Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
La Colombe

Rob Callister

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hissingsid said:

He has researched, done his homework on this and made a really good case why this ridiculous scheme at the top of Birch Hill is neither desirable or makes sense.

makes no difference really,  we still got  runway extension we didn't need 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Donald Trumps said:

Did you reach an overall figure for the total payroll burden to the nation Roger?

The total annual payroll for all those is £2,187,830.10, with an average of £66,300 or so for the 33 of them.

@P.K. is wrong above when he says that the 'expenses' is a new scam, it seems to go back at least 20 years.  I repeat something I said on the related topic:

There is currently an inquiry underway, headed by Sir Miles, into what Tynwald members should be paid - or as they like to describe it their 'emoluments' - (you may remember some previous discussion).  This had a perhaps under-noticed consultation in the Summer and in the rather scanty information documentation accompanying it, it says about expenses:

  Quote

Annual sum for expenses

A9. The tax-free annual sum for expenses was defined 1998 as £3,906.63 per year, to be “increased cumulatively each year by the average percentage increase applied to the salaries of officers in the General Service Classes of the Civil Service”. Today it is £7,403.60 per year (with effect from 1 April 2019).

A10. The purpose of the annual sum for expenses is not set out in primary or secondary legislation. It is paid on a monthly basis without the need to submit receipts. Although exempt from income tax, it is subject to National Insurance contributions.

A11. The Isle of Man Independent dated 4 to 12 October 2018 included a survey of attitudes of Tynwald Members under the headline “End MHKs’ expenses system say MHKs”. Ten Members told the newspaper they thought the annual sum should be rolled into salary.

So it looks like the lump sum for 'expenses' was brought in in 1998, which ties in with what I remember.  When Blair came in in 1997 he made a big thing about not taking a pay rise (he made up for it later) and presumably in that era of fake restraint Tynwald thought it would make a similar gesture, but compensated with a lump sum 'expenses'.  Similar scams were done elsewhere (Jersey for example, though they incorporated theirs into the salary in 2015).  

John [Wright] thinks this system predates 1998, though I'm not so sure.  I remember much cynicism about it at the time, so either it was new then or the amount of expenses was increased considerably.  I suspect that before that expenses could be claimed in the normal way for the vast majority or organisations (as of course Tynwald members still do on 'business' trips off-Island).  In any case the sort of secretarial and research support that, say, a Westminster MP would pay for with their expenses, are provided free in Tynwald by permanent staff and other office expenses such as postage is also free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked CM Bell once to reduce the cost of Tynwald

He said it wouldn't be democratic to do so :lol:
 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The total annual payroll for all those is £2,187,830.10, with an average of £66,300 or so for the 33 of them.

@P.K. is wrong above when he says that the 'expenses' is a new scam, it seems to go back at least 20 years.  I repeat something I said on the related topic:

There is currently an inquiry underway, headed by Sir Miles, into what Tynwald members should be paid - or as they like to describe it their 'emoluments' - (you may remember some previous discussion).  This had a perhaps under-noticed consultation in the Summer and in the rather scanty information documentation accompanying it, it says about expenses:

  Quote

Annual sum for expenses

A9. The tax-free annual sum for expenses was defined 1998 as £3,906.63 per year, to be “increased cumulatively each year by the average percentage increase applied to the salaries of officers in the General Service Classes of the Civil Service”. Today it is £7,403.60 per year (with effect from 1 April 2019).

A10. The purpose of the annual sum for expenses is not set out in primary or secondary legislation. It is paid on a monthly basis without the need to submit receipts. Although exempt from income tax, it is subject to National Insurance contributions.

A11. The Isle of Man Independent dated 4 to 12 October 2018 included a survey of attitudes of Tynwald Members under the headline “End MHKs’ expenses system say MHKs”. Ten Members told the newspaper they thought the annual sum should be rolled into salary.

So it looks like the lump sum for 'expenses' was brought in in 1998, which ties in with what I remember.  When Blair came in in 1997 he made a big thing about not taking a pay rise (he made up for it later) and presumably in that era of fake restraint Tynwald thought it would make a similar gesture, but compensated with a lump sum 'expenses'.  Similar scams were done elsewhere (Jersey for example, though they incorporated theirs into the salary in 2015).  

Strange.

On 12/10/2011 at 7:58 PM, brock said:

According to the media, all members of Tynwald have agreed they should pay into their pension fund. All MHKs agreed this prior to the general election. That is great!

But wait…hang on…Tynwald members are entitled to £6000 per year expenses

(which not all of them claim) but apparently it is proposed to merge this into their basic pay which the local TUC claim is a 17% rise in pay.

They have already received – every one of them – a £10,000+ rise in their annual basic pay by the Chief Minister making them all members of departments of government.

And newly elected MHK for Michael, Alf Cannan, who is the new Chairman of the Civil Service Commission is now criticising the President of the Manx Trade Union Council for highlighting this. Perhaps Alf should go and see his dad and learn a few things.

Remuneration is a contentious issue for public service. But when one considers the numerous folk who claim nothing for doing charity work and the fact members of the RLNI get no pay for risking their lives and other folk in numerous organisations etc., our politicians are really taking the p***s. Shame on them.

Mind you "According to the media" could mean anything on here!

I still think they should be paid a rate for attendance and hours worked and nothing else. Because the current system hardly delivers "value for money" now does it...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Donald Trumps said:

I hate it when you post something relatively sensible

Electorate should dictate what they want to see in the Programme For Government

Politicians should be rewarded on what they achieve for us, be they in government or opposition

AI tools will be there to help them, perhaps to aggregate the views of the electorate

AI tools will assist enterprise decision makers to assess their way forward

AI tools will assist in the design of smart communities (no more greenfield developmnent!)

Can AI do economic development planning?

This government doesn't so maybe AI should

I appreciate the idea of promoting achievement but I don't feel like government or many large institutions that are organised along bureaucratic lines are very efficient or effective at measuring achievement in a way that would be meaningful to society and very often they fail to measure it in a way that is even meaningful to the institutions themselves. We don't need government run by pen pushers ticking check lists.  We need people with open minds who care about society and people and for them to be free to pursue reform and activities that promote the public good. I don't think we can get that done if we have force legislators to start working like bureaucrats. There are already far too many of those, without adding 24 (+ the MLCs) to it. I think any problems with Tynwald come down to the wrong people being there in the first place and won't be solved by introducing achievement check lists or appraisals.

AI will eventually replace most of the jobs in the private sector which will then mean the public sector will have to reduce in size because it will no longer have the revenue from the private sector necessary to sustain itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hissingsid said:

Chris Thomas is a waste of space, condescending and a bullshitter supreme.   He would not get a job sweeping streets with his lack of common sense and inability to face facts.

I doubt he would get a job sweeping the streets as he’s an academic and we don’t live in Soviet Russia where academics have to sweep the streets. He has however managed to remain employed in well paying roles for over 30 years so he’s one up on many of his contemporaries in the House. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, P.K. said:

Strange.

Mind you "According to the media" could mean anything on here!

I still think they should be paid a rate for attendance and hours worked and nothing else. Because the current system hardly delivers "value for money" now does it...?

It way well have been suggested that the expenses should be incorporated  at the time, but it wasn't implemented.  As we saw with the current inquiry, they're very keen to get more money but don't want to be seen to do so.

Of course one thing that incorporating the expenses in the basic would do would be to increase its value for most Tynwald members.  Because the Departmental upgrade would then apply to the 'expenses' as well[1].  So while they would now be having to pay 20% tax on it, it would automatically have increased in value by 30% first (or 40% or 80%).  Tynwald members love their automatic upgrades, which is why their salary is linked to civil service pay-scales rather than being set separately with all that embarrassing publicity.  

Of course linking politicians salaries to civil servants' salaries (and now pensions) has a wonderful effect on civil service pay restraint.

 

[1]  As I said above Jersey have already incorporated their rather lower 'expenses' into their slightly lower salary.  But the only member of their parliament who gets any extra payment is the Chief Minister, so that doesn't apply.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

He has not been an MHK for 30 years it just feels that way.

No he was well paid even before he became an MHK. Unlike several of his contemporaries. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, P.K. said:

Strange.

Mind you "According to the media" could mean anything on here!

I still think they should be paid a rate for attendance and hours worked and nothing else. Because the current system hardly delivers "value for money" now does it...?

They agreed to pay their parking fees...ooh hang on the public were already paying them to pay their parking fees

 

Rob Callister confirmed this in his expenses breakdown.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, buncha wankas said:

They agreed to pay their parking fees...ooh hang on the public were already paying them to pay their parking fees

Rob Callister confirmed this in his expenses breakdown.   

And left the disabled still paying for their parking.

An absolute disgrace just doesn't even get close....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

It way well have been suggested that the expenses should be incorporated  at the time, but it wasn't implemented.  As we saw with the current inquiry, they're very keen to get more money but don't want to be seen to do so.

Of course one thing that incorporating the expenses in the basic would do would be to increase its value for most Tynwald members.  Because the Departmental upgrade would then apply to the 'expenses' as well[1].  So while they would now be having to pay 20% tax on it, it would automatically have increased in value by 30% first (or 40% or 80%).  Tynwald members love their automatic upgrades, which is why their salary is linked to civil service pay-scales rather than being set separately with all that embarrassing publicity.  

Of course linking politicians salaries to civil servants' salaries (and now pensions) has a wonderful effect on civil service pay restraint.

Now I understand why the "honourable" members align their remuneration with CS/PS, automatic upgrades.

Their hourly rate is still absolutely obscene. Especially for the failed MHK's.

Unjustifiable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This largesse to themselves and their massive establishment just cannot continue whilst islanders suffer from in work poverty on a significant scale

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, english zloty said:

Not sure what your point is here.

I'll bet the people affected will be happy that as many MHK's as possible rally round this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...