I've caused a little controversy on Twitter this morning by saying I support a pay rise for MPs. It's been reported today that they would like one. Well, I'm not averse to a little controversy, so let me justify the comment.
I'm very well aware MPs are unpopular, and politics too. But I'm a democrat. I believe in the need for strong political parties in this country. And I want first rate people in the House of Commons who can restore politics to the status it deserves in public life and who, as importantly, can give this country the leadership it needs on the basis of their real expertise.
That said I also know, only too well, that a salary of more than £60,000 a year is a dream for many.
Equally, I'm well aware that far too many MPs have abused that salary by having massive outside earnings and excessive and even abusive expense claims in the past, all of which are things I would want to be put behind us.
So I'd want a pay rise to be linked to an end of outside earnings.
And I'd want a pay rise to reflect that fact that after the proper change in MPs expenses they now have to bear more of their costs out of their own pockets, which I think is true.
But most of all, I worry that when a doctor earns somewhat more than an MP in most cases, and can be with their family most of the week, then we won't get many good doctors in the Commons.
The same is true of many headteachers now, especially at secondary schools, most of whom will earn more than MPs.
And it's true of business leaders, senior council managers, quite a number of charity bosses and so on, plus lead civil servants.
So for these people, like it or not, the reality is that going to parliament might mean a substantial cut in salary right now, and that's hard to sell in many households, especially mid-career when commitments are high. That especially so when the risk and cost of standing as an MP is real and high, and the risk of finding only five years later that your career is in tatters also very real.
It's my belief that as a result we get the wrong people in parliament. We have too many career politicians, people who have done nothing else since they left university in the House as a result of this situation. We have far too few people who arrive in their 40s who have accumulated real life experience first. The result is an impoverished House with politicians who many would agree are not the equal of those of a generation or so ago which leaves it without moral authority it needs. And, as importantly, which leaves it open to becoming once more a nice pass time for those with means.
That's why a support a pay rise for MPs.
And I also happen to believe that this is real change: for many MPs enfording a no other earnings rule would of course a pay cut. And at the same time I can see nothing that offends my left wing credentials by saying this. Nye Bevan warned on this issue, and he was right to do so. And I happen to think many public sector workers are also underpaid for the same false reasons that MPs have come to be, and that harms the quality of public services as a whole in this country.
To put it another way, if I can say bankers are overpaid, and I do, I can say whole rafts of people from those on minimum pay onwards are underpaid. And doing so does not mean I put on a hair shirt to punish the nation by denying the leadership it needs. That would be crazy.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I take your points and I broadly agree….in principle. I do not agree in practice: not at this time. These are MP’s who have abrogated their responsibilities and left themselves with nothing to do.They have allowed themselves to become mere lobby fodder and in doing so they have chosen to impose their “austerity” on the very poorest: some of them have done so gleefully. They do not work for the wages we pay them: they work to the agenda of plutocrats. The do not face an uncertain financial future when they leave the commons: they get jobs from those they have served and it isn’t us. Of course that is a generalisation: there are probably some who try to do a good job, even yet. Certainly there are still a great many like that in public service elsewhere: but the fact is that we can’t. There is no platform within for our voices to be heard, and no power or professional ethic which can stand the change in structure and the climate of fear and conformity.
I, too, am a democrat. I have long worried about the increasingly American attitude to public service in general, and politicians in particular: it has real dangers for what is left of our democracy. But raising their pay will not change that, IMO. They are held in contempt because they have rendered themselves contemptible. I am unable to continue to take the other view: increasingly unable to defend the indefensible
I chose public service and I did not do so because the pay was good. There are millions like me. I am unemployed, in part as a consequence of the decisions and abrogation of those same politicians. But that is not simply a matter of the cuts which have reduced the jobs in my sector. It is also due to the fact that I can no longer do my job and retain my integrity. And that is due to the insidious introduction of managerialism and plutocracy into public service, justified by big words like “accountability” and informed by advice from the likes of KPMG. As a Finnish minister said: “accountability is what is left when responsibility is subtracted”. That has indeed been accompanied by high salaries for those same “managers” on the same grounds as bonuses for bankers. With the same outcome. The higher posts are held by people who have no idea what the department is for, and no desire to find out. This is not just true in my own sector: I have friends in schools and in the tax office and the problem is identical. The words are not even different because they all got them from the same consultants who are paid again and again for exactly the same off the shelf advice.
So no, Richard. When MP’s bleat that they are poor because they do not earn as much as those they rub shoulders with, they are probably correct. The answer to that is to choose your friends from a wider circle, and to keep in mind the difference between “having dinner with” and “work”. They do not need to have dinner with those people: they can talk to them in the office like the rest of us do, if there is work to be done.
