The papers are full of stories of Labour and Conservative MPs writing to the Senior Salaries Review Body urging that they are given a 65% pay rise, upping their salaries from £60k to £100k. Let's ignore the hysteria and ill informed knee jerk reactions and look at the facts.
There is no doubt that MPs pay has fallen behind that of comparable professions. MPs work extremely long hours, even when the newspapers would have you believe they are on holiday for six months of the year.
If you want to attract the best people into politics you need to pay the going rate - whatever that is. If the salary level is too low, MPs will be more prone to topping it up through outside interests.
Having said all that, those MPs who are demanding £100,000 have very faulty political antenna. They ought to realise that the public will just not wear such a rise. They already think that politicians live a featherbedded life and the vastly inflated allowances they receive go straight into their pockets. That is so obviously false, but in perception terms it doesn't matter.
The public ask, if it's such an appallingly low salary, why do so many people want to do it? Those who actually give it some thought, though, will also eventually ask, if the salary level is low, should we be surprised if, in the long term, politics again becomes the preserve of the rich? I can see a point where only the well off will be able to afford to do the job. This is already the case as many Tory A Listers stare financial hardship in the face as they prepare to fight a campaign lasting three or even four years.
I realise I have just written a piece which could have been headlined 'On the one hand...or on the other'.
My honest view is that MPs do indeed deserve a salary of somewhere between £75k and £100k, but it is politically impossible for it to happen.
98 comments:
It is politically difficult I agree but it is amazing how other big salaries for other elected politicians have snuck under the radar.
GLA members get about £60k and many council leaders get salaries well over £35,000. You don't see much comment about that.
An MP's job is far harder especially when you compare how much they are in the public eye and also the inconvenience of the constant travel for many with non-London seats.
It's my understanding that the expenses allowable have been increased over time, thus providing raises "off the books". If we could see an impartial accounting of such allowable expenses over time, alongside salaries, we'd have better tools to decide what's right.
There was an interesting movement in the US earlier this year to tie % raises in Senate and Congressional salaries to equal % raises in the minimum wage, which hasn't been increased in far longer. That would be something you'd think the representatives would vote for, except that they all know quite well that minimum wage workers already feel so disenfranchised that they won't vote anyway.
I agree - they do need a pay rise - but only for new MP's and every MP's role should be up for renewal by local party members every 4-5 years.
You say that in order to attract the best people into politics we should pay them more. Fair enough, but surely the best people are the ones who don't do it for the money?!
Iain, a couple of points. First on outside interests for MPs - I am quite sure that, whatever salary they get, there will always be a large number of MPs who get other jobs. Very few salaried jobs in the outside world provide that opportunity.
Secondly, when making comparisons you have to take into account the huge value of the MPs pension arrangements which are infinitely better than obtainable anywhere else in the free market.
"Being an MP is a vast subsidized ego-trip. It's a job that needs no qualifications, it has no compulsory hours of work, no performance standards, and provides a warm room, a telephone and subsidized meals to a bunch of self-important windbags and busybodies who suddenly find people taking them seriously because they've go the letters 'MP' after the their name. How can they be underpaid when there's about 200 applicants for every vacancy? You could fill every seat 20 times over even if they paid to do the job!" - Jim Hacker
MPs are un-necessary now, we need referenda. MPs do not deserve high salaries, and are not being paid less than comparable jobs, what is a comparable job? Academia? Teaching? Directors of charities? Social Workers?
How many MP's have left the HoC because they felt they were underpaid?
The base salary of an MP may not be that much, but when you add in all the freebies and perks it is not so bad. The pension package is far better than anything you will find elsewhere, the free travel would be worth thousands to a typical commuter, and the best perk of all is the allowance for a London aprtment - the taxpayer picks up the interest cost on a mortgage, but the MP collects the capital gain on the property.
Bear in mind that most MP's are in safe seats so is a job for life unless they really mess up. And unlike the GP's and council officers that they want to be compared with, there is no obligation to retire at 60 or 65.
Iain some good points raised. I spoke to an MP friend recently who is earning a quarter of the salary he received in the real world, for the same amount of effort.
There are some other wider issues that should be considered at the same time, such as their expences (that include staff costs) and the number of MPs that we currently elect (far highter than most other neighbouring democracies).
With candidates in seats bearing the cost of approx £40,000 in the run up to an election. Perhaps now is the time to re-evalutate their take home pay, as well as some other aspects of their job.
"There is no doubt that MPs pay has fallen behind that of comparable professions. "
So, they can just quit, then, and force a by-election. Because obviously, someone out there is offering them a better deal than being an MP. If not, they should count their blessings that the people of their constituency voted for them to have this great job.
