I support a pay rise for MPs. It's been reported today that they may get one. I have been on Radio 5 this morning arguing the case. And since I have not changed my mind much on this issue since January when I last wrote about it le me repeat what I wrote then:
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:
Doctors do have to train for many years to become a GP- from my perspective being a backbench MP who does not sit on any committee is not a particularly challenging , responsible job. More along the lines of an intern perhaps!!!!! Certainly few of them seem to have done anything that might train them to become an MP – a course in ethics should be mandatory for a start. They already get expenses to employ people to deal with much of the constituency work. I certainly don’t understand why food and drink is subsidised in the Houses of Parliament, or why food can be included in their expenses. They can only eat one breakfast regardless of the location. They also seem to have all sorts of lovely freebie jaunts and jollies, so their salary seems to be something of a smokescreen to their actual living standards.
Would it be possible to stop all outside earnings – or would that just encourage even more funding by assorted lobbyists / corporations?
Anyway- as public servants I cannot understand how IPSA can make a completely different rule for MPs. MPs seem to think that no other public servant works long hours. As a now retired employee my “normal” working week was at least 65 hours, and often more- and absolutely no overtime or time off in lieu. MPs live in a luxury world of their own.
I hear such claims often
I see Westminster – and no it is not the only stressful job on earth – far from it
But it’s not the panacea if done properly that many presume – again, far from it
I want it done properly
Richard,
I agree with your opinion on this. However, I’m not sure that a reported 10% is going to stop them taking outside employment. I would think that to stop outside employment then you would need to pay them middle to upper public sector salaries which could in the region of 100k. There should also be government housing in London, paid for by the taxpayer but this would stop this expenses “snouts in the trough” that we currently have.
Contracts will stop them – not pay
The pay is to compensate for a change of terms
This won’t alter the inescapable fact that working for the interests of big business as opposed to those of the electorate will potentially reward MPs, financially at least, far more than the electorate ever can. A career politician, in it for self-advancement, will make far more from serving corporate interests than ours. We can’t compete on that level. Politicans and business interests, the big ones, are uniquely placed to asset-strip whichever country they’re in charge of as we’re seeing in the UK today. If they’re of a mind to do this, then bunging them a few extra quid isn’t going to change their intentions. My feeling is we’re addressing the wrong issue in the wrong way here but I don’t as yet know what the right issue is.
Over the last couple of decades the whole business of paying MP’s salary, covering the essential running costs of office, meeting political expenses and the all the personal expenses has become a shambles. One result is to put MP’s into the pockets of lobbyists, others and worse. The other has been to create distrust and too much dishonesty amongst the greasier members of all parties. It is not too difficult to solve if addressed properly. The real problem is that those tasked with this are too often the last people to be trusted with it.
Richard, I think the general rule is that most M.P’s earn massive economic rent from other areas and the MP salary is ‘pocket money’ in relation to this. There are some exceptions to this, I imagine mostly in the Labour Party though that is getting rarer now. My own M.P. has inherited a substantial largesse owns land in east Anglia, rents out properties in London so will have a massive income based on absentee earnings. As far as I know, M.P’s expenses are not means tested so anyone whose only salary is the M.P salary will be entitled to the same as someone whose rentier income is obscene – as you say this needs to be sorted out, and fast or this latest rise will be seen as a grotesque p*ss take. The expenses scandal still goes on in my view.
Shouldn’t the motivation for going into Parliament be public service not financial reward? The present salary is more than enough to live on and there’ll always be some profession that we’d like represented in Parliament that earns more. Why stop at £75k? Why not 85, 95, 150k?
What this does, above all, is prove to MPs and the public alike that these people are hypocrites who live in a parallel universe to the rest of the country. Confidence in Parliament is as low as it has ever been and this will make matters worse – it’ll reinforce the perception that ‘they’re all the same anyway,’ which is precisely the attitude that lets the right get away with their vicious agenda.
That said, I like the idea of linking pay rises to banning outside earnings though. Can’t see it happening but it’s a nice idea.
I agree with you that MP’s remuneration should be increased in return for making their contract exclusive and restricting their expenses .
