I have already discussed whether a wealthy person can be a successful prime minister this morning.
A related issue that came up in my Times Radio interview with Ayesha Hazarika yesterday was whether MPs were paid enough. The question does, of course, confuse income with wealth, and they are separate issues, as Sunak and Starmer prove. The issue does, however, appear relevant.
I offered my opinion, which is that the current salary for an MP, which is £84,000, is not that much for a job demanding so much of those doing it, and which carries significant responsibility. I was comparing this salary with those for many other jobs in teaching, the NHS, local authorities and so on. The figure is well over twice the median wage, but it is not exceptional for people of talent. The opportunity to abuse expenses has gone now as well, thankfully.
We often moan we do not get people of talent in Westminster. Should we pay more in that case? A poll:
Should we pay MPs more
- Yes, but only if we ban second jobs (59%, 626 Votes)
- No, because they are overpaid already (14%, 151 Votes)
- No (13%, 142 Votes)
- Yes, because we need to attract talent (6%, 62 Votes)
- I don't know, but show me the results anyway (4%, 41 Votes)
- Yes (4%, 39 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,061
Loading ...
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think this is looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. Look first at the institution. Then the question is; what kinds of people will be particularly attracted to this institution (and why)?
Once you have worked out the population of likely applicants, then you can focus on the really big problem: how you keep the wrong people, attracted for all the wrong reasons, out.
This is exactly what all the institutions we have, with all the biggest disasters, and all the worst, nightmare outcomes – did not do.
QED.
I agree with this. Politics appears to attract zealots and grifters – the latter group thriving due to being mutually supportive whilst the zealots fight over ideological purity.
On the question of pay though, I, as a humble employee, am paid quite a bit more than an MP and quite simply could not do that job on the current £84,000 on offer – I’d run out of money before the end of the month.
Although with a rise, they might get to enjoy the delights of paying 60% marginal tax for a while. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a bad income, not by a long way, but it is not “rich” or anything like it. It just means that I don’t have to worry about paying bills and putting food on the table, a thing which the government seems unable to provide for the majority of UK workers.
I disagree – we have lots of very talented people in Westminster. They have incredible talent at self-promotion!
Matt Hancock, and Nadine Dorries are perhaps our greatest exponents of this essential political skill!
🙂
The latest Led By Donkeys – MPs for Hire.
https://www.facebook.com/ledbydonkeys
It supports the case I made above. We have a completely deluded expectation of the reasons people join institutions; and there is extraordinary gullibility by the public, when they are seduced, yet again by the purveyors of tosh.
We are told the public have a low opinion of politicians. Then we have an election, and we discover that they ‘fell for it’ all over again.
It is “Party” that is responsible for the problem. They are designed solely to win elections, by any means; and there are no standards that survive a lost election, so standards come cheap. The difficulty in finding a political alternative to a constitutional system as essentially corrupt as the principal of “Party”, leads people to resign themselves to the inevitability of “Party” in our politics, even as it over simplifies and brutalises everything it touches; nevertheless the unavoidable fact is, resignation to “Party” does not fix the appalling problems it brings, but makes it all a great deal worse.
All that happens now, is that the digital age both exposes the deep nature of the problem more readily, but at the same time, lends the ‘”Party” system new ways to exploit and manipulate public opinion best, just to survive, and thrive. And so we go on, in an endless loop.
Principal? What am I doing? I confess I write hurriedly and as I think (or I wouldn’t have the time), and never check the flow, until I have pressed send: not a sound principle.
I voted for yes pay more, but ban second jobs. I would go further though. Too many have just a PPE degree and no real-world experience. I think we do need more politicians who have worked in the wider world before going into politics. Yes that would necessarily make them older, but they would have had more life experience to draw on.
I am also keen on exploring the idea of sortition. We already trust a jury of peers to make judgements on the guilt or innocence of defendants, sometimes with serious long term consequences (and not so long ago when we still had the death penalty, potentially fatal consequences).
The idea could be that parliament is made up of randomly selected members of the public who serve for a period of time before being replaced. They would be paid (unlike Jury service)! This would put more onus on ensuring the civil service is balanced, so as not to embed a particular view. Citizen panels have demonstrated some benefits, so extending the idea to the whole of government seems possible.
I cannot see how sortition is democratic
Refrom the HoL & apply sortition there (make it the “Other Commons”).