They were happy enough to take it about a 18 months ago at the election. To the best of my knowledge, inflation hasn't risen 66% in that time, but around 10%.
For me, being an elected representative is a vocation. If you want to do it, are prepared for the slog, then you should. Part of the problem I have is not the pay, it's when people are parachuted into safe seats when they have had no experience of losing in an election and have had cushy backgrounds when many decent candidates spend years trying to get a safe or winnable seat and fighting against the odds.
MPs deserve a great deal more than that. Well, Labour MPs do. Tory MPs can get money from daddy and LibDems can go walk in the park looking for it.
Just you wait and see how this pay rise will help us pay off Labour's little debt and crush you lot at the next election.
"profession"
Theres the problem , politics shouldnt be a proffesion , it should be a part time occupation and service like jury duty, run it that way and we woudnt have all this meddling by arseholes who shouldnt be trusted to run a sweet shop let alone a country.
When our MPs start exercising some political judgement, are more transparent in their dealings and better defenders of the rights of citizens and tax payers they might be up for a very modest rise given the stonking level of expenses, benefits and pensions perks they enjoy. Given the number of parliamentary monkeys who ask smarming, self-serving and frankly delusionary questions of the Fearless Leader, I'd rather the money went to the House of Commons cleaners. They must have quite a job clearing the b******t up every evening. I see little evidence that any of the current incumbents would command much more in an open market.
There is no such 'correct' salary for all MP's in the same way as there is no correct single salary for plumbers.
Decentralise the whole process, so local constituencies set the going rate for their local MP.
That way good old supply and demand rather than centralised self-serving collusion will be in play and produce value for money for taxpayers.
There are so many wannabe MP's, the price should be going down, not up.
"If you want to attract the best people into politics you need to pay the going rate - whatever that is."
Would you like to borrow a shovel so that you can carry on digging that bottomless pit?
What about teachers, nurses, social workers - all professions where the best people clearly aren't being attracted at present. Most of them can only dream of £60,000 plus absolutely enormous expenses.
I suspect that what really sticks in the craw of the Great British public is not so much how much money MPs earn, more that they are able to vote on their remuneration.
yes an increase in salaries is required.. if you look at economies where corruption is ramptant one will find that it is inadequate salaries that cause the politicians to sacrifice the interest of the state in exchange for a better standard of living (through bribes).. ofcourse one may say that if you want to make money dont enter politics.. but after all we do not live in a socialist world and there is no reason as to why an MP should not be paid well as his job may be compared to that of a high placed director in a fortune 500 or FTSE100 company...
Why do people want to be MPs? Is it for the money?
If it is, then we don't want them.
The rise of the professional polititian is one of the worst things to happen to parliament - when people are dependent on the goodwill of a party for their only job, then they will be much less likely to speak out against their party on a matter of conscience.
I would prefer a return to lower paid MPs who have to spend less time in parliament.
The ridiculous amount of legislation that has been brought in in the last 10 years is a symptom of the problem. If there was less time then maybe the government would stick to only doing the important things and not constantly meddling.
How the hell is £60k so little only the rich can afford to do it? It's nearly three times the average salary! Most people can only dream of earning such a vast sum.
Iain, the fact is that MPs DO get a salary of 75-100k, when the allowances are taken into account. For those who employ their husbands or wives (lots of them, and why not?), the net amount is much higher than 100k. Any analysis of the capital appreciation of the state-funded second home would likely take it up another 10k pa.
The holidays are very long indeed, the opportunities for nice little earners on the side are plentiful, the pension provision gold-plated, and as Butterball himself has proved, a Knighthood is thrown in as a long service and good conduct medal. House of Lords membership is another retirement possibility for far too many of them.
'peter hitchens' does sum it up rather well, I agree. MP's do NOT deserve 100K pa. They have great big fat expense accounts as I understand it and never have to pay for a meal while there's a journalist around, never have to pay for anything else either unless you're Mark Oaten. I wouldn't mind if there was some kind of intelligence test but how the hell can John Prescott possibly justify his income????
The point above about pensions is absolutely right. Already the value of these pension "pots" are vast. If MPs agreed to go onto a normal money purchase pension for future service, it would be fair to increase the salary at that point. In the meantime it should be frozen in money terms until they do the decent thing.
Iain seems to think there is something wrong with remunerative outside interests, I disagree. It keeps them in touch. The salary should be set at a level which encourages this.
Also I do not buy this "falling behind" line. This may be so in the short term but go back 30 years and the salary was very small compared with now. Middle managers are running something - being an MP is a privilege and is, in itself, running nothing.
So MPs, and those with vested interests who hope to become one, should shut up and stop getting their noses further in the trough. On top of more public funding of political parties, this is really very silly of the political class to raise just now.
