1) SF can hardly talk, as their MLAs don't get paid by the state but by the party.

2)MLAs are comparitivly underpaid. If we want politics to go back to being the domain of those rich enough to not have to work, then thats fine, but otherwise we'll have to accept that democracy costs money.

OK, bring pay in line with that received by their counterparts in Wales and Scotland but on the condition that the double-jobbing MPs and MLAs choose one or the other post.

The Welsh and Scottish representatives do receive more at present, but there is only one of their representatives in their regional assemblies who is also an MP, Northern Ireland has 6 plus.

16 more like! All but two MPs (Hermon and McGrady)

"If we want politics to go back to being the domain of those rich enough to not have to work"

I hardly think any of them are starving at £43k a year.

I would say well done to Sinn Fein for oppossing it, we are told by our government and Westminster that times are tough, and that there is very little money to spend, yet we have the money to give our MLA a pay rise, what a joke.

What have the other parties said?

What if the money paid related to the number of people in their constituency? There are so many local politicians we nearly have one each!
With their "pension for life if you get elected once" fall back I don't think anyone could feel that our local representatives are hard done by.

I think politicians need a salary cap so they can't earn more than say £60K, the salary of an MP. It means that certain individuals [cough Ian Paisley Jr] don't get paid £40K as a MLA, £20K as a junior minister plus a further £30K as a Westminster researcher. It would be utter hypocrisy of the MLAs to accept this pay rise with the obvious shortage of money show by the Health budget.

I doubt he's getting 30 grand! That would be a scandal to make Conway look small fry.

To get good legislators, which means people with experience in the law, perhaps company directors and other such useful experience, you have to pay at a rate to make it something approaching worth their while.

Well, before 1998, it would have been Ian Og's only job so I'd say £30,000 wouldn't be an exaggerated amount.

Seamus, we are dangerously close to agreeing on this one!!!
The amount of any cap can be argued about.

The principle to me is that people should not be entering politics for the money in the first place.

Is it not more of a job for the (usually very well paid) Civil Servants to advise politicians on details of legislation, Michael?

Must definatly not! The civil service is there to advise the government, NOT the legislature. Thats what made it very worrying that Willie Hay was taking advice from Sir Nigel Hamilton over the Ritchie CTI thing.

People work for a living, they don't breathe on fresh air. If you want the opportunity to elect one of your peers to represent you in a law making body, you have to accept that you need to pay them. If you want those people to be of a good quality and ability to do the job, you need to pay enough to make it worthwhile a good lawyer or businessman to put him/her self forward. Otherwise we can go to facism. That is actually the choice we have here.

But the question is whether a good lawyer or a good businessman would make a good MLA. MPs in the UK are paid over £60,000 a year, and most laws past in the UK have so many holes in them that a blind man could see through them. English legislation is recognised as being full of loopholes and being very vague. Now you ask me whether I want a hoity toity businessman or lawyer who cares about big business and tax cuts for the rich or do I want a dirty, scummy, cursing, verging alcoholic who actually gives a damn about the working class people it isn't a difficult decision.

Well then we'll reduce pay to 10 or 15 grand. Then we'll have he type you describe along with those rich enough to not have to work. And then we'll see where we'll be.

Well, the party I vote for have a rule that mean you can't make more than the average industrial worker, so that would be about the level that my MLAs get paid.

I wouldn't count on that too much. Too many holiday homes flying around for that. I'll be blogging on that specific topic in the next few days.

Found something to disagree about again, Seamus. Surely you don't believe that about all your favourite politicians?
Some are much more equal than others!

Michael, I also think it's a bit extreme to say that if we don't throw huge wads of cash at our legislators the only alternative is fascism. I reiterate that money should not be the driving force behind anyone becoming a politician.

I think with the recent sacking/resignation of Ian Og, that the amount of money our MLAs are getting definitely needs to be more transparent. Now, not only was Ian being paid as an MLA, a Junior Minister, A Westminster Researcher, a professional lobbyist but he was also giving backhanders to his father-in-law, courtesy of the hard working taxpayers. And these are the people that Michael wants to give more money to.

Could someone please clarify this: my father told me that the reason why they are voting for a 14-17% pay rise is because they have not had a raise in four years. And the minimum wage has increased from 4.85 to 5.52 per hour in the last four years which is about a 15% rise. HOWEVER, what irritates a lot of people I am sure is that they can VOTE themselves a pay rise. None of the electorate can do that.

Philip, it was recommended by an 'independent' body. It should also be noted that during much of that 4 year period, they didn't get a pay rise but they also didn't have a job to go to.