You sit for 3 years (pick a number) & then you are out (forever). The “other house” has its own bunch of lawyers, experts etc.
It would be messy – but at least Uk serfs could not claim they were not involved.
Such an approach starts to address the points made by Mr Warren – politicos are self selecting & many are there for all the wrong reasons (Mendacious Fatberg, Smogg, the list is very long).
I’d also note that PR carries its own dangers of party lists etc etc.
Democratic government? Some come close, but I don’t think it is feasible. I agree that, as soon as you have party politics, democracy is threatened. No party, or individual, has policies on which I agree 100%. That cannot happen. So every form of government is pseudo democratic, some more than others. What we have here, at the moment, is tending towards the wrong end of the spectrum.
Dem act is the worst form of government we have tried, excepting all the rest
Winston Churchill, I think
Democracy will always be a compromise
Most of life is, I have found
There is big difference between judging policies -and writing the policies in the first place, and taking action as a minister. For example, Israel annexes the Golan heights and a response is needed. You need people with knowledge, skills and experience.
Here is an interesting example of sortition in action in Belgium:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/participatory-democracy/news/deliberative-democracy-in-eastern-belgium-a-model-to-scale-up/
note also that Aachen in Germany has also started citizen assemblies. This has to be worth a try. & given the positive results from Belgium maybe it is time the Uk started to look at it (that said: this will never happen under either the tories or liebore).
I think these bodies are really useful for finding out what people really think
I have a massive problem with calling them democratic
We need to remember the main reason why we pay MPs in the first place, which is to make sure that those without means are not deterred from participating and not so much to reward their talent.
£84k is more than twice median earnings, even in London. It puts them in the top 5% of earners paying income tax (which is only half the population, so that is the top 2% or 3% of people). It may be a hard job but it is already well paid.
MPs with outside interests bring valuable knowledge and experience to parliament, but I think we should be expecting MPs to treat that role as their main or only full time job and to give up full time employment in any other roles. There is no way they can give full attention to repair ting their constituents and also run a company or be a lawyer or a doctor or a soldier or a social worker or a farmer too. We should limit their outside work hours – say no more than 5 or 10 hours per week, or one working day per week – and limit their pay (and other remuneration – shares, carried interest, whatever) to say no more than half their parliamentary salary. If we do that, I would be content to increased their pay to match other public sector workers such as head teachers or civil servants or hospital consultant doctors.
I think a comparator would really help
Andrew,
Whilst agreeing with your first point, not deterring people without means, that the salary on offer puts them in the top 5% of tax payers speaks to me more about how poorly the current economy and political climate serves the majority of working people.
Years of stagnating wages, further undermined by rising inflation and exacerbated by the BoE’s woeful response, is going to become a much bigger problem than how much MPs are paid.
From where I sit, £84,000 seems to only manage to attract a bunch of clowns, easily manipulated or bought by people with real wealth in whose interest they appear to be running the country, because it is certainly not in yours or mine.
“MPs with outside interests bring valuable knowledge and experience to parliament,”
I might argue that less well-off people bring a different knowledge and experience to parliament that is equally valuable.
Is it then valid to compare that knowledge?
I am not sure that any9onbe is disagreeing with your Ian
In the north east and Yorkshire we have MPs who were ex-miners, a lot different to the Eton/Oxford set.
I think the number of MPs should be reduced , each having larger constituencies . MPs pay could then be increased as they would have greater responsibilities. What is the population of the USA and how many senators are there for their population? Of course there would be no second jobs and all lobbying would need to be published.
You ignite that the US has a very large number of full time state legislators
There is no comparison that can be made
I live in North West Durham. Quite often one half of the constituency is cut off from the other half in winter. Both the A68 and the A66 are the first roads to be closed, and trains are non-existent west to east. If this constituency was enlarged even fewer of us would get to see our MP. Not that I want to see him at the moment as he is a redwall tory, but when labour get back in….
You mean the House of Representatives, which is population based. There are two Senators for each state. No more, no less. The size of the popuation is irrelevant in this case.
