Spot on!

That’s just political cowardice combined with expediency. Which do you think MPs would prefer? convincing the electorate that they’re worth £100k a year and then living up to the expectations that go with such wages OR getting £60k and then claiming that again and even more in yearly expenses? No expectations, lots of cash and it’s all on the QT.

What pisses me off though is the fact that loads of them already have secondary income streams from unions, company directorships and speaking engagements.

So not only are they much better paid than the average Brit, not only do they have political power (often glossed over), and a generous expenses system but they also earn extra money.

One has to ask, how much money do MPs actually need?

Ideally, we will force MPs to work 38 hours per week, not be available out of hours and only appear on TV during 9-5.

Not only will their salary more closely marry up with the workload – but it’ll have the added benefit of shrinking government back down to a more sensible size as the politicians won’t have the time to involve themselves in every tiny nook and cranny of modern life.

Yay for small government!

What pisses me off, personally, is that many of them were constantly lecturing people about rights and responsibility, welfare dependency and proper use of public money.

People having a free ride and not doing their bit, said Hazel Blears not that long ago.
The nerve…

A wipeout is what both deserve, sanctimonious Labour and holier-than-thou Tory alike.

“A wipeout is what both deserve, sanctimonious Labour and holier-than-thou Tory alike”

Yet the paradox of Britain is that an electorate disgusted with sleaze, greed and a disgregard for ordinary people will vote….Conservative at the next election.

See Polly Toynbee (passim) on this Kafkaesque state of affairs.

Its more than that. They have probably the countries most generous pension scheme, and probably will continue to do so- there are many, many people who would accept a pay cut for a scheme like that.

While many MP’s do work hard, there are also a significant number who work at other jobs. Theres no accountability for where they spend their time. Many get money for being on select committees they never attend, as was also revealed recently.

This is ignoring the tendancy for ex-ministers and the like to often find themselves employed later in related businesses…

They have a good deal with very generous arrangments. The expenses system is just pigs at the trough, as if thats not obvious to everyone.

The only reason why they are paid less than GPs – though why shouldn’t they be paid less – that GPs’ salaries have been massively inflated over the past few years by government incompetence!

#3 – I really don’t think it would be possible for an MP to do constituency duties and vote in just 38 hours a week, nevermind any governmental/committee/policy roles they might have.

#2 – Actually I think many MPs would prefer to get a salary of 100k and do away with expenses. It’d stop them having the hassle of claiming and would be less damaging to their reputations than the drip-drip of expenses claims. That’s not to say I would support that; I wouldn’t.

If we paid them at median levels then one a half time for the second forty hours, we’d be looking at around 55k before tax, presumably, before you factor in the cost of living in two places etc and add that as expenses.

If we raised their pay and did away with expenses, they’d moan that they had to pay for their second homes out of their own salary. It might force them to not spend so much money on refurbishing those second homes, and learn a bit of frugality. Seeing MPs ‘suffer’ might go some way to rehabilitating them with the public.

I’m more in favour of keeping their salaries at its current level and doing away with expenses. That would teach them – there’s no way this can or should end in MPs getting a penny more than they currently get from the taxpayer. They have to be brought down to size for this. Maybe they won’t stand again, so they can bugger off and let less money-hungry people get selected. Of course, we’d have to stop MPs from getting second jobs too.

Some are arguing that there are plenty of good MPs who don’t claim much – I’m sure there are, but why haven’t they been tearing into their thieving colleagues? Were they worried it would ‘damage’ the political system? A stitch in time saves nine. Now they all are in the shitter, along with the rest of us who have to commute rather than get a second home near work.

And what the hell is wrong with allowing MPs to conduct most business by videoconferencing? I know the current government has a problem with online technology (see Gordon Brown bouncing about on YouTube) or indeed technology at all (see the NHS IT fracas), but it’s about time they got into the 21st century and stopped wasting money just because they can’t be bothered to modernise.

