I've done rather more interviews than I expected today on the subject of MP's pay - and could have done more if I could have reached studios.
My point has been a consistent one: we are under paying MPs. The result is - as is far too obvious - that we are getting a class of politicians who all too often come from privileged backgrounds, go to Oxford, move to a think tank, are supported by their parents, go into parliament, and have never once been exposed to real life beyond the Westminster bubble. No wonder we have such lousy politicians doing such a poor job for us - including imposing austerity and pay freezes when both are the absolute opposite of what we need.
I have said I want MP's paid £80,000 - about the average salary of a public sector chief executive - because I want people who have that sort of experience to go to parliament to help make the decisions this country needs. And I want them to do that job and nothing else - so that outside work and fees would simply be banned.
And, as I just said on Radio London, if MPs took that rise now - especially without banning outside work - I know that people will be angry, and rightly so if those very same people were responsible for imposing unnecessary austerity on the country, pay freezes on people and benefit cuts on millions. Of course they will be angry.
But anger is the precursor for change. There has to be that anger. People have to know first of all that at least some (too many, but by no means all) members of the current parliament are out of touch with reality and what real lives are like. And second to ensure we get the politicians we need who do know about real life people need to become politically engaged and they also have to fight for their own rights for decent pay, jobs and a social security system we can be proud of. Whinging and saying it's not fair won't solve that. Only action will.
I defend fair pay for MPs. But I want it for everyone else too. And to get the chance to say that several times today was worthwhile. I hope some people listend and realise change is open to them to bring about. Because I believe it is. And that means whilst I want the right pay for MPs I want it for everyone else too and that means getting rid of MPs who impose pay freezes. My hope is others will realise that.
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:
Richard, you know I’ve posted before my view that MP’s should also be constrained by age-limits. In the American Constitution such age limits are prescribed:
e.g. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. (SO Congressmen/women need to be at least 25)
AND
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. (SO, Senators need to be at least 30)
AND
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. (So the President must be at least 35)
It seems to me that we desperately need such limits in our UK system – I would suggest, for example, MP’s MUST be at least 30, or, if younger, to have been employed/earning their living in a non-excluded employment for at least 10 years (with excluded employments being exactly those internships and other related employments possessing too incestuous a relationship with Westminster).
Secondly, legislation relating to this should be contained in an Act I would call The Fundamental Law Act, amendment, and certainly repeal of which, would require at least a 66% majority in an un-whipped vote, and preferably 75% or even 80% (we have, after all got the disgraceful 66% majority for dissolution, abolishing the constitutional keystone of resignation, dissolution and election for the loss of a No Confidence vote by even 1 vote!! – to which Jim Callaghan faithfully subscribed.)
This would retain the “sovereignty of Parliament” power, so dear to UK constitutional law, while coming as near as possible to creating an entrenchment mechanism, to bind future Parliaments.
It would also imitate the Federal German Grundgesetz (Basic Law) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany), a 1949 document which sets out the basic principles of German polity, allowing us a similar compromise between the unwritten Constitution we currently operate by, and the presciptiveness of the US Constitution (which is proving somewhat of an impediment to the USA, just now
But an FLA would prescribe the boundaries of action, and would, I suspect, have proscribed and prevented our appalling Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011 – a gerrymandering Act, if ever there was one.
Incidentally, do you know our wonderful Government managed to pass the “Alice Through the Looking Glass Act”, known more correctly of “The Protection of Freedoms Act”? Enough, already!
There s a lot o sense in that Andrew
“£80,000 – about the average salary of a public sector chief executive”
Where does that figure come from? Most public sector chief execs (NHS trusts, councils, BBC, senior Whitehall mandarins, even headteachers in London) earn much more than that – nearer £200k I would have thought.
There are a lot you don’t notice then
Peter Richardson , Richard Murphy ,
It would seem that councilors have recently become able to stand as directors of companies which are in a grey area between the council and the outside world and draw directors fees . Perhaps this needs to be stamped out too ?
Peter , £80,000 + £50,000 pension benefits p.a. accrued whilst serving is reasonable for an M.P. . Secondary School head teachers are also Chief Executives and more or less in this salary range .
We would feel we had got value for money if they did well by our kids or nephews and nieces and hopefully we can feel the same about M.P.’s . Obviously if they never defy the whip they are redundant and there is no point them being there !
As others have said it should not be about the money but attracting people with the spirit of public service .
I’d like to see Parliament relocate outside the cesspit which is London for obvious reasons but as a side effect we could also drop the virtual London weighting .
The spririt of public service died with the Thatcher years, now it is grab what you can before you die. M.P’s who have vast private salaries from ‘economic rent’ must NOT get expenses of any sort – full stop. I see my M.P. claiming for bar snacks, a ten minute taxi drive for a few quid and mere pocket money – this is utterly scandalous. Introduce a test that anyone with assets above a certain amount get’s NO expenses – you’d soon see the one’s with their heads in the trough disappear!
Sorry but aren’t you being illogical here. You want MPs to have had work experience outside of Parliament. The current remuneration of MPs is far in excess of what is required to live on, given that the great majority of the electorate do, in fact, live on less. So MPs must wish to accumulate wealth. In which case, you should want MPs to receive reduced remuneration, not more. So encouraging them to accumulate the wealth before becoming MPs, not after. Increasing it encourages more entrants straight into politics without prior work experience.
Respectfully that is illogical
What I want is people of ability to believe parliament is a real option for them which will not leave their families unable to continue the life style that a well paid, but unexceptional, salary affords to many of such ability
This is pragmatic realism
Quite agree. But that aim is not compatible with wanting MPs to have had work experience before entering politics. If you pay MPs “£80,000 – about the average salary of a public sector chief executive” then you provide another career track for those wishing to earn £80,000 pa. If the career track – leads to public sector CE – starts in public sector management, then the career path to MP will start in politics, not public sector management or anything else. Those who start their career in politics, in the absence of any other factor, will have greater likelihood of becoming MPs because they have greater expertise in what is required to become an MP. To deter people from becoming professional politicians you do need to deter people from becoming professional politicians. Not encourage them.
Of course that factor, referred to above, could simply be that they should actually have had some experience in “real life beyond the Westminster bubble” as you so well put it. In which case a lower age limit for MPs would solve the problem admirably.
I respect your opinion
I do not think we will agree
Just to be clear:
How will you ‘get rid of MPs who vote for a wage freeze’ when they have been elected by the voters and have voted in Parliament for something which, as it happens, you don’t like?
Who is to determine what they can vote for or against apart from the electorate?
This is our democracy is it not – sometimes we don’t like the outcome, but we cannot just ‘get rid’ of MPs because you don’t like it.
Next election I would hope