One thing that seems to have been ignored is the amount of expenses that many MPs claim on top of their salary, which can often double their salary. I know a lot of the expenses is to pay people working for them, but even that is incredibly variable. What it shows is that there should be a better system of pay and expenses, not necessarily more.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/conservative-mps-rent-expenses-taxpayer-increases-cut-housing-benefit-local-housing-allowance/
This is now a misconception
MPs expenses have to be incurred on strictly regulate expenditure
They cannot now profit from it
Thatcher introduced the system where they could
I genuinely think that would be hard now
And I m allowing for second homes in that. Most need them.
Yesterday I received a letter from my redwall MP telling me why we cannot afford to pay for free school meals for primary children.
How much do MPs meals get subsidised in the restaurants in parliament? Their meals can be cheaper than school meals, or is that a misconception as well?
Their meals are subsidised
But that is not the same as living off expenses, which they cannot
Coffee is also cheap in the Commons – £2.75 last5 week, which is less than most cafes where I live
Bit I am not suggesting the end of parliament as a result.
Nor am I suggesting MPs need subsidised food
If MPs were paid below average wage, you would have less people joining for the wages/benefits of being an MP, and rather more joining to create change in the country, for better or worse. Would most of the Conservative Party have decided to become MPs if it paid <26k a year? Probably not, I'd imagine.
Sorry, but I think that paying £26k will exclude very large numbers of people
I do not want a parliament made up solely of wealthy people for whom their pay does not matter
That’s a valid point – I forgot some people were so rich that setting a low average wage would not matter for them…
Which is exactly what would happen, and would create perverse incentives.
Anyone doing that for £26K/yr is going to become a major target for lobbyists offering a decent ex-MP position.
Do you even read the “Rotten Boroughs” section in Private Eye? Is it not obvious that the entire governance of the country is down to an political establishment of spivs and grifters, completely in hock to those who finance their self-enrichment?
Richard, my apologies for going off on one in your comments, but when there is much evidence of obvious corruption, narrowly benefiting a rather small proportion of the population whilst impoverishing the majority, it is very hard not to lose one’s rag.
You can trash this comment if you like, but I’m going to continue!
Both my parents, both of whom lost their fathers at a young age, went to Grammar school. They both left at 15 to support their families rather than continue to getting qualifications. Nonetheless, they both worked and managed to thrive. That ladder got pulled up by politicians from a generation that benefited from it. It wasn’t perfect, but it did pull a considerable number from unpromising beginnings and at least gave them an opportunity to make the best of any abilities they had. I got a free university education. It’s not what I do now for a living, but it was a damned good education and I don’t think I’d be in the position I am now without it. That ladder got pulled up, again, by those benefited from it.
I left university with £120 in the bank. I was able to relocate to the other end of the country, and rather swiftly, afford to get a roof over my head. That was in 1985. It would be impossible now, but you do rather have to wonder, why is it so different now. What changed? Why are working people getting stiffed and highly taxed when the people who are actually rich are getting more and more and are less highly taxed?
One can only conclude that the game is being rigged. And decidedly not in our favour.
Best,
Graham
There are corrupt politicians
Of course I know that
But there are also very good ones
I reject the overall characterisation you present
Extrapolating the bad to make it universal is not appropriate
And what do you propose instead?
Would feudalism be better?
Or fascism?
Would they be your preferred choices?
Your need a better proposal
That can’t be right. You would have more people joining who didn’t need the salary because they are part of the wealthy elite. You would esclude those who would make brilliant politicians but have no financial backing. The reverse of what is needed.
The whole premise of the question is based on a falsehood that high pay attracts talent. That simply is not true and evidenced by the number of absolute incompetent A-holes in high paying jobs.
Craig,
Then you have to ask, what are they really being paid for.
Working pretty darned hard in my experience of them
Working hard and working effectively are not the same thing. Parliament doesn’t necessarily offer ‘effective’ as a viable way to work. It is quite deliberately ananchronistic in its functioning, because that offers Government the best opportunity to turn Parliament into a bottle of smoke. Are people who are shrewd enough to wish to be effective in their work likely to be attracted to Parliament in the first place? I doubt it. The few effective people – for example with executive or functional talent and who are seriously action oriented – and who do persist, are going to be profoundly disappointed.
Government has become little more than an endless PR exercise created by and for journalists; orchestrated by an agenda endlessly recycled by journalists for newspapers which nobody reads any more, but owned by billionaires representing determined vested interests guiding thevery narrative of unfolding events, whatever they are; and serving Parties populated by politician-journalists-media entertainers who move smoothly between jobs in the media, to government, and back to working for press billionaires as their opinion-piece writers (not foreign or investigative journalism – they are too expensive, and it is far too difficult work for politicians).