“didn’t they go into politics in the spirit of public service?”
Yeah that’s what I thought too. But I guess when the main parties are not about identifiable ideologies then its easy to put yourself above any so called ’cause’. It would be interesting to see what other MPs not from Nu Labour, Tory, Lib/Dems have been claiming and if they too have had their snouts in the trough as much.
I don’t mind their pay being increased but not if they have other income streams – after all, how can they do their job efficiently while they have those other jobs to contend with? And all this business about playing by the rules and not doing anything wrong beggars belief. Did not most MPs have something to say about old Fred the Shread walking away with his big fat pension? I do seem to remember them all being up in arms and words like immoral being used, and yet he did nothing wrong per se.
Obviously the rank and file of the parties probably should be looking to replace all/most of their current MPs with new ones who are not tainted by all this, but what odds on that? No doubt the electorate will get the same sullied monet grabbing MPs foisted upon them anyway. Which for me means not voting for any current sitting MPs – its the least I can do!

Set MPs wages to the minimum wage.
No directorships or any other financial benefits on the back of their public service during or after their terms.
No travel or any other expenses – turn the Houses of Parliament into tourist attractions and get them to video conference, attendance to be electronically verified by some horrific New Labour surveillance tech.
I wonder how many Tory candidates there will be then? Or New Labour come to that.

Allowances are untaxed. Therefore £24K allowance, equate to salary before tax of £40k. Actual salary of MP is £103K. Why not pay MPs the salary they receieved before entering politics and give a 3% rise per year? Therefore MP not gaining financially and hopefully we would attract successful people.

“Why not pay MPs the salary they receieved before entering politics and give a 3% rise per year?”

Why reward people that don’t necessarily do good jobs more just because they were a high flyer? I thought we were trying to keep away from the privileged atmosphere of the commons?

Isn’t a key issue comparability? MPs and ministers are playing a role in running a £500bn+ “business” (the state). I think they have a reasonable case to be paid a lot – since those running much larger organisations in the private sector earn many times more. Is a city trader or a corporate lawyer on £1m+ really worth 10x more than people who are actually supposed to be running the country?

To some degree, MPs pensions being generous is based on the assumption that – when they step down – they won’t do outside consultancy work etc. And, of course, the more left-wing (and thus less “business friendly”) MPs will be less able to get directorships etc from big companies. Perhaps the pensions should be means-tested and reduced if someone has a lot of outside income after they stand down.

What’s worse are MPs who are paid thousands for outside work (yes, you Mr Gove) claiming for extra furniture, etc etc.

“MPs and ministers are playing a role in running a £500bn+ “business” (the state).”

But it’s such a small role, isn’t it? Thousands of civil servants, quangos, regulatory bodies, official organisations, charities and (unfortunately for some) businesses are responsible for the *actual* running of the “state” as dictated by those in parliament. It’s extremely easy to simply state “this must be done”, it’s quite something else to ensure it is done. After a vote is taken ministers and MPs get ready for the next debate, while other workers significantly less well paid in many cases than those MPs have to ensure it all works.

Government ministers do have more responsibility, leading that policy, changing tax law, etc, but they already get paid significantly more in real terms than normal MPs anyway to do that, and certainly in a reasonable level compared to others that work in such ways.

Well MP’s do very much get very profitable work after being an MP. This includes labour politicians. We can’t craft the pensions scheme around that of course, but nor is there any reason for it to be so generous. It should at best be comparable to ordinary civil service (i.e very generous) pension schemes.

Well, I think its questionable if board members represent value for money- there is a real issue around shareholder accountability, given the large stakes of institutional shareholders managed by people who probably have ambitions to being board members and whos money it ain’t.

But more than that there is clearly no difficulty in recruiting MP’s. Quite the opposite, there are many, many capable people who want to be MP’t but will never be. So salaries can’t be set on that kind of basis.

They should be reasonably paid, as if they are underpaid it does open them up to temptation moreso. But the ones who think they are poorly paid now are likely the ones who are already loaded.

13. How do we attract the good engineer or doctor into politics who earns more than £63k/yr . Someone who is a senior engineer/mamager from Rolls Royce, Shell , BP, M and S etc etc,would add some competence to the H of C which is sorely lacking.