Let them put their house in order first. There is no shortage of talent, no shortage of people who will work for less because other values are important to them. This proposition is not about values: it is predicated on the neoliberal presumption of instrumentality. They take the view that human beings are narrowly motivated by utility maximisation: they may be right, but “utility” is not solely about money as they suppose. It only becomes that when you take everything else away: as they are busily doing
But on that logic we’d never change
And that’s absurd
We have to start somewhere, sometime
That logic does not preclude change at all, so far as I can see. We do have to start somewhere.We should start by insisting that the MP’s are bound by the policy they impose on all other public servants and those who are dependent on benefits. I see absolutely no justification for an increase when they are already getting more than double the average wage; generous expenses; and the opportunity to make profit on accommodation which we provide. The logic of their avowed belief in the necessity of “austerity” leads to a below inflation cap on their own remuneration: assuming they believe what they say
There are things we can do to help them: we can build or purchase hostel accommodation for them in London and let them stay there when they are working. We can provide that accommodation for them at no cost: of course that means no expenses and no profit: good idea. We can recognise that they have a subsidised canteen and tax that as a benefit in kind: and stop allowing them to claim “expenses” which are not subject to PAYE conditions for that privilege. We can prevent them from having a second job, which is routinely the case in public service. In short, we can make them subject to the same tax regime most of us enjoy, and which they have devised for us.
What you seem to me to be saying is ” something must be done: this is something, so we must do this”. I do not see any reason for raising MP’s wages at all, actually. So I do not accept that something must be done on that issue, at all.
If and when they reverse their attack on the most vulnerable in our society I might be persuaded to reconsider: it is a question of priorities at one level. They are not a priority today. You may argue that they never will be: but I reject that. If there is a case for an increase let them make it after they accept such a case for those on minimum wage
Unless we change those in the House we have no chance of reversing the polices you despise
Maintaining the status quo of power for an elite in the House of Commons will not effect change
But that is exactly what you are asking for
Why?
“So no, Richard. When MP’s bleat that they are poor because they do not earn as much as those they rub shoulders with, they are probably correct. The answer to that is to choose your friends from a wider circle, and to keep in mind the difference between “having dinner with” and “work”. They do not need to have dinner with those people: they can talk to them in the office like the rest of us do, if there is work to be done.
Let them put their house in order first. There is no shortage of talent, no shortage of people who will work for less because other values are important to them. This proposition is not about values: it is predicated on the neoliberal presumption of instrumentality. They take the view that human beings are narrowly motivated by utility maximisation: they may be right, but “utility” is not solely about money as they suppose. It only becomes that when you take everything else away: as they are busily doing”
Correct, I think, and well put.
Of course we have to start somewhere, sometime Richard…
But it would help if we were facing in the right direction when making the initial move.
Given the purpose of democratizing society, concentrating your attention on drawing politicians from the social groupings you reference – and suggesting that therefore their salaries should reflect their huge potential earnings outside of politics – is akin to looking at the moon from the wrong end of a telescope, because these are precisely the social groups that have, over decades, increasingly evidenced no independent interest at all in living in a democratically controlled society. They’ve gained their salary increases as part of the general process of social differentiation of incomes – and this separates people’s lives, and understanding, one from another. This return to Edwardian levels of social stratification is only the next in a series of milestones we’ll pass on the way back to Mayhew. A practical solution? A conscious decision to select and educate political candidates in and from a wider spectrum of social origins and levels of “achievement” and income. This will require correspondingly deep changes in the political attitudes and responses of the electorate to their representatives, but there is no point in starting off here by not stating the truth of this, by suggesting that the status quo, if only it were tweaked, would produce a substantial improvement in the quality of the political ecosystem. A decent wage is one thing, but for politicians to act responsibly in the interests of their electorates they need strict control from below – and it shouldn’t be a career unless they’re willing to take a full annual audit of their affairs, and permanent expulsion from their position at a moment’s notice if corruption occurs.
I agree that no outside income should be allowed, but It will require a lot more than a collection of well-paid headmasters and council leaders, doctors and businessmen to clean a stable this encrusted in ordure -a pitchfork might be more appropriate. Democratically wielded, of course.
So you think doctors, headteachers, senior council leaders, etc should not not be in parliament and could not fight back against neoliberalism?
Buy people of inherited wealth should be?
I despair of the poverty of thinking inherent in that logic
Or the prospect of change that you clearly do not want
If a doctor is in parliament and unable to have a second job wouldn’t they then have a problem with continuing professional development which means it would in practice be very difficult for them to return to being a doctor later. Consequently becoming an MP could mean sacrificing their ability to return to their previous job if they lost an election.
If that is the case then surely the no second job rule would be the biggest obstacle to a doctor becoming an MP?
I would not a doctor coming back after 5 years without retraining
That’s why the pay has to be enough
And I want full time MPs who take a new career choice in mid life
I didn’t try to suggest that I find it acceptable that people of inherited wealth should sit in parliament to the exclusion of those listed, nor should it be construed that I did by the fact that I didn’t include them in the list of people that I think are simply insufficient as representatives to effect the necessary changes in political life, not just in this country. It’s their politics that count, not simply the fact that they’re different from the lot we’ve got now, after all. I was trying to build on Fiona’s remarks, that there are plenty who will do the job for less. But to imply that I’m happy for there to be no change is wrong, and doesn’t follow from what I said, which is clearly a proposal for a much wider base of electoral representative sources than that from which we currently suffer. .
The Bolsheviks, when first in power, decided that their ministers should be paid the average for their individual professions, trades, etc. Perhaps this should be considered – not one grade, massively above the average pay (for it would be if it were to be increased from the current figure), but a combination of compensatory arrangements. This gives to each according to his abilities, if not according to his needs.
Kind of goes against the idea of collective bargaining, don’t you think?
Since when did elected representatives ever engage in collective bargaining? With whom?
They set the terms of their own engagement. They can allow themselves, and do, whatever they choose – I’m only pointing out that these problems have been addressed in the past, elsewhere, in other ways, which address the question of bringing others, from different groups, into positions in which they can act as representatives without losing income, yet without also being drawn into a world of, for most, ridiculously large remuneration. There’s nowt new in this. It’s just that the solutions, over here, so far, have only expressed the need for a means of buying off the MPs. For which, I think, history provides an abundance of evidence.
Yes, I’d have no problem with MPs being paid up to £100k if — and it’s a big ‘if’ — they were not allowed to have any second jobs. No sitting on companies boards, no directorships and no being paid for weekly columns in the press. The job of being an MP and representing your constituents is so important that it merits taking up 100% of your working time. If this was the law then we’d see the shabbier, avaricious ones soon leaving the House.
Agreed
Why shouldn’t an MP be able to knock out a newspaper article in an hour on Sunday morning and get compensation for it?
Because they’ve already been paid to do so
I say the same to them as my employer/s say to me when pay is discussed: “if you can get better eslewhere, then go. We’ll be sorry to see you leave”
The vast majority are “career” politicians, having chosen that career pre-university.
Is they want bankers pay, then they should have chosen banking as a career.
I have no doubt that many genuinely consider their job warrants more money. There are plenty of people “out there” whose job deserves more, much more, but they get the market rate.
And not to forget, this is a rigged job market. Their chance of joining “the company” does not depend upon being the best available, they do not even have to be good at anything, they just have to follow a path others have mapped for them.
Oh come on
I want an alternative
Do you just want the status quo?
If not we have to change things
Please dream that change is possible
MPs are in the top 5% best paid people in the country. For most, moving to an MP’s wage would be a marked increase. Thus we run the risk of the money being a motivation for those applying, and increasing the salary would increase that risk.
It is true that a pay cut is not appealing to anyone, but how high would you set an MP’s salary? You already want to encourage people down from the top 4% of earners. If we double their pay won’t we run the risk of still not encouraging people down from the top 1%? By your logic, MPs should be the best paid people in the land.
You rightly point out that we pay doctors highly, but then that is true of a great many specialists. Doctors train for many years and, by the time they’re on the same money as an MP, they have many years of experience. Any old twonk can be an MP, no training required.
MPs should be primarily motivated by a public service vocation. If they really cannot live on what is, after expenses, almost four times the average wage then I suspect some sort of extortion or gambling addiction is at work. The fact that there is no shortage of politically astute people from all points of the spectrum clamouring to be MPs tells us all we need to know.
I don’t want any old twonk as an MP
I want the best
We don’t get them
Pay is obviously an obstacle in that
And people who are the best can’t and won’t adjust to major cuts in pay for public service reward
I think your argument just wrong
The problem here is that I do not agree that pay is an obstacle of any sort at all. They are well paid, but more importantly their job can and should be rewarding in a different way. There are loads of people who are talented and dedicated and are already in public service for far less money. That is not the problem and so I think your solution is also wrong.
I do not see many here who wish to preserve the status quo. Certainly I want change. I do not want change predicated on a view of human nature in line with the assumptions that got us into this mess in the first place.
In truth, if you want radical change, then I suggest we adopt a jury system for selection of MP’s. They have no useful skills and no training, so how could that be worse?
Fiona
I’m sorry your last comment shows you are just being trite
If you think MPs have no useful skills then you clearly have no faith in democracy
You are also being contemptuous
I find neither endearing, or very welcome here
There are considerable skills required of a good MP. Some have them. I would rather more did. They are rare, and they tend to be well rewarded elsewhere in the market system (which is something I embrace as a democratic socialist). In that case it is ludicrous to say pay does not matter
Richard
Well you are entitled to your view and it would be surprising if we always agreed.
The reason I do not think MP’s have useful skills qua MP’s is that the skills necessary to get elected are not the same skills which are useful in the job. Some of them do have the skills:and so would some of the people selected through a jury system.
I’m not sure I agree
I meet a lot of MPs from a variety of parties
I simply cannot agree your analysis
I see some from another party where I might…
Richard. Your argument assumes that ‘the best’ people are always going be drawn from those in positions more highly paid than current MPs. Why should we assume that only those people at the top end of the scale would make good MPs? Because they have degrees? Because they have worked in certain professions that society somehow deems more acceptable as a background for an MP, such as doctors and accountants? Many people who would make excellent MPs are in the lower order of pay; teachers, charity and NGO workers, social workers, transport workers, hygiene workers, nurses and so on. People who have seen the divisive effects of acts passed by current and previous MPs and would overturn those effects, using their wider experience and knowledge of the world.