Nothing changes, and nothing is ever achieved; which is exactly the purpose of the the ritual dance played out in Parliament.
If MP’S want to work at second jobs there’s plenty of opportunity during the parliamentary recesses. They shouldn’t be allowed second jobs when the house is sitting. It should also be in the remit that they could have to undergo a recall election if their constituents think they’re not getting the service they deserve.
There is an important different approach that might be taken, certainly for the Second Chamber. Ex-officio membership of the Second Chamber for certain major institutions; the major institutions that most impinge on our lives but possess no democratic accountability. This was the case before the development of the modern, commercial world; in which land, church, state and burgesses gathered in Parliament (Lords Spiritual and Temporal). In Scotland it was unicameral.
No list devised by anyone would produce common assent, but then; nothing ever does. In the modern world such a list should include the institutions that affect everyone’s lives profoundly, whatever happens in Parliament: institutions that will quietly Lobby with great effect in their own interest, but nobody knows where they stand on anything, and never declare an interest. This list should include City institutions, commercial and industrial institutions (the largest businesses in the country), major educational institutions, medical Royal Colleges, the biggest Trade Unions and so on (merely for illustration).
The problem is, most would not wish to be there. Most would not wish to attend or vote on anything. They wish to exert their influence in secret, or by discreet lobbying. Perhaps membership of the Second Chamber should be compulsory (but reviewed regularly). The point of the exercise would be to flush them out, into the public arena. It might also be made compulsory for such institutions to come before a House of Commons Select Committee for investigation; and require them, as a stipulation of their compulsory membership to carry out all lobbying of Parliament they undertake to be in public; with stiff financial and other legal penalties.
There was, I think some point to the long established custom in the Scottish unicameral Parliament, that for the Opening of Parlaiment, the members ceremoniously parading to Parliament (then close to St.Giles) by foot in the High Street; and pelted with various fruit, vegetables and eggs as the circumstances of the time and feelings of the public required. It was the only measure of excluded, ordinary opinion then available to remind the self-interested legislators that they had wider duties than solely to themselves.
This is, of course, all quite outrageous; but I believe it focuses the mind on the real nature of the problem. Only then can we fix it. We are not fixing it in this morally destitute Parliament.
One question that should be addressed alongside the pay question, is ‘Why would talented people want to go into the arena of politics in the first place?’ MPs get vile abuse, pilloried in the press, and run down by constituents and opponents.
Then we should be asking ‘if money attracts them, are they the right talent?’ The post WW2 Labour government wasn’t short of talent, though to be fair nor were subsequent Tory & Labour governments in the 50s and 60s, but was it money that attracted them?
We need good people in charge and make sure they can live on a decent wage that also reflects the responsibilities they have. The kind of people that are needed are those who are passionate about making a change for the better. For example, a good teacher is not necessarily a good mechanic, but is till talented. So what kind of talents are needed in a good MP and how do the current bunch, and those who would like to replace them, stack up.
The debate on wages for MPs opens a whole other set of questions that should also be addressed, the above are only a few. Unless we look at the role itself, both in the Commons and the Lords, how we select them, what we expect of them, among many others, the wages debate is not going to solve anything.
It’s difficult to believe that being a nurse is less demanding than being an MP. Plus nurses are more qualified for their profession. The same could be said of other public sector workers. I think there are many members of the public who would gladly be an MP on the salary and pension that they get.
It also doesn’t help that the government deliberately pays other public sector workers less than they could, even though it is affordable.
Can I make two points.
Firstly there is some thing to be said for some sort of modern version of the ‘Cursus Honorum’ nameley that those standing for parliament should be expected to have demonstrated some sort of skills such as in their career or other forms of politics such as in Local Government.
Secondly while MP’s are well paid relative to most of us, the biggest area of income inequality is actually within the top 1% and the real issue is high pay. We should perhaps be clipping the wings of the highest earners.