“Someone who is a senior engineer/mamager from Rolls Royce, Shell , BP, M and S etc etc,would add some competence to the H of C which is sorely lacking.”

Someone like Vince Cable, you mean?

I have no idea why anyone, and I mean any one can say that MPs should have their salaries raised to compensate for these expenses/allowances.

That is pure madness.

In the opening post their salary is there to see £63,291. To say only the top 10% of the public earn 40k and over 60+ is a fantastic amount.

They should not have any raise at all. The second home allowance should be scrapped and more than anything we should look at the Sedish system of government owned flats for those who are outside London to stay in.

19. Jennie Rigg. Yes .

13. How do we attract the good engineer or doctor into politics who earns more than £63k/yr . Someone who is a senior engineer/mamager from Rolls Royce, Shell , BP, M and S etc etc,would add some competence to the H of C which is sorely lacking.

There are a number of ex-traders and people from other professions already in the house of commons. I don’t see that we have some obligation to keep people in the manner to which they are accustomed like some divorcee. If people who are already wealthy want to run for the house of commons they are free to, but theres no obligation to throw money at them so that they don’t lose anything to gain what is a real privilege. There will always be a higher salary you can claim we want the competence from- thats no justification for an endless spiral.

I’m sure most of us wouldn’t mind setting up hostels in Westminster where MP’s can stay in the week. After all, if their hours really are as long as they claim they only need bed and breakfast.

Those who have made millions before entering politics do not need a salary. However, the Hof C is short of people with technical/engineering and medical experience . Those who have 15-20 yrs experience are probably earning far more than £63k/yr . If we wish to develop World class manufacturing especially “green technology” would it not be a good idea to have people in the H of C from a top engineering background? Look at the salaries for director level engineers in the recruitment section of the newspapers – £70-100K+.

If we wish to develop World class manufacturing especially “green technology” would it not be a good idea to have people in the H of C from a top engineering background? Look at the salaries for director level engineers in the recruitment section of the newspapers – £70-100K+.

Um, and? If they can’t bear to take a paycut- and if it starts from 70K its not even a big one- to take up such a position, then we will have to do without. I don’t know why you assume most engineers would be big fans of green tech anyway or government investment in manufacturing- the ones I know aren’t, though they also aren’t earning 70K.

Ultimately MP’s earn enough to live a fine lifestyle. Its not right to try to gerrymander the salary system to attract this or that individuals idea of who should be standing. I’m sure many would say the bigger issue is that its so unrepresantativly upper and middle class. I’m not especially sold on either argument but I am sold on not giving everyone big pay increases in the hopes of attracting a couple of engineers.

The house of commons does have several doctors and engineers already. You think it has too few but thats an opinion, and hardly a basis for a salary review. I suspect that they may tend to just be less politically active, not put off by low salaries.

Bigger salaries for MP’s would just attract more fucking lawyers.

The reason why MPs don’t stand up and say “pay us more” is that they are subject to the whims of popularism. MPs are reluctant to express unpopular opinions for fear of loosing their seat.

The Naïveté expressed in this post and by the comments disappoints me; MPs should be paid more not less. What is the point of looking at average wages? Do you want average people in government or exceptional people?

MPs are paid meagre salaries compared to the elite of most professions. Higher pay would lessen the incentive for outside influences. It would attract more and better people. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. MPs should be paid more; we should understand and except that.

@18 and 19: ““Someone who is a senior engineer/mamager from Rolls Royce, Shell , BP, M and S etc etc,would add some competence to the H of C which is sorely lacking.”

Someone like Vince Cable, you mean?”

I’m a Vince fan, but…

Over thirty years, Twickenham Lib Dems converted a winnable seat into a massive majority. Vince personally wins Tory votes in what is demographically a Tory/LD marginal seat. Vince has a strong local party who will handle case work for him; his tech support should not be underestimated. Vince and his wife were both wealthy before they married or he became elected. Vince no doubt earns a decent screw from his pieces in the Daily Mail.

Few parliamentary candidates have Vince’s circumstances — with credit to Vince for the ones he has created for himself. And remember that Vince spent several years in parliament before his abilities were widely recognised.