There is a strong feeling that many people in many walks of professional life are now being rewarded very handsomely for failure. Many of those being so rewarded are the same people who have self-justified the going rewards for their own professions. Yes, their professions might include some very capable individuals who would make excellent MPs but their remuneration may have been championed by those aforementioned who are less capable. The introduction of libertarian economics has seen a system of self-justification for financial ‘reward’ where those who are already rewarded very well are able to negotiate, some would say bully, even more reward from the system. These data show the average top to bottom pay ration in companies reporting was 262:1. http://www.onesociety.helencross.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/AThirdOfAPercent_OneSociety_29Sept2011_Final.pdf
We know that the average employee to senior executive pay ratio rises to nearly 790:1 for some companies. That libertarian effect has crept into public service reward, with public services attempting to match rewards that certain professionals might find in private industry. Ever higher primary living costs – housing in particular- may have led to a situation where what once may have seemed a very well rewarded job isn’t deemed well rewarded enough by many seeking out those professions, which adds to the cycle of ever increasing reward.
If MPs were to be rewarded more, many would feel this would have to be done against a backdrop of much increased remuneration for people in lower paid jobs and professions together with a masive scaling back of remuneration in many higher rewarded jobs and professions, lower living costs, a converging of reward in all professions towards a fairer equilibrium. My bet is that we would not have achieved those things if MPs were to vote for a 32% pay rise anytime soon.
If those people are selected to go to parliament then great!
And they should be well paid for what is a very tough job – as I see, often
And remember – I do argue for real increases in pay for many who are presently undervalued
In the last couple of years, whilst I have woken up and tried to wake others up to the extent to which our lives have been severely compromised by the events of recent history, quite a few people have said they could envisage me entering mainstream politiics. If I were to do so, financial reward would not be the deterring factor; an MPs basic salary is more than three times the highest salary I have ever received. One of the main reasons people are deterred from entering mainstream politics and standing for MP is because of the huge reputational damage they have caused themselves. You would say that is exactly why we need to attract different people into politics. But raising their own salary by 32% whilst killing social security, the public sector, inflicting the financial suffering arising from the most damaging austerity programme ever seen in this country, would damage MPs reputation to the extent that nobody who wants to be seen as a moral and reputable human being would even consider entering the field, no matter how high the financial reward. Of course, if MPs were to act in such a way, it might just spark the inferno of public dissent the country so badly needs. So maybe your idea is not such a bad one…
Put the MPs on exactly the same conditions about expense claims as the civil servants who do most of their work for them. Put their expense claims under proper independent scrutiny.
If that happens first, I think the complaints about a subsequent substantial pay rise will go away – the thing that has really got people’s goat in the last few years is less the pay, and more the apparent willingness of MPs of all parties to slip their fingers into the till…
PS. Jersey pays states members about £44k a year (less than some bus drivers earn once overtime is counted in), and the calibre of most members is shockingly low.
Jersey’s members, for the work they do, are shockingly well paid
I have always thought that
Yes but Jersey illustrates your point very well. Regardless of how difficult the work is, if something is notionally a full time job and comes with a lot of grief and public attention, unless it is very well remunerated, it will only be an “affordable” career option for those earning less than the salary.
Most people have mortgages and families and it would take a brave person to accept a pay cut to become a politician. Jersey’s experience shows clearly that when the wage is better than average (but less than a significant minority earn) you end up with politicians with little life experience: generally, the retired, those who could never win a promotion and those who have never had to work. To be frank, it would be better to pay nothing rather than to systematically discriminate against anyone who earns more than the average wage.
The even bigger issue, to which you refer, is that being an MP is far too often not the result of being public spirited or even having deep political convictions but simply of being interested in politics at university and moving straight from there to a job in westminster and then never leaving. And as a result a disproportionate number of politicians are adept at never changing their mind and at toeing the party line, but few are capable of independant thought or putting their constituants before their career. Indeed, the whole “career structure” mitigates against such free-thinkers. And at a time when people complain of politicians being faceless, isn’t that a problem?
And don’t start me on the question of why, with our demographics getting older and older, we apparantly need our politicians to be younger and younger. That I don’t understand at all, but it all mitigates against those with “life experience” becoming politicians.
For once we are in broad agreement
In an age where communication and representation have been transformed by all the facilities available why do we need so many in the two Houses of Parliament? Also, how come the USA needs only about a third in total in Congress compared to our two Houses? So, cut the numbers in half for the Commons and to a quarter of The Lords at most with higher salary levels for those elected.
I have to disagree unless you give each member the budget for support staff the US has
The workload of MPs is immense (if little understood) and I would not wish to take it on and have a reputation for working very hard
If we cut the number of MPs and did nat massively increase support budgets access to an elected member would be denied to most people
That’s not my idea of democracy
Demetrius
America is a federal country of fifty states. A few of them like California are bigger than most European states. Some of these 50 states have two houses, some one. If you totalled them up, they would exceed the number of MP and Peers. You could also count the Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh assemblies and they would still be outnumbered by the American members.