Absolutely, MP's should be on £100K plus, I am all for that. However and it is a big however, the number of MP's should be reduced significantly (its called productivity) too many MP's are voting fodder and glorified social workers instead of representing the people in national debate. Return Power to Cities and Town Halls so that local democracy is accountable. MP's can then do what they are already paid for and largely fail to do, is hold the executive to account. MP's of all sides are allowing this administration ride roughshod over Parliament from where their legitimacy comes from. Less MP's with greater status and influence. More pay for the status quo is politically unacceptable. They should stop 'reforming' us and reform themselves, its getting on for nearly two hundred years since the Great Reform Act !
PS any sign of Tim's bike yet ?
Laughably I seriously considered applying to my local CA as a prospective candidate. My wife and I sat down and worked out the finances in the extremely unlikely event I was to be selected, assuming I would win (but it's a very safe conservative seat). A quick bit of excel later and we realised it would be impossible to take the swinging pay-cut to become and MP and maintain our house, car, school fees etc. Binned my application form. I'd never have beaten Nick Herbert anyway. It's politically impossible to say that 65K isn't high enough, but in london it's not a big paycheck by any means.
How about slashing the number of MPs and rasing the pay per head? Turkeys, christmas?
What about the Chair of the East of England Regional Assembly who gets over £13,000 for 2 Assembly meetings and 4 Executive Commitee meetings a year and issuing a few press releases.
My sentiments are with Almond and Hitchens on this.
It just goes to show how out of touch as a class MPs are to come out with this sort of demand. Whilst indidivdual MPs may receivce plaudits, I believe they are collectively despised by many.
They are effectively on 5 year fixed term contracts (I do not think directors of listed companies get such a deal) with a very generous benefiyts package. I agree if they dont like their pay so soon after an election, let them resign and have a by election.
Performance bonuses. Give them £40 K basic plus £20 K for every percentage point of growth or reduction of the state's proportion of GNP spending. If we got Chinese levels of growth they would all be on well over £200 K & worth it.
The scandal is the level of expenses given - this is basicly an under the table bonus because, as you say, a high salary is politically impossible.
Iain,
Do you believe that Scottish MPs - who now have much of their caseload handled by MSPs - deserve £100,000?
Double the salary, halve the number of MPs. They'll be so busy with constituency work they won't have time to pass daft laws.
"Ask not what your country can do for you - Ask what you can do for your country"
The belief in public service, which I feel should be the starting point for any MP, seems to have been eroded over time.
Unfortunately, the appearance most MPs give to the public is to only be interested in feather bedding the pig stye, and keeping their snouts in the trough.
I have not had a pay rise for over three years. My pension has been devalued by Gordimmo's sleight of hand.
Both my children have left school less educated than I did.
My country has been dragged into an illegal war.
They are asking me to pay to drive on roads I have already paid for.
Now they want a pay rise!!!
Do they really think they are worth it on past performance?
Absolute crap.
There is no evidence that there is a shortage of candidates to be M.P.'s at the current salary.
The Senior Salary review body said:
"One factor to bear in mind in considering the read across to the comparators is that a
major factor driving higher rates of pay in the private sector is the need for companies
to compete for a limited pool of talent, and in some circumstances salaries are driven by
international rates of pay. There is of course no competitive dimension of this nature
when filling the higher political posts in the land."
Nuff said?
I don't think that MPs deserve £100,000 a year. I think that £52,000 is more than enough. They can give back to the public purse £8,000 each. I think they keep forgetting who is the employer and who is the servant. Has anyone checked the silver lately? I suspect that it has been replaced with plastic cutlery...
A professional is usually defined as someone with relevant formal qualifications and training.
There are exceptions of course.... prostitutes, politicians.....
Until it is agreed that ALL MP's fill out detailed expenses with reciepts (like us in the real world) they should NOT get any pay rise at all - also if they get the rise they want then their pensions should be the same as us too - my husband had a great pension until Gordy boy wrecked it - yet he is still expected to support their gold plated retirements - where is the justice in that?
Mrs grumpy-anonympus
The salary should reflect the person not the job, as in business. The wage range for my role is 90k - 170k for the same work.
MP's should be compensated based on the salary they've given up. If you're a top business man on 500K then that's what you should get (plus some expenses). If you're a teacher (the most numerous number of politicians apparently!) Then you should get whatever wage you were on as s teacher.
If you were a ferry steward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Presumably the state funded second home goes back to the state after the MP leaves? And presumably the increase in value goes to the taxpayer via the treasury??
So politics is now some sort of 'job' is it? If so then maybe we need to put a few cards on the table:
Full declaration of all pay, expenses, pensions, etc
Pay increases linked solely to performance
More realistic job security (or lack of) - say three months notice either way.