Not denying any of that Charlieman, the point is that he was a senior person at Shell.

Do you want average people in government or exceptional people?

What a load of rubbish! So the richest MPs are the most “exceptional”? MPs getting paid a salary almost 3 times the national median wage has led to them being 3 times as effective as everyone else, 3 times as in touch with the country?

You’re living in a bubble.

Kit Collis @27: “MPs are paid meagre salaries compared to the elite of most professions.”

HoC comprises 646 MPs, most of whom are effectively chosen by their local party to represent a safe or winnable seat. HoC is not an elite club, because elite skills are not required to win the seat. Possibly elite skills are required to get onto the short list, but elite skills are definitely required if you are going to win as an outsider.

When elected, an MP will earn a similar salary to a junior UK professor. To get the job as professor, you have to earn the respect of (intelligent, probing, resentful) colleagues based on 15+ years of research; a parliamentary candidate can get a job based on 15+ minutes of bull.

Jennie Rigg @29: “Not denying any of that Charlieman, the point is that he was a senior person at Shell.”

Vince’s job at Shell was no doubt an education for him. However, I would argue that he is fortunate about his seat. If he were in a marginal, it would be much more difficult for him to spend so much time on national politics.

Kit – 27

The Naïveté expressed in this post and by the comments disappoints me; MPs should be paid more not less. What is the point of looking at average wages? Do you want average people in government or exceptional people?

An MPs wages are not average, no where near average! Your point is, in fact, pointless!

If you are an MP you earn 3 times, 3 frigging times what is the median wage – and that, as so many know and have said is’nt the real picture.

They get, certainly not earn, almost 6 times what so many have to live on – and don’t even get me started on what those godaweful benefit scroungers live on.

Is there a list anywhere of MPs occupations (prior to election) and their qualifications?

I suspect there are far too many lawyers and too few accountants.

34. chavscum. Good point . It would be be very interesting to know of the jobs/skills/experience of MPs prior to entering the H of C . I expect we would be horrified at their lack of expertise/experience .

Not broken down to a great depth, but some stats here (warning, PDF):

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snsg-01528.pdf

Plenty of groups overrepresented, including business so its hard to see how that is lacking. Doctors are probably proportionally represented. Hard to say with scientists as they are not broken down, could be white collar or academia and I also have no clue how many there are.

Though I don’t expect the argument that we need this or that expert group to be represented personally in parliament anyway, as if a job means holding to certain political views. We just need a parliament that can effectivly engage with a wide range of groups and examine expert knowledge.

“MPs are paid meagre salaries compared to the elite of most professions.”

Which is balanced by the fact they have little personal responsibility, by comparison, and don’t need to know a single thing about what they’re voting on before doing so. If a policy goes wrong the back benchers who voted for it don’t get disciplined, they don’t get asked to explain their decision so that the “business” (the state) can learn for next time. Those that do are ministers in government, and they’re paid considerably more for that privilege of being somewhat more accountable.

If a bunch of surgeons decided to operate on a patient in the belief that he had a life-threatening disease despite the protests of the x-ray staff who could find no evidence of this disease, and if the surgeons then left the patient on a life-support machine, the surgeons would be held professionally – if not criminally – responsible.

At the very least they would have to stand before a board of inquiry to discover what went wrong.

In response

30. By no means do I believe that ours is a meritocratic society, if that is the delusional ‘bubble’ that you refer. The best paid are not always the best at their jobs.

However, the idea that you can pay MPs less and expect them not to be seduced by outside influences is far-fetched. The idea that you pay MPs less to attract the best candidates is ludicrous.

I am not in favour of inequality for inequality’s sake; the justification for the inequality of higher wages for MPs is greater efficiency.

31 I agree with your points (please excuse me if I misrepresent them). I agree that our system has too many MPs – too many which are too easily disciplined by the party and are feckless lobby fodder (e.g. Hazel Blears). I agree that professors are undervalued and underpaid, less than primary school teachers if I’m not mistaken.