Why do you keep removing my post richard..what is the point in a debate if we cant all have a free opinion and free speech..this is just typical of a coalition style denial of facts when a nerve has been struck so sensitively.
You are using inappropriate and offensive language
For what it’s worth Richard, your post mirrors my views exactly! Pay them well so the good people we need to steer the country don’t have too high an opportunity cost when choosing to run for parliament, and then stop all the other shenanigans they get up to. Result – better candidates more focussed on the job in hand.
Thanks
Feels kind of isolated here right now!
I’d like to see an analysis over the last (say) 50 years of MPs pay vs pay at the median, 75th and 90th percentile of full-time earnings – I don’t know if anyone’s done an analysis of that type… if not I might have a go at doing it. This paper on the history of MPs’ pay and allowances is fascinating: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05075.pdf
You’re right
The press would like that one
Hopefully this time Richard eh,
This is just typical of greedy selfish unscrupulous MP,s.. public opinion is laced with fury and venom over this subject as it is,and rightfully so..lets be honest here, it smacks of hypocrisy to dictate to the working middle to lower class that “WE” all need to make sacrifices/work longer/take pay cuts/see our families less..(need i go on?) to pay for the overall incompetence of irresponsible and negligent bankers and politicians in the first place.. WHILST the coalition repeatedly regurgitates that sickening slogan “were in this together”.
The truth is MP,s pay should be cut like the rest of us and they “should” be made to exist on a living wage like the rest of us so they can ALL find their way back to leveling the playing field and paying back some due,s to the people who employ them..
Clearly their priorities are wrong when they’re to concerned with their own bloated ego,s and personal salarys,if they were not they would’nt be viewed as so insensitive and out of touch with public opinion..its no secret that the public purse pays for A LOT more than just the MP’s salary.
There are also the countless perks/bonuses/gold plated pensions and privileges that they are all “entitled to” (whilst the average Joe public are not!) and as we ALL know MP,s have took major advantage of that lucrative gravy train for decades whilst they blatantly abused and misused public funds and furthermore obliterated any trust in politics for themselves.. the British government didn’t need any help with that!!
It only gets worse as time goes on,they have made no secret of persecuting and discriminating against “ALL” jobless people many of whom this coalition of calamity have made unemployed (myself included) thanks to their unrealistic and disastrous cuts,,oh and then there’s multi-millionaire Mr Cameron’s speech about the “benefits culture of entitlement” whilst he himself claimed disability living allowance from the state (and god knows what else) for his disabled son Ivan like the unscrupulous character he is..yet he spews on about entitlement, tugging at the heart strings of disabled people/parents and families like he shares something in common with them..all the while making them homeless and destitute.
I have no time for supporting such double standards,the news today tells of yet another blatant slap in the face to the hard working taxpayer of this country when he can find £9MILLION to arm our forces with new hand guns (Great..more war,more guns that they/we do not need!!) yet they can slash benefits to the country’s most desperate people,destroy front line services like we’ve never seen before,still have the gall to hint at his “Big society” public volunteering ideas to make up the short fall for local authorities and then to top it all MP,s believe they above all are entitled to a pay rise?
I am seething at the prospect that they even have the nerve,,but salivating at the the thought that one day we wont be denied our right to “stick it to the man” when they clearly mess up time and again costing the dear old tax payer,how many cock-ups could you get away with at work before your sacked? ask yourself that!
There is absolutely nothing Great about Britain anymore.
But I do not accept the logic if cuts, which are not needed
So I do not accept your argument
Sounds like a politicians reply to me Richard,denial OR refusal to accept an argument or valid point when so many people share the same perspective can only strengthen the need for a long overdue overhaul of British politics.
This is one reason why so many people around the world have lost confidence in politics and subsequently label politicians as corrupt liars because “it seems” they are all too full of their own selfish agendas to consider the reality for the rest of us.
And how do you propose to change that if you refuse change?
A benign dictatorship instead of a democracy? You for the top job.
I have no idea if this is ironic or not
Either way, no….
I do not think anyone is refusing change. But I do think that if you increase MP’s pay first you will also put a stop to the possibility of any further change of the kind you advocate.
The pay of some of those you cite is obscene when seen from the perspective of those they claim to “lead”. The reason that those in high position in local government get so much money is at least in part because those people have recast themselves as “chief executives” in the private sector in line with the narrow plutocratic view that everything is a “business”. If that is not true then there is no reason at all for the explosion of wages at the top of every tree nor for the increasing disparity between the incomes of those at the top and those at the bottom.
I do not accept for one moment that there are so many people who seriously refuse a career in politics because they would take a drop in pay that this is a problem. Look rather to the party system and selection biases: interns who can afford to work for no pay at all for a time to get a foot on the ladder: nepotism etc. Look also to the fact that politicians are now held in such contempt that it is at best an uncomfortable job to hold: much like social work in another part of the forest, where there are also recruitment problems
I just think your analysis of the problem is wrong, sorry
I share your last sentiment, bit of your analysis which has little bearing to the real world
Most people would prefer MPs did have that quality
Solution ! Take all the toffs who want even more money at our expense out of there… put the working man in government, that is the ordinary everyday man who knows what it is like from this side, and allow the Queen to have the last word as she should have… instead of being totally ignored, we are after all, her people…. not the governments !!!
Are you sure you’re advocating democracy?
Broadly in agreement with what you say. BUT – I wouldn’t ban them from taking second jobs. But the amount they earn should be deducted from the salary they have as an MP. With some of them it might result in them paying back even more than their salary. So be it.
Not a bad point…
R
I think the issue of pay for MPs cannot be disentwined from the dominance of a new Political Class (identified by a number of commentators on both sides of the political spectrum) which has very little experience outside the world of Politics and Westminster in particular. My concern with raising the salary in the current climate is that you won’t necessarily change to quality of the intake from either party and you’ll still get MPs drawn predominantly from the same narrow strata of professional ‘politicos’, only more of them – However, I recognize, as you do, with some of the earlier comments, that a number of people, both in the Higher echelons of the Private and the Senior positions in the Public Sector could not for financial reasons take the pay cut necessary to become MPs and without changing salary levels, we’re stuck in a vicious circle, so for once, I’d agree you on the need to raise salary to tackle the problem.
I wholly agree, however that Bevan, and other in the 45-51 cabinet (and indeed a number of Senior Conservatives at the time) warned of this, and I would ideally like to see more people like him in Parliament. How raising the pay would necessarily accomplish this alone is less clear – Good post, though.
As long as they think they can just dictate and keep getting away with it there will be no change.. ever,anywhere!
I am certainly “all for change” but the problem is that the gap between MP,s and the rest of us is massive as is the gap between the rich (who our government look after very well) and the poor who our government persecute and pillage then conveniently blame for their own failures as a government.
I am not opposed to alternate opinions but neither am i stupid when it comes to the plain truth ,there is a reason why people hold such hostilities and contempt against governments and politicians.
Because few can be trusted to do the job properly without taking advantage of others,also some governments can have a pushy (TOP DOG) attitude (Britain/America anyone?) which only serves to alienate those countries in question to the rest of the international world around them and then we have the nerve to call it terrorism when the international community has no choice but to use force to get their point across because our subsequent governments bury their heads in the sand and refuse others a fair slice of the pie.
Our governments “do as we say or else” style attitude is stale/prehistoric and no doubt out of touch and not least very unpopular.
<blockquote cite="But most of all, I worry that when a doctor earns somewhat more than an MP in most cases, and can be with their family most of the week, then we won’t get many good doctors in the Commons.
The same is true of many headteachers now, especially at secondary schools, most of whom will earn more than MPs.
And it’s true of business leaders, senior council managers, quite a number of charity bosses and so on, plus lead civil servants.
So for these people, like it or not, the reality is that going to parliament might mean a substantial cut in salary right now, and that’s hard to sell in many households, especially mid-career when commitments are high. That especially so when the risk and cost of standing as an MP is real and high, and the risk of finding only five years later that your career is in tatters also very real.
It’s my belief that as a result we get the wrong people in parliament. We have too many career politicians, people who have done nothing else since they left university in the House as a result of this situation. We have far too few people who arrive in their 40s who have accumulated real life experience first. The result is an impoverished House with politicians who many would agree are not the equal of those of a generation or so ago which leaves it without moral authority it needs. And, as importantly, which leaves it open to becoming once more a nice pass time for those with means."
Thought about this some more.
It seems to me that when you cite the pay of other people who may be deterred from putting themselves forward as MP's you focus on the top reaches of those professions, only. As another poster pointed out, they are not necessarily the best minds, or the people with the most life experience. Nor are they the most independent minded of individuals. To me there is a reason for that: they are not, for the most part, professions at all. You mention doctors, and I concede that medicine retains a professional structure, in contrast to education and many other areas of public service. (That professional structure is also under attack, but doctors have a well established position which they have successfully conveyed to the public, and it has proved hard to undermine that: the traditional professions are therefore last to experience the process; they are at the end of a long queue of people who have been systematically criticised with the aim of centralising power and control.
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=45678528&p=318458484 )
For those services which have embraced the business model, those who progress are primarily those who toe the ideological line. That is not universally true, but my experience is that it is very widespread, and many of the top civil servants, local authority executives, and charity bosses are "managers" not practitioners. As an example, at one time you could not be in charge of a social work department unless you were a qualified social worker. That is no longer true, and it seems that this was achieved by devaluing the skills peculiar to the role. Management is seen as a separate skill which can be applied anywhere: so it is thought that if you can manage a Sainsbury's you can manage a social work department. I do not think that is true: you have to understand what you are trying to do if you are to manage: most of these people are managing budgets, mainly. That is transferable, certainly, but it is not really related to the job in hand. The consequence is that they focus on the wrong things so far as the staff are concerned; and so far as the public are concerned. Many of these bodies are now very hierarchical and the people who do the job have little contact with those who make the policies and the decisions about priorities.
In that reality there is not much reason to suppose that bringing those people into parliament would make much change. They already accept the neoliberal idea of "everything is a business" else they would not have reached that position. Again that is not universally true: but it is far more common than is comfortable. If you consider the attitude and priorities of David Hartnett, you may see the point.
It may be that you believe that such people reach the top of their particular tree on merit: it is not true in my experience. They are motivated more by ambition and status (and money), and that is in contrast to a great many of the people they "lead". They have been ineffective in defending their services from the tick box culture: that is no surprise. They have no idea what the service is and they don't talk to the people who do the job: instead they demand paper records to inform them, and they don't read those records unless there is an enquiry for some reason. The set targets, though. And they require the staff to spend a lot of time providing "management information" rather than doing their jobs, as they perceive them to be. It is not a surprise to find that many in public service suffer low morale, or that fewer are prepared to enter those services. That is then interpreted as proof that money is the driver for all: and so we take another turn in the spiral.
The vast majority of those who have life experience of the sort you wish to see are not deterred from entering parliament by the low wages: for most the salary is significantly higher than what they currently get. So to me, and I think that is also the point made by another poster, your point can only be sustained if you consider the position of those who are already in the "bubble" of inflated wages at the top; who already consider that the whole of life is reduced to getting and spending and that we are all homo economicus. Recruiting from those ranks will not change the mindset you object to: they already subscribe to it.
The question is why do we not get more people making a career change into politics from those who work in normal jobs at ordinary wages? If we were indeed motivated primarily by money it would follow that thousands would be trying to do that for the doubling or quadrupling of their pay that would entail. After all many are in public service already, for much less financial reward. There is no reason they should not consider a change which continues their commitment to public service AND gives them more money Other things are at work, I think.
The route into politics is closed to those who truly commit to something else at the start of their working life, so far as I can see. To be selected you have to be known to the party machine and that means you have to have done work (often for nothing) which gets you known. It is no accident that many of the high profile younger MP's have established their position in this way
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=52092046
Before you again criticise me for cynicism and anti democratic sentiment, I do not say that all of the intake of MP's have those kinds of career path: and since you do seem to believe that politicians in other parties are different I bow to your experience. Nevertheless I do think this route is common, and I do not think that such people go into politics with a "public service ethos" or because they wish to change things based on their values and life experience. I think they want power and personal gain. They may wish to represent their constituents as well: but I do not think that is the driver.
They are not all wealthy: but they are undeniably clever. I do not accept for one moment that they believe they will not be comfortably off in their chosen role: But they are people and so they are subject to the same thing as all the rest of us: they have goals apart from money.
The barriers to what you and I both want to see are not to do with low pay, I think. That may be important at the margins, but the problem is elsewhere. People who would gain a lot in terms of remuneration are not entering parliament as a second career, any more than those who would lose, and if your analysis were correct they would be.
I accept pay is not the only issue
But the issue won’t be challenged without a change in the reward structure is my point
I understand that is your point. I don’t agree. I do not see that you have shown that pay is part of the problem and I think I have reasons for thinking it is not.
Then we must agree to differ!
It seems to me that in the context of (a) MP’s expenses, (b) the ‘cuts’, and (c) public revulsion at the range of income inequalities getting general agreement on the ‘right’ level of MPs’ pay is a political impossibility and recognised as such by MPs themselves including the government.
I agree that in principle there is a good argument for paying people properly (well) for a responsible and demanding job, but, as several have here pointed out, it is arguable whether that will in practice do much to get more able, more independent minded, or more usefully experienced people into parliament. There are probably other reforms than the level of pay that could be far more important in achieving those aims, especially perhaps in the way in which the political parties and the house of commons structure have an effective monopoly on serious political careers – and both fervently wish to keep it that way. There is plenty we would not wish to import from the US but I think it is noteworthy that there is far more political outspoken-ness and independence there. I have often heard US politicians interviewed on UK media being prepared to reflect frankly and critically on their own parties or on recent governmental work in which they were themselves involved that would be unthinkable with UK politicians. The electorate here is seldom treated as adult even by the ‘better’ MPs.
Another obstacle to resolving any ‘right level of MPs’ pay’ debate seems to me to be the inescapable fact that being a member of the house of commons is so radically unlike any other career, such as a doctor’s or a lawyer’s or a businessman’s. To a much greater extent there isn’t one type of ideal candidate, from one background, with one set of abilities; there isn’t one way of doing the job well; there isn’t just one type of career path within parliament (and after it) that is either desirable or predictable. So I think more unconventional thinking is required – such as the suggestion of not banning outside work (which clearly can have both good and bad aspects) but deducting the income from the MP’s salary, and that one has to take into account some of the sentiments which you dismiss (with a degree of justification)as inappropriate. Should MPs all be paid the same? Obviously there would be plenty of difficulties and hazards in going in that direction, but I do think one has to recognise that there isn’t one ‘right’ level of pay either practically or ideally.
