotes.

Being an MP is a job, and if the chap felt the job was not rewarding him enough for the work, then it's entirely legitimate and fair to say enough is enough.

Couldn't agree more

arran77 wrote:

I think Mr Bygraves is being a little selective in his quotes.

I daren't say it twice in one night though

tangled_metal

There is a theory we only get talented politicians if they're rich and enough already. As someone said executives, which is what MPs really are, get paid more. Would you go for £67k as mp or a lot more in industry? If you don't like the privelaged classes in parliament, from all sides, then perhaps increase pay to get better and more variety of background of our MPs. I've seen them compared against GPs, headteachers and chief constables pay. All are probably managers or executives so probably MP's professional equivalents I reckon but all get paid more. Look to other nation's MP's pay too. Take into account cost of living, currency etc to equalise the figures to the UK and you would probably n find our lot are relatively lower paid. Another thing to blame Thatcher for. It was under her that pay increases for MPs got a big system change b which separated increases from inflation or cost of living increases. That also led to the expenses system being thought of as a salary top up not a true expense!

What surprises me is there's a fair few GPs working as MPs. They got more as a gp so why become an mp?

airbag

It would seem a very good reason to get started on the building of broadband for rural areas then.

Tempting as it is to rant, I can see the point - £28k a year really doesn't rent much in London.

Though I'd have to agree you could ask whether you need them in London that much at all.

For a start, foreign policy decisions. Do we really need geographical representatives for that?

And what's the point having them there for any matter where they'll just vote on party lines? None.

If they spent more time in their constituencies, they'd be better at representing them when they're truly needed. And cheaper to boot.

And yes, dedicated housing would be a great idea for when they are necessary. Taxpayers have to pay for MP's housing anyway; why shouldn't the treasury get the benefit as well?