33. I wasn’t suggesting that MPs salaries are average. My point was in response to the original post. The point being that highlighting the relationship with average salaries is of little value when looked at in isolation. 31 Charlieman – makes a comparison to professors. However, this is the exception rather than the rule. Even if you look within the public sector, the prime minister is paid considerably less that some civil servants.

As for 37.
Our system is a democracy, elected aristocracy perhaps, but elected nonetheless. If you don’t like you local politician, don’t vote for him/her. It is up to the public to discipline their representatives at the ballot box.

Thank-you for your responses

“Our system is a democracy, elected aristocracy perhaps, but elected nonetheless. If you don’t like you local politician, don’t vote for him/her. It is up to the public to discipline their representatives at the ballot box.”

This isn’t the same as accountability, by a long shot.

40. You are right – perhaps I was a tad dismissive of your point. I agree that politicians ought to be more accountable. Although, in and of itself, this does not mean that they should not be paid more.

Well that’s my sticking point, if they actually had that accountability, they should probably be paid more. But they don’t, so comparing them to high level members of other professions is a little false.

A cabinet minister, who is broadly more accountable and has to actually stand up for their decisions and, when necessary, step down or be fired from that position of power, makes almost £150k a year before expenses and allowances. And even then their accountability is not as direct as those of people sitting on a board or high level managers as they can hide behind policy direction, manifestos, and “secret information”.

This is, to my knowledge, really not all that different from board of director level salaries on average. This is why I can’t understand why there is any call whatsoever for any of them to be paid more.

My concern is the lack of experience , for example:-

1. Anyone who knew anything about Jugoslavia wouyld have realised Slovenia and Croatia leaving the federation would lead to civil war due to the various feuds dating from WW2, if ot before.
2.Anyone who knew anything about Iraq and Afghanistan would have been aware of the problems of reconstruction.
3. Anyone who knew anything about fishing would know the EU Common Fisheries Policy s a disaster, especially for the UK.
4. The idea that any government can bring in a value for money and technically effective train system is laughable.
5. The idea that any government can bring in a sustainable and cost effective energy system is laughable.

Why , because the H of C lack people with any experience of the massive problems. MPs are like pillows , whoever lent on them last leaves the impression. Unless one has a certain wisdom based upon experience it is very difficult to obtain the correct advice because it is impossible to ask the right questions and sift the conflicting information. Anyone who has run a successful project appreciates that all sorts of problems which have to be overcome. The most important is to obtain a correct specification for what is to be achieved. Many government contracts do not even get this right.

4. The idea that any government can bring in a value for money and technically effective train system is laughable.

Isn’t that what the French and German governments have done though?

5. The idea that any government can bring in a sustainable and cost effective energy system is laughable.

And aren’t the German government on their way to doing just this? It might be about decentralisation, but someone has to push for that decentralisation and make sure it works – I can’t see that being left to a multitude of profit-maximising private interests.

Apologies for diversion.

Rayyan @44: “And aren’t the German government on their way to doing just this?”

Alas, not. The German government heavily subsides local energy production but that does not provide the massive quantities that are required for an industrial society (and we are not post industrial). Those subsidies may encourage technological development which reduces costs, but I suspect that it is a blind alley.

“It might be about decentralisation…”

It has nothing to do with decentralisation — the subsidies come from central government. Whilst energy is generated locally, there are currently no efficiencies of scale.

“,,,but someone has to push for that decentralisation and make sure it works – I can’t see that being left to a multitude of profit-maximising private interests.”

If governments subsidise inefficient renewable energy, inefficient renewable energy will be produced. In Germany “green politics” currently delivers your “multitude of profit-maximising private interests”. Governments need to create programmes that provide efficient and reliable energy. Local production has its place, but you need big schemes to fuel a steel plant or aluminium smelter. And why can’t they make a profit, irrespective of ownership?

Returning to the original thread… I expect MPs to earn their money and to learn about complex things like energy production or supply/demand economics (doh). MPs are given a research allowance in order to understand difficult topics, but isn’t that the wrong way round?

Surely parties should pick analytical people (physicists, engineers, geologists, mathematicians, economists etc) and give them a quick education in “easy subjects”, such as sociology and law?