The idea that people doing similar jobs should be paid differently strikes me as very odd…and against all principles I hold
http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/
A different perspective from Paulinlancs at Though Cowards Flinch
Richard, It’s all very well advocating higher pay for MP’s ,this is as secondary issue as far as representative democracy is concerned. The majority of MP”s are elected as supporters of a particular political party, who are dependent on party funding provided by narrow political interests which you have frequently berated for political capture of democratic process in the pursuit of selfish interests viz the excessive funding of the tories by the financial sector. The starting point should be a complete overhaul of political party funding with centrally allocated funds and a consequent diminution of the power of lobbyists to distort the democratic will of the electorate.Restore trust and the pay and personnel will follow.
As a suggestion for debate:
Why not let candidates nominate how much they are willing to be MP over the 5 years? Let the figure appear on the ballot paper, and if he/she is elected, that’s what he/she gets. The voters have spoken.
Maybe voters will go for the cheapest. Maybe they’ll go for the best candidate regardless of cost. But that is the voter’s preogative.
We might even ask for the amount to be all-inclusive of expenses (maybe excluding travel from the constituency to London given the difficulty of estimating it).
The payment is made locally (maybe by the local authority, or if the seat straddles 2 local authorities, between them proportionately).
Maybe treat the figure as tax-free (or at least taxable at the same flat rate for everyone with no allowances etc), so voters can compare an ‘apples-with-apples’ net figure.
There would need be an annual uplift — maybe in line with what old age pensioners get.
There would be a distortion if candidates offered their services for free, being subsidised by private wealth or payment from special interest groups. So perhaps no candidate can nominate a figure below a particular minimum.
If the elected MP eventually finds the amount uneconomic, he/she can’t ask for more money. He/she would have to resign the seat if he/she can’t continue.
I’d disagree with any prohibition against them taking outside work. It would be an unreasonable restriction on how they choose to spend their time. And in any case, how would you police it? It would ban ‘directorships’ but not activities which don’t involve the appointment to a formal office. They’d get around it.
This is an argument in favour of candidates of independent wealth
That’s not the foundation of democracy
Which has been the whole depressing basis for most responses on this issue
Not at all, I did address this issue.
I suggest that those able to be MPs without pay from the state (whether through independent wealth or funding from interest groups) would be required to put a minimum figure on their ballot box.
The point of my suggestion is that it would give the voters a say in what their MP gets paid – and gives democratic legitimacy to that pay level.
But that would like it or not create an enormous bias to the wealthy
Where is the idea of democracy in that?
Is the right to govern to be based on the ability not to be paid?
Sorry, but respectfully, that is ridiculous as a qualification and an absurd notion of democracy
There has historically been a level of distortion in the candidates who put themselves up for election and we probably have n’t moved very far from the benevolent dictatorship of early 20th century politics.A more mature politics requires free thinkers to represent their constituents, unlike the party hacks who’s vested interest in advancing up the political ladder results in a visceral rejection of independent and in most cases rational thinking. while I totally agree that the calibre of those wanting to represent us must rise , it is not certain that this can be achieved by a financial solution alone. Although it is unlikely to happen in the near future , a more representative form of proportional representation and a clean break from the distorting effect of vote buying by vested interests is urgently needed , in fact it may be the only hope for the survival of democracy.
I have never suggested this as a complete solution
It is, however, I think part of a solution if democracy is to survive
I often wonder whether it will
Marx thought capitalism had within it the seeds of its own destruction
I wonder whether that was more appropriately said of democracy
Richard
I agree with your thinking although I don’t think I’d outlaw ALL directorships etc, rather I’d restrict MPs to only one. That would allow the person entering Parliament to retain his/her interest in (say) a family firm.
I agree 100% with you about the disquieting tendency for politicians to be, increasingly, ignorant of real life. When I was a boy, Labour MPs were mostly ex-trade unionists who’d served time in factories, shipyards or mines. Tory MPs had, typically, worked as Company Directors.
Nowadays, the career path for both seems to be University party activist: party wotker : MP’s assistant: policy wonk : MP.
I don’t think it matters if you’re right or left wing, you should be terrified that we are being governed by people that haven’t got a clue about life as it is lived outside the “Westminster bubble”
Agreed!
We just need to move-on from representative democracy, to direct democracy.
We need to get-away from bothering about democracy every five years to bothering about it every day.
We also need to recognise that we do not have a free press, the press have been captured.
Anyway, looks like con/dem has a suicide wish:
http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/12/18/clegg-targets-pensioner-benefits/
i think RM has a valid point here, the question is “what do we raise their pay to” – putting aside silly points like “thats not the sort of person we want as an MP”, if you look at the average pay of a big 4 accounting partner, magic circle law firm partner or FTSE100 FD/CEO (which I think by implication is just the sort of person we are really talking about, ie expert in their field) you are talking hundreds of thousands.
there is no political will to implement this as the public backlash would be immense. RM’s point remains valid though, the remuneration is not high enough to attract the right calibre of “real world” (by which i mean people who have risen through the ranks on talent in the real world rather than vast sums of inherited wealth) people into public service.
not sure there is an practical solution to this issue (as many of the posts above imply)