Things that make you go What the F**k?

[Tony Baloney]

The increase puts them in the range of a senior manager in Civil Service or Local Government. And well into the higher income tax bracket so they lose 40% of it. e.g Currently advertised Planning Officer in DfI - Salary will be within the range £61,673 - £64,469 within which pay progression will be performance related.
For some it wont be the most secure job in the world as they might get turfed out at the next election so needs to be reasonably well paid.
And if they are useless only the voters can be blamed as some people will vote for anything with a U in the party name and the others anything without.

They may not be the best at it (understatement!) but for the responsibility they are charged with, even the uplift to 60+ grand isn't great. It's little wonder they cream the expenses.

[Hoof Hearted]

The increase puts them in the range of a senior manager in Civil Service or Local Government. And well into the higher income tax bracket so they lose 40% of it. e.g Currently advertised Planning Officer in DfI - Salary will be within the range £61,673 - £64,469 within which pay progression will be performance related.
For some it wont be the most secure job in the world as they might get turfed out at the next election so needs to be reasonably well paid.
And if they are useless only the voters can be blamed as some people will vote for anything with a U in the party name and the others anything without.

They may not be the best at it (understatement!) but for the responsibility they are charged with, even the uplift to 60+ grand isn't great. It's little wonder they cream the expenses.

60 plus grand not great?
f**k I wish I was making even close to it!
I'd gladly settle for the 53 they're on now !!

[Armagh18]

The increase puts them in the range of a senior manager in Civil Service or Local Government. And well into the higher income tax bracket so they lose 40% of it. e.g Currently advertised Planning Officer in DfI - Salary will be within the range £61,673 - £64,469 within which pay progression will be performance related.
For some it wont be the most secure job in the world as they might get turfed out at the next election so needs to be reasonably well paid.
And if they are useless only the voters can be blamed as some people will vote for anything with a U in the party name and the others anything without.

They may not be the best at it (understatement!) but for the responsibility they are charged with, even the uplift to 60+ grand isn't great. It's little wonder they cream the expenses.

60 plus grand not great?
f**k I wish I was making even close to it!
I'd gladly settle for the 53 they're on now !!

£3780 a month after tax. Decent but not like you'll get rich on it.

Plenty for all the work most would be doing though lol.

[playwiththewind1st]

The cute ones amongst the MLAs get an extra £1,200 a year. They were formerly allowed to claim £100 a month in "sundry expenses", which was paid to them through their constituency office's operating expenses. For some unknown reason, the powers that be in Stormont then allowed them to claim this via their own salaries, plus they were told that they didn't have to produce any receipts whatsoever if they went down that route. Some of them were in like a shot for that!!

[Deerstalker]

I see a John Manley of the Irish News having several digs in his article and mentioned those that claimed travel expenses for meetings they didn't attend. Now that is beyond the pale but he didn't seem to elaborate on it

[Rossfan]

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2026/0220/1559508-man-sentenced-abuse/

Beyond words.....

[playwiththewind1st]

I see a John Manley of the Irish News having several digs in his article and mentioned those that claimed travel expenses for meetings they didn't attend. Now that is beyond the pale but he didn't seem to elaborate on it

They get 2 travelling allowances; 1 is for travel within their constituencies & the other is for travelling from the constituency up to Stormont and back. They don't have to provide any evidence to back these payments up, so basically they're paid to them automatically without question, or scrutiny.

[Tony Baloney]

The increase puts them in the range of a senior manager in Civil Service or Local Government. And well into the higher income tax bracket so they lose 40% of it. e.g Currently advertised Planning Officer in DfI - Salary will be within the range £61,673 - £64,469 within which pay progression will be performance related.
For some it wont be the most secure job in the world as they might get turfed out at the next election so needs to be reasonably well paid.
And if they are useless only the voters can be blamed as some people will vote for anything with a U in the party name and the others anything without.

They may not be the best at it (understatement!) but for the responsibility they are charged with, even the uplift to 60+ grand isn't great. It's little wonder they cream the expenses.

60 plus grand not great?
f**k I wish I was making even close to it!
I'd gladly settle for the 53 they're on now !!

For people who are in charge of (but are useless at) implementing legislation for "our wee country". Whether we think they are effective or competent or not, it's an important role and should be remunerated to attract the right people.

[AustinPowers]

I see a John Manley of the Irish News having several digs in his article and mentioned those that claimed travel expenses for meetings they didn't attend. Now that is beyond the pale but he didn't seem to elaborate on it

They get 2 travelling allowances; 1 is for travel within their constituencies & the other is for travelling from the constituency up to Stormont and back. They don't have to provide any evidence to back these payments up, so basically they're paid to them automatically without question, or scrutiny.

Yet they  plan  to publicly name and shame  people caught  wrongly claiming benefits.

Riiiight... 

[playwiththewind1st]

For people who are in charge of (but are useless at) implementing legislation for "our wee country". Whether we think they are effective or competent or not, it's an important role and should be remunerated to attract the right people.

Far too many of the current MLAs have been co-opted, so the only people who get a say in selecting the 'right people' are the party hierarchies. It's the same with the local public appointments; it's the same old faces, hoovering up any positions going, to supplement their pensions. That's why things are in a complete mess. We get idiots slotted into positions that they're unsuited for, scrutinised by people who are only there for a few bob & to get out of the house once a month, for a meeting.

[BigGreenField]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clygw95k1llo

What a good day to bury a story that those utter cretins in Stormont are each getting a £14,000 salary increase.

I cant believe I'm typing this, but 53k is pretty poor for an elected official surely?  That said, our 90 are mostly useless bastids, who are more out than in, and picked up a salary for doing nothing.  They regularly display incompetence... so i'm arguing against myself here 

I was thinking the same.
I wonder if the salary was 100K+, would some more qualified people consider politics as an option?
But I agree - some of them are stealing a living. some are doing their bit though to be fair.

I'd argue they don't have enough to do.

Most stuff MLAs deal with could be done by councils, it's not, so councillors spend a lot of time on flags, bonfires, borders and international matters abuse when they've discussed bins and leisure centres they've 2 hrs to fill.

There are too many MLAs for the size of the place and combined with a guaranteed power sharing system and no collective cabinet responsibility they spend their spare time (of which they have a lot) having pops at each other over flag matters in all shapes and sizes. No unified cabinet means no
Legislation and no proper opposition scrutiny.

I'd agree the job needs better paid, I'm just not convinced you'd get better people in the current system which rewards flag shaggers and no onus on competency.

Nor am I convinced there is an appetite without external oversight to reform delivery, we have had a changing of the guard in recent years with new permanent secretary's and head of civil service brought in all promising radical new approaches, in reality we have had no change in quality or pace of delivery or forward planning.

It is a system designed and staffed (both politicians and permanent) for the status quo while pretending to be for radical change.

The latest drum for them all to beat is potholes and road maintenance while ignoring the actual solution is to reduce traffic volume and get folks to trade away from heavy SUVs to smaller lighter cars. God forbid a decision would be taken which might require the general public to change some cause that might involve a bit of leadership.

[Taylor]

Just look at the response to an increase per unit of alcohol.

Why would everyone not back this is the facts show a reduction in deaths/hospital admissions etc.

The fact case is in black and white

[seafoid]

MLAs are useless. OWC has chronic problems that never get fixed.
The A5, Casement, Lough Neagh etc. The province can't manage major long term projects
The same people get voted in regardless of party achievement.

[DaleCooper]

Brain drain coupled with entrenchment.

Lots view politics as spectator sport to indulge "two minutes of hate" on Nolan or whatever in lead up to elections then back to square one.

[playwiththewind1st]

MLAs are useless. OWC has chronic problems that never get fixed.
The A5, Casement, Lough Neagh etc. The province can't manage major long term projects
The same people get voted in regardless of party achievement.

We can't get any infrastructural projects over the line, because those pesky Brits won't stump up enough cash. Damn them & their Treasury.

That's the general level of understanding of economics that's on display up at Stormont. They probably don't even have an 'O' Level in economics amongst the 90 of them.