Not sure whether it would attract people to enter politics later in life after they had gained real-world experience but it would be beneficial if it did .
The salary of classroom teachers strikes me as low even when the value of pensions benefits has been included . The move to 1/60ths accrual rate for teachers is surely a positive .
Before the recent pensions changes the remuneration of a Met police officer sounded high , for a Sergeant in excess of £60,000 p.a. when pension was taken into account for someone who might only be 28 years old and before paid overtime . Police look to be one of the losers in the recent pensions changes now receiving a less generous accrual rate .
The backbench MP’s £60,000 + inflation linked pension may well equate to a six figure package .
What I have found is that most public sector workers do not have a clue how much their pensions benefit is really worth , annuity rates , required pension pot and required savings rates . Perhaps they would feel happier if they did ?
I would like to see personal financial management added to the curriculum but it’s got to be difficult for a teacher to teach about pensions when their students opportunities in this area will be so different and so much worse than theirs .
Why do we think we must race pay to the bottom
Why can’t we increase it for all?
All that would mean would be a reduction in profits – which is long overdue to happen
I’m not asking for a pay race to the bottom just that the minority who are fortunate to enjoy defined benefits pensions guaranteed by the masses have the sensitivity to quote the value of their remuneration package rather than their gross wages .
For most small and medium companies profits reduction happened years ago and even after pay-cuts across all grades they struggle to do much more than break even .
There is no scope for these companies to increase wages or to invest a surplus because there is no surplus .
In a small company you usually don’t get this “us and them” culture because everybody knows how close they are only a failed sale away from the money running out and how reliant they are on each other .
I’m sorry but having been made redundant three times , twice from companies which didn’t survive , and having to compete against workers in countries paying 1/3rd and 2/3rd of UK rates , all that increasing pay of everyone in the U.K. would mean is a reduction in jobs .
“be barred from other employment”.
There are ways around that…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7096954.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7196420.stm
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorises it, and a moral code that glorifies it.”
Political economist Frederic Bastiat, The Law (1850)
Bastiat is, of course, a hero of the Austrian School of economics which goes to show that concerns of the left and Right overlap in certain areas. The extreme free enterprisers didn’t envisage plutocracy and debt serfdom and are as against it as the left – they just have a faith in a self balancing system that is intrinsically humane -however unlikely that may be.
Simon,
Not everyone on the right is bad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7007648.stm
Gilmour was a One Nation Tory
And there was some merit in what they believed in
They are long gone – expelled by their own party
Absolutely, Someone! I can remember Gilmour, Pymm and the so-called ‘wets’. I’m also aware that many on the ‘right’ in America are as concerned about the hegemenoy of big finance as the left are – there is a lot of common ground in the feeling that democracy is threatened by global finance and corporate capture. I doubt bastait could have anticipated what people ( America!) would do with the ‘liberty’ he held so dear.
I suspect the realisation of the ‘common ground’ you speak of will lead to the formation of a new party, one made up from members of both right and left who realise they have to put aside their differences and unite against the common foe, neoliberalism. Tick tock!
I agree that MPs should be paid well, but it annoys the hell out of me when these people are calling for pay cuts and job losses for the rest of society but are happy to take a pay rise themselves, in other words “let the rest of society tighten their belts”.
Likewise in the public service. In Australia back in 2011, the unions representing the Australian Public Service, were negotiating with the government for the new 3 year award agreement. In the Australian Tax Office for example, they asked for a pay-rise of 12% over that period. The government would only give 9%. They said that was all they could afford. And they didn’t give an inch. Not 11% and not 10%. But then here comes the clincher. The commissioner of the ATO was offered a pay-rise of 38%. Was he happy with that? No!! He asked and was given a pay-rise of 58%. How can they afford 58% for one but not 11% or 12% for the majority? Given that the commissioner was already on a salary of $300K plus, I think 9% should have been good enough for him too.
As I said, I think the anger s appropriate. I want it to be turned to good use though. Hence my arguments on air yesterday
Sorry Richard, just read your follow up post (I want the right pay for MPs. But let’s be clear, I want it for everyone else. That means getting rid of MPs who impose pay freezes.). Very good. Spot on. 🙂