Independent audit and review of all remunerations.
Clear job descriptions and performance targets.
That would do for a start. I'm sure there are many other factors which those here could add into the equation. But it's complete rubbish for MP's to complain that they are underpaid like some sort of impoverished low-grade State employee. They really don't have to do the job if they don't want to.
And as for attracting the 'Quality' of person to carry out this arduous task, well, it's not the 'Quality' failure that concerns me, it's the lack of 'Integrity' and simple 'Common Sense'.
A more pointless discussion is hard to imagine. I wonder decption, illegal activity or just plain lies wilol be slipped into the public domain today while people are talking about this toss?
Who has proposed this? Post their names and get them on telly and thats the end of their career - simple.
Iain , £100,000 is still quite a lot for someone who is a cost not a profit centre and a public sector hireling as well.
Entry to this world is very difficult and it actually attracts some pretty hopeless cases . Many MPs not only would not earn that money elsewhere they would be hard put to find employment at all. I have now met a few MPs and was just astonished at how unimpressive they are . Poor speakers , dull thinkers , lazy beyond belief and only bound a common smarm and oiliness.
I would be happy for the salary to be reduced to about £50,000. They are not in a market and few would survive if they were. POlitics is not the problem .
Generous expenses? Putting their families on the parliamentary payroll? Second home allowances even if they live within commuting distance of Westminster?
Even before one mentions the sort of pension people in the private sector can only dream of, the public generally percieves that MP's are fully capable of lining their own pockets without the help of a pay rise.
But to be honest that wouldn't be so bad if they could at least feel that they were getting some sort of service from their representatives. But what do they get? Failing services, idiotic pronouncements and a growing sense that these people just do not have a clue.
They claim for themselves all sorts of powers to interfere in people's lives and yet they cannot deliver on the simplest of promises.
You might be right in saying that theoretically MP's deserve a higher wage. Sadly in the real world, the current bunch have done damned little to prove they have earned it.
Not that this won't stop them filching yet more dosh from the public purse. But if they do I just wish they'd stop whining about how the electorate doesn't respect them any more.
No Iain, you've got it wrong. The people of Britain who deserve MPs who might be worth £75 grand plus. But by and large (exception of 15-20 per cent) they haven't got them. And the whole British political system is set up to keep useless incumbents of all parties in place, giving the largest shares of their parliamentary allowances to their wives and kids while exploiting american interns for free and UK kids on statutory minimum wages and still running off to pocket extra dosh from 'foreigners'.
I would go further. I would double or even treble MPs' salaries. I would also pay it for 5 years after they leave / lose their seat. In return for that, during that time they would be banned from any and all financial and commercial interests. The reason for the 5 year lag is so that contacts and influence gained in public service could not be exploited once back in the private sector.
Well done Iain I can see the Liberal focuses quoting you on this
when you get selected!
"there is no reason as to why an MP should not be paid well as his job may be compared to that of a high placed director in a fortune 500 or FTSE100 company..."
Except that the an MP will ever get to a high placed director in a fortune 500 company is when they are being thrown some freebies while being lobbied. Back on planet earth the number of MPs of this calibre (now Asda chairman Norma has gone)is precisely zero.
They should be paid the same as a middle ranking former polytechnic lecturer, which is what many of them were. £60 k is already generous and the pension should be abolished to ensure they empathise with the rest of the UK.
When a story like this, guaranteed to upset a high proportion of the general public, suddenly appears in the press, surely we're all canny enough to suspect that the Government is extremely keen to keep something else off the front pages?
Don't waste your time even discussing this - it's obviously just a decoy. If we concentrated our efforts on identifying the story they're trying to kill, that would genuinely be time well spent.
How on earth can MPs be qualified to even campaign for wage restraint and contract management in the public sector, if they are angling for what is to so many people an almost unimaginable salary?
Sure, there are some out there on the green benches who like their swish vehicles, top notch cigars and swanky suits, but they go for oil deals with third world tyrants anyway.
The fact that we have consultants being handed out exhorbitant amounts of public money, and pay restraint for eg GPs has gone out of the window because Gordon Brown has lost a grip of state funding, is no excuse for the gravy train politics of "me too".
As a London Mayoral candidate, I pledged to take a paycut to match a backbench MP's wage. That means at today's rates a pay cut of over a half. I'm sticking with the target as set today, not at what some MPs with nagging wives and children in private schools might want.
Full marks to any MP who now puts down an EDM calling for this move to be kyboshed.
They should be paid at least double dave's brain (Hilton).
That would put them on just under 500k a year and cut out all the bleating.