Good comment
I realise that I retired some time ago, on what I felt at the time was a pretty good salary- but it was nowhere near £84k. Given that their second home / travel +office staff are all paid for, and outrageously, inspite of austerity they continue to benefit from subsidised food and drink (totally outrageous- we had to fund coffee for visitors ourselves, never mind our own) I think that a backbencher is more than sufficiently compensated. What level of teacher is getting that sort of pay now? certainly not newly qualified. MPs who sit on committees etc already get additional pay. A hospital Consultant has had to under go numerous exams (at their own expense) years of training, and hold your life in their hands. Their pay in 2022 was £88-120k
When MPs have had to swear to tell only the truth or go to prison,, have to pass an exam ensuring they understand statistics, and have had some basic training in the law and ethics, and to show their real commitment spent a month living on basic universal credit in a flat in a grim part of town without a bus service, then I might consider they need a pay rise.
They also get all manner of freebies and free trips – arguably corrupting them. If pay was increased then I suggest that they should have to pay for every thing else, and all these free trips be banned.
If they want to do a day a week as a barrister / doctor etc to keep their professional skills and to continue to understand what is going on outside Westminster, or a day a week at a charity OK, but the 6 days a year Board level jobs at extortionate renumeration levels – see the Guardian today – its just a route for corruption.
Thanks
i’ve been fortunate (or unfortunate…) to have seen Parliament from the inside a bit, going back to the time of the expenses scandal, still with some involvement. There are no simple answers – they are always popular with ‘populists’…
I have a dark theory that the Telegraph used the expenses scandal, drip feeding it out, as a deliberate attempt to undermine democracy as a whole as the mud would stick to all MPs. At the time MPs salaries had fallen well behind and the expenses system (which was shambolic) had evolved to be some sort of compensation. Then then Speaker, Michael Martin saw himself as leader of the MPs trade union and resided any changes. Bit of an old union ‘baron’. Surprise, surprise, some MPs abused it appallingly (need I mention duck houses) whilst many/most pretty much claimed what was broadly justified. Their genuine needs vary hugely, if only due to geography. (Though I’d be keen to see a block of flats available for rental to MPs who need a London base).
Their salaries are now about right given that this is pretty much a 24/7 job for those who take it seriously and I’d argue many/most do. Between constituency work, committee work, time in the chamber. Though I’d rather like an appraisal system for them where they have to demonstrate their contribution. Reported back to constituents. And I’d be up for minimising external income except in really special cases like doctors needing to keep up their qualifications. Noting that MPs can find themselves without a job at very short notice.
Do we want MPs with more experience of real life? I would have thought so and my sense is that the best MPs have that, rather than just fought their way up the greasy political pole as SPADS and advisors. Local councillors can also bring those insights. However, might that rule out younger MPs who bring a different but relevant perspective?
The media and social media in particular have changed things in a way that I do not think is fully appreciated by most people. The level of abuse that MPs get now is out of all proportion, including the threats of physical violence. That 2 MPs have been murdered is the tip of a grim iceberg. Hardly surprising that people do not want to do the job or are standing down. It is utterly destructive of personal and family lives. If we want decent MPs we might have to think about treating them decently.
A last point – the two best interrogators (along with Harriet Harman) of Johnson were two Tory MPs – Walker and Jenkin. We should recognise that there are still those whose politics we might fundamentally disagree with but who still have principles and integrity. Otherwise we just descend into the swamp of polarisation that is today’s USA.
I could be persuaded to pay MPs more, but only if we completely banned second jobs and – crucially – locked their salaries to a fixed multiple of the median wage in the UK.
That way, they would only earn more if they created the conditions for the rest of us to prosper too. They could start by giving fair public sector pay rises that kept up with inflation.
This is trying to put bandaids on something fundamentally broken, exactly the wrong people aee attracted to politics currently. I’d greatly increase funding in education and widen the curriculum to nurture a politically intelligent population. Then I’d select politicians like jurors, at random, with 12month terms. Then increase political engagement through regular local e-ballots. Slowly train people to care about politics again, before widening e-ballots to national issues (while also learning lessons from the Brexit referendum fiasco).
That is not democracy
Have you just raised your next discussion point?
How do you define “democracy”? What are its essential features? Does what we have now satisfy those?
Tomorrow….
Churchill’s quote about it being the worst form of government except for all the others has it about right. By definition it allows space for those who actually want to destroy it. As a result we have to keep fighting to keep it healthy. Apathy is the worst enemy of democracy as it undