Friday, 5 March 2010
MPs' pay rise
As the recession continues to bite and most other public sector workers brace themselves for a pay freeze that is in fact a real-terms pay cut, the lying, thieving, hypocritical bastards from Westminster will enjoy a rise of nearly £1,000 in their basic salary from 1 April 2010, taking their pay to an enviable £65,737 a year. This 1.5% increase follows outrage at the MPs' expenses scandal and is certain to provoke a furious yet ultimately futile reaction from alert observers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Ah, but we are unmaterialistic intellectuals, content to carry on for a crust and a word of encouragement ... n'est-ce pas?
PS thanks for visiting my blog ... yours is great!
Miss Brodie- As you will no doubt have noticed, it makes me *really* mad.
ps: You're welcome...thanks for the kind words.
It's scandalous, that's what it is. My flabber is well and truly gasted. It's just as well I've only had the three glasses of Baileys so far, or my language might have been even fruitier.
I think it has to be all or nothing on public sector pay rises so MPs should bite the bullet with everyone else - especially as you don't need education/experience/aptitude to be one. (The ex chancellor now PM who mismanaged the country's finances should work for nothing for the rest of his life, of course. Preferably not in a post where he can make things even worse...)
I'm on nearly 35 grand as a teacher (that's with no extra responsibility/weighting cash). I have no issue with my pay - that's pretty good money and many would be glad of it. I wouldn't dare complain about it. My issue is with what we're expected - that has naff all to do with teaching - to do to justify it.
Anonymous- You make good points here. Like you, I make in excess of thirty grand per year as a classroom teacher, including additional tlr money. That is a very good wage and I am very happy with it. However, like you, I seem to be earning money for paperwork and other duties outwith actually teaching.
Baz- I disagree strongly that non-teaching staff do "the lion's share" of work in a school and that teachers "coast along." This is a very naive, misinformed and potentially damaging statement that has no basis in fact.
Yes, there are staff working in schools - cleaners, caretakers, NQTs, etc - who eran less than I do. If they are unhappy with this, then of course they could take steps to change their situations by looking for other jobs.
Baz - I am afraid I agree with Urban School Teacher on this one. Of course, support staff work very hard and do, on the whole, a great job, but to say teachers 'coast along' is not only a provocative statement, but an incorrect one. As for worrying about house repossession, I work in FE and many teachers there are in fear of losing their jobs due to funding cuts. Where I work, there are proposals to axe loads of staff (teaching and non-teaching) and this situation is only set to get worse in the FE and HE sectors.
Great post! Have just added you a bit belatedly to my blog list!
Baz- I am unsure as to how you can make judgements about my nationality and political affiliation based exclusively on what you read on this blog but, once again, you are very wide of the mark. I am not American and in fact have never been to the Americas. Also, I am far from being a Tory. I have never voted for the Conservatives and never will do.
I am aware of the pivotal roles of non-teaching staff, including caretakers, technicians, dinner ladies (not "ladys") etc. I appreciate the hard work that they do and you are not in position to assume otherwise. Why do you think that I am oblivious to their importance?
You have repeated your claim that some teachers are in a position to "pretty much coast along." I repeat that, as a general statement, this is wrong and, as a matter of fact, it says more about your personal standards, efforts and ambitions than it does about general teaching standards.
No, the teachers do not clean the toilets or anything else because that is not part of their job remit. Equally, the cleaners are not required to prepare lessons, teach classes, deal with paperwork nor spend hours marking students' work.
Baz- The comments that I made on this blog, my blog, on 23.2.10 described how I am currently feeling about my job as a teacher. You are correct in saying that there are lots of teachers who feel like that, or worse. The difference between them and me is that my current outlook is temporary. I am a self-aware professional and I am not happy to simply roll along while picking up a pay slip.
""I am putting minimal effort into the preparation and delivery of my lessons>"" ... "how many other teachers do that? sorry to tell you.. LOADS..." Baz, I'm sorry to tell you that you are not in a position to tell me anything. I am very well aware that there are, of course, "LOADS" of teachers out there in our schools who put in minimal effort. The same thing can be said for every job in the world, including supply teachers, barmen, waiters and even interior designers.
The Prime Minister earns approximately £200,000 per year. Based on how bad he is at his job, I believe that he is grossly - perhaps even criminally - overpaid. You are obviously a regular reader of my blog, thanks, so you will surely have noticed that I am regularly critical of MPs' pay and expenses.
Richard Branson and Alan Sugar are what we call self-made men and are entitled to every penny they have earned. I cannot see how these examples are relevant to how much a teacher, a cleaner or a politician earn.
Baz- Firstly, I have said (in my previous comment) that I agree with you that there are teachers who coast along by putting minimal effort into their work. We have the same opinion on this.
As for your example of Richard Branson, why should he or others like him work hard for their money and then give it away to people who were equally capable of mirroring his achievements but didn't bother to try? His total wealth is currently valued at closer to £3bn than the £1.5bn that you mentioned. He does not need this amount of money but it is his, he has earned it, and therefore he can do whatever he likes with it. He shouldn't, and of course doesn't, need to justify it. Perhaps he and other people with similar levels of personal wealth ought to do more to help others, perhaps not. That is not for me to decide. Or - and this will probably strike you personally as being a wacky idea - why don't they help themselves?!
No, I do not believe that footballers or other sporting stars do a job that is more important than mine. However, they are luckier than me in that they have a talent that enables them to earn more than I do.
I cannot understand how you can attack Frank Lampard's pay but defend that of Gordon Brown. The hapless PM is a lying, unethical moron who does not deserve even one penny of his inflated pay. As for the other MPs, it stands to reason that they earn less than people such as the CEOs of private companies because they are effectively public sector workers.
Post a Comment