I would not object to them getting a decent rise if:
1) They regularised their expenses and claimed them like everyone else i.e. on production of a receipt.
(The current widespread fiddling of expenses by MPs in my view has a lot to do with the public's disaffection with the political classes. Until a stop is put to it, the public will never hold MPs in any esteem.)
2) MPs should actually attend the debates. The average voter sees 90% of debates attended by less than 10% of MPs, while at the same time a series of ill-though out and untested legislation continues to flood onto the statute book.
If the majority of MPs are not attending debates, what the hell are we paying them for? (Obviously some sit on select committees and for others, their ministerial work will reduce the amount of time spent in debates.)
Let us learn from the botched salary rises for the police and GPs, where big rises were given without concomitant changes in working practices, and renegotiate this salary increase in exchange for a wholesale review of MPs working practices and expenses.
I thought the pay of MPs had been fixed to a grade in the civil service. Is this no longer the case ?
Cut MP's wages down to £10000 and tell them to get full time jobs to complement this. The results would be:
1) People wouldn't have to worry about pay cuts to become MPs as they could keep their existing jobs.
2) Parliament would sit less often thus reducing the number of laws which are passed.
3) MPs would not be so susceptible to control by party whips as their livelihoods would not be dependent on how they vote.
Over. My. Dead. Body.
60K is not a bad salary for little boys and girls.
How many 'comparable professions' would employ a man who's sole qualifications were being a rabble rousing union steward, who's achievements have been to make a (costly) balls up of everything he's touched and who has the morals and scruples of an alley cat. And who is paid £134000 pa plus all the trappings. Face it, most MP's would never have got a job in a 'comparable profession'.And you think they're underpaid? You're having a laugh surely.
Methinks Guido doth stir the pot!!!
Not too worried about the pay but I would like to see MPs funding their own pensions - or at least not getting pensions provided by us
Yes, they may be digging a hasty grave for some more bad new, anonymous. Good thought.
However, I think the budget for MPs salaries should stay stable for the next five years, but it should be deployed differently. We should cut the number of MPs by one-third and give he remaining some of the saving on an annual basis for those five years, until it's used up.
Someone above suggested referenda, and I think this is the way all governments will eventually go, although no 100%. There is still a need for debate in Parliament, especially on very complicated issues. But much of the lawmaking could be devolved to the voters themselves. This would have the added advantage of stopping the tsunami of new laws - over 700 of them! - flooding over the electorate. I believe most of us would have have gone to the Nay side for almost all of them.
Referenda would also serve to clip the wings of the PM if we ever were careless enough to vote another power-mad megalomaniac nut job into office again.
Just take the decision entirely away from MPs and give it to the Senior Salaries Review Board.
Anyway, if you give the Lib Dems a £100k salary maybe they'll use some of that to pay for party-political campaigning instead of abusing their expenses and the House of Commons photocopiers! hmm?
I don't think rule by referendum is the way to go, too prone to oversimplification of issues and gimmickry, it'd be only one step removed from mob rule.
The way to limit output of legislation is to shorten the time the House is in session.
They would be worth £100k if they were doing their job, which is not to obey the Whips but to speak from their own hearts and minds for their electors.
As it is, no political party will select anyone as a candidate unless he or she effectively promises to be the Leader's bitch. Isn't that so, Iain?
For THIS, we should pay so much? No way!
Performance improvements first, pay rises later. Political parties form no part of the British Constitution and poodles on leashes are not the correct role models for people who aspire to be treated with any respect or well-paid
Apologies if someone has allready made this point but surely this is just a variation on the 'pay peanuts get monkeys' theme ?
Surely MPs should be a paid a good market rate to do their job but their employers (us) should be in a position to insist that in order to do their job properly they don't have outside interests. (i.e. other salaries).
The only good that can possibly come out of the whole cash for peerages debacle is that the entire process gets looked at properly and we stop allowing our representatives to be presented with conflicts of interest.
Iain, what's the minimum amount you'd do the job for, if elected?
The Jim Hacker quote is spot on; as is Colin D's 'learning to sing from a (lying) hymnsheet'. Any time now we can also expect them to gang up and agree, in hushed serious patronising tones, that taxpayer funding for their respective parties is also necessary to safeguard this sick apolology for a Democracy that we have become. I've probably met as many MP's as most over 50 years and frankly, I can count on the fingers of just one hand those that I have serious regard and respect for. Politics simply attracts 'that sort of person' it seems. Principal qualifications of those destined to 'get-on'? An incessant urge to interfere in the lives of others but rigidly harnessed to half-baked Party notions of how society OUGHT to be (this week, year, Parliament, or whatever).
Member of CND last year? - that's OK; you can even stay a member if they'll have you - just so long as you now support renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent as well. The Torys are much the same in their own way. It's called being two-faced and both prepared and able to turn semantic somersaults to explain how you can (Honest injun) hold two diametrically opposed positions at the same time.
And we're supposted to have RESPECT for these people???
How about reducing their current salary by half and forcing them to earn more by the following formula:
1) Earn a 10% increase for each election won.
2) Earn a 0.10% increase for every question posed in the Comments.
3) Earn a 0.10% increase for every story about the MP printed in the newspaper that supports the MP's party.
4) Earn a 0.20% increase for every story about the MP printed in the newspaper that opposes the MP's party.
5) Earn a 3% increase for every entry in their registry of interests that is verifiably removed, with appropriate weighting clause (i.e. withdrawing from a bank's board of directors is worth more than adviser to local pet charity).
6) Earn a 4% increase for every local authority decision overturned (8% if overall control of authority is held by MP's own party).
and so on.
I'm sure others can come up with creative ways to reward job performance.
Auberon Waugh said a desire to be in politics should automatically disqualify anybody from seeking elected office. If they were after the money, presumably then they would qualify.
Let's face it, they're just seriously bovvered because GPs ended up getting a 30 per cent pay rise this year. Who allowed that to happen? Why, the MPs of course, but how many of them knew a thing about it happening before the press anounced it?
So, with such competent representatives in the palace of westminster, we should be paying them MORE? Give us a break Iain.
Firstly, there is no way of determining a "fair" salary for government employees as they are not subject to the economic rigours of the free market.
Secondly, I don't see that politics being the province of the rich is necessarily a bad idea - the rich, at least, must have been sufficiently financially competent to hang on to their fortune, even if they didn't create it.
Thirdly, the argument that paying high salaries reduces corruption is surely false - high salaries will be a major attractor to the kinds of people who will inevitably become corrupt.
Perhaps politicians should be given long-term futures on the economic health of the area they represent, in lieu of direct payment. To concentrate them on what is important.
£100.000 is not a bad price to buy them out of their pension scheme and into a Money Purchase one; and to reclaim 8 weeks paid vacation, and loss of the housing allowance (or at least any profit on the house to be repaid to the Treasury)
Iain, I think if we abolished the House of Commons and got the 'other place' to run the show, we wouldn't have this problem. It has been shown that people would actually PAY to go and work in the House of Lords !
On the point about MPs pay - listening to the Westminster Hour last night the point was made that many don't have a chance at high office and work 70 hrs a week. However, if most of them vote like sheep, then a quarter could be culled, and constituency sizes made larger with very little difference.
Lots of people in London may earn that sort of cash, far fewer in the provinces do. Be careful what you wish for - you may get larger salaries, but then be culled from the a-list...
I wrote a peice on my blog last night about this one. US Senators and Congressmen get paid $165,000. That is about £30,000 more than our MPs, but the public will not wear a pay rise of that magnitude all at once, although I do agree MPs should be paid considerably more.
Well I suppose with plumbers and electricians making £250k a year its not unreasonable. So long as we dock them £5k per jag and £10k per shag. Know wot I mean?
The scandal about this is that Labour MP's, like councillors, would be elated to get such an increase. This is generally because they know that it would be impossible to attain such payscales outside of getting a cushy seat in parliament.
As for Tories, they have usually had a career before going into politics (pre A-List certainly), so they probably don't do it for the money.
The thing that sticks in my throat is that this could be a really good idea if they cut the number of MP's to, say 300 instead of 650. With emails and other instant communications it is simply unnecessary to have so many MP's.
Iain, I hope you had your tongue firmly in cheek when you wrote this!
My pay has declined relative to MPs' pay over recent years but my employer wouldn't increase my pay merely to keep parity no matter how much I screamed!
If they are poorly paid relative to GPs and Council Chief Executives, then the best solution is for MPs to become GPs or Council Chief Executives! Are they going to copy other public sector workers and go on strike if they are not paid what they are "worth"!?!
Anyone working in the private sector would have to retrain if they wanted a higher salary in a different sector!
I'm tempted to stand for an election on the basis that I want a £100k job with 80 days holiday over the summer months (trying not to mention the Christmas and Easter recess and taxpayer funded pension too!).
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, which appears to be the common situation at the moment.
Pay the correct price for the job and it may attract people that are real leaders and have professional competence when it comes to running government departments. Currently, most MP's and wanna-be MP's do not have impressive CV's at all, and it shows in the quality of the kind of politics they inflict upon us.
My personal ideal would be to give MP's a salary of £ 10 million each, and subtract from that the amount of damage they do by being useless. They should be personally responsible for wasting the tax payers money, and that should not stop with them being kicked out of office either -- if their policy backfires, they get to share the carrying of the can. This would make politicians consider the consequences of their actions in the long-term, and be more humble and careful about what they are thinking up for the rest of us.
Iain, would you take this pay and conditions on?
Some simple proposals.
1. Reduce the number of MPs.
2. Tie the salary to a Civil Service grade - no more arguments about pay.
3. Secretarial services provided directly by Parliament.
4. A fixed housing allowance for MPs with constituencies over 80 miles from Westminster.
5. Pensions based on length of service using the Stakeholder Pension Scheme.
If you agree with me that MPs and Parliament as a whole should have to contain their spending within limits rather than just being able to vote themselves any salary and perks that they like, you might like to sign the petition that I have started at the Number 10 e-petitions site.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to fix the budget for Parliament and link it to inflation such that MP's salaries can only increase if they save money elsewhere.
Follow link.
Ian said "There is no doubt that MPs pay has fallen behind that of comparable professions. "
The same has happened to teachers pay but the MP's, who caused it to happen, aren't concerned.
the fact of the matter is that if the greedy, incompetents vote to treble their salaries the voter can do nothing except not join their parties. Then, of course, they vote for financing political parties from the public purse.
Besides Frank Field and possibly Jack Straw I cannot think of a single MP worth what he or she receives now.
and their subsidised canteen and bar!
It's a great pity MPs are paid anything at all. Stop paying them & get rid of career politicians and town hall twisters. Politics itself should be an "outside interest".
I think there are many unfair comments here, but also an element of truth. MPs should be adequately paid-they do an important job. Contrary to what many readers seem to believe I don't think they are all lily-livered parasites . BUT I would expect them to work for their money-not by trooping in and out of the lobbies according to the whips' orders (I could buy 600 odd ewes for around £5,000 all told if that was what was wanted-John Reid can be the sheepdog).
I would like MPs to represent their constituents and vote for what they believe in. If we can attract high quality people to parliament that is exactly what they will do. However if we continue with the apparatchiks who have never held down a job or run a business then can we be surprised that they can't run a country?
raincoaster said...
If we could see an impartial accounting of such allowable expenses over time...
...half of these shysters would be in prison.
The assumption that the most expensive people are the best is one which has cost the taxpayer dearly over the centuries. But it is a particularly Tory failing.
"Besides Frank Field and possibly Jack Straw I cannot think of a single MP worth what he or she receives now."
Interesting. I didn't realise neither Frank Field nor jack Straw got paid.
MPs 'deserve' a pay rise of such massive proportion and yet the Govt narrowly failed in its attempts to prevent the police from getting their 3% pay rises only a couple of months ago....
Sorry, I can't accept the argument that an MP works any harder than your average plod, nor that they are any more entitled to a wage rise merely because they could earn more in the private sector- your local bobby could earn more in the private sector too.
Perhaps if MPs on all sides of the house had seemed to care a little more about the police pay dispute they would be entitled to a little more sympathy in regards to their own pay, as it happens, they didn't and so they deserve to be treated in the same way as they treat others- make them work for their pay rise...
Andrew Allison - You say American Congresspersons make $165,000 p.a. Is £83,300. Do our MPs really only get £50K?
There has to be a change in hiring practises, because many MPs have family members with their gums clamped firmly on the public tit. MPs should not be able to employ family members. End of story. They should be required to advertise for secretaries and research assistants, stating the qualifications for the job. Commie Margaret Beckett taking her husband all over the world at the expense of taxpayers, many of whom are paying taxes on annual salaries of £20-24,000 is stomach-churning.
Is there any evidence at all that the best people are in politics?
Anyway, surely as a proponent of market forces, you believe that while there is competition for employment as an MP, then wages should be driven down? I don't see any shortage of people trying to be MPs just yet?
"If you want to attract the best people into politics you need to pay the going rate..."
Actually, the more we pay, the more we seem to get snouts-in-the-trough to$$ers.
MPs need to live in the same world as the rest of us in order to understand what their inane tax and spending decisions mean to ordinary people ie the vast majority of UK citizens.
Their salaries should be no more than the average industrial wage and NO perks. Outside income should be forbidden. Then we'd see who was actually dedicated to public service and who was dedicated to lining their pockets.
A good idea would also be to require them to reside in the poorest part of their own constituencies. They wouldn't be too long cleaning up messes on their own doorstep and the country as a whole would end up much better off.
I say it again - MPs need to live in the same world as the rest of us.
Meanwhile, the Japanese are complaining that their athletes didn't do well at the Asian Games because they weren't given cash bonuses for performance. I thought for some reason there might be a connection...Boys, if you don't want to play we can find others who do.
Here's some more ideas for Jens Winton. My thoughts are that incentives should reward the things we desire and punish the things to which we object. Thus my MP kpi's are as follows:
+200% for every minister fired thanks to an investigation by the MP into incompetence or corruption.
+100% for every public servant fired thanks to an investigation by the MP into incompetence or corruption.
+10% for every peice of current legislation or regulation repealled.
-10% for every peice of legislation or regulation introduced. And another -10% if the MP voted for it.
+1% for every 1% reduction in the public service head count (uniformed members of the armed services, policemen, other emergency service workers, doctors, teachers and other health care practitioners not to be included in this total).
-5 % for every 1% increase in the public service head count.
+1% for every day tax freedom day is moved closer to January 1st
-5% for every day tax freedom day moves further away from January 1st
And instead of a pension I'd have a "voluntary resignation allowance". If the MP resigned voluntarily before his first re-election he'd get nothing. Between his first and second re-elections he'd get say 500 grand. Thereafter the amount would drop by 250 grand per re-election campaign.
This would only apply to voluntary resignations. Getting fired, deselected or voted out of office would qualify the MP for zilch.
Oh and there would be no aditional office allowances, travelling allowances or any other dosh.
Toque's comment way back up the comments has fallen on deaf ears I think.
Scottish, Welsh and soon, Northern Irish, MP's have very little left to do at Westminster. Around 80% of Westminster's time only concerns England since devolution. Pretty much everything in their own constituencies is the responsibility of MSP's, not MP's.
If MP's do end up with a £100k pay packet then it should be pro-rated and non-English MP's should be on about £20k working 1 or 2 days a week.
It incenses me, if MP's do not like the current pay they should go - they do not mention their pension, travel allowance, seceraterial allowances(Usually the wife - but in margret beccetts case the husband).
, subsidised food and subsidised booze then they preach what we should eat drink!!!!
Lord snout in the trough is nominated as the tory MP who complaines most and was quoted in the press about "happy bunnies" - this individual is so good you only ever hear about him talking about the "insignifant" level of pay, perks or pension rises as saying how much he would be paid elsewhere.
They are their to legislate not pounce off the state. Bet the greedy buggers are the same one's who go on about single parents etc........
Andrew Jones
Market economics:
There are more applicants qualified and willing to do the job than job vacancies: the pay is too high, not too low.
If the business requires higher quality applicants, raise the entry requirements.
If the business requires higher quality applicants and as a result needs to increase the pay, reduce the number doing the job until the budget balances.
Contract should state no other job can be taken that would interfere with fulfilling the role full-time and in no case without the employer's permission.
If the applicant wishes to perform the role on a part-time, job sharing basis, then pro-rata pay should be applied.
The salary and allowances of M.P.'s is well known and each current member was elected on that basis.
If they couldn't afford to do it on those terms they shouldn't have 'applied' i.e. stood.
This is money grabbing, pure and simple. They are paid too much, not too little!
'
Sehr geEhrter Iain
If Mr Darcy could flourish on £10,000 a year, why do MPs need even vaster salaries, in adittion to their vast Expense allowances
Remittance Man nochmals hat recht - pay by results !!!
Your obedient servant
G E
PS Ich weiss ncht was soll es bedueten, das ich so traurig bin .... it must be the Cricket
And they try to convince us they are not professional politicians. Bring back gentlemen & women politicians, it might actually have a good effect on the populace's belief in politics.
"Cash for Dishonour" at
http://saxontimes.blogspot.com/
says it all!.
Far back in the thread Anon said 'When a story like this, guaranteed to upset a high proportion of the general public, suddenly appears in the press, surely we're all canny enough to suspect that the Government is extremely keen to keep something else off the front pages?'
and Verity said...
Yes, they may be digging a hasty grave for some more bad news,...
Now the Trident, another oldie but goodie for drawing attention, is all over the press ,plus a Tony's cronies story that's a 2 year-old scandal but guaranteed to annoy; it's got to be the prime minister being put to the question and the manner of the questioning. Will he and Cherie return from America or will they do a runner, as Verity predicted some time ago.
You have to pay "the going rate" to attract the best people? Judging by some of the snouts in the trough types we've already got we're paying far too much already.
Coming from an part of the country where two firefighters were killed on duty at the weekend, earning considerably less than £60,000 p.a. for putting their lives on the line for the rest of us, I think it is utterly obscene that politicians should even think about asking for more money.
You are using a bit of Marxist reasoning, here. It sounds like the Labour Theory of Value. MP's don't "deserve" more, because they work a lot of hours. I work a lot of hours and get very little. What is the market value of their "work?" I suggest that it's zero, which is why they have to be paid with stolen funds, rather than through market transactions.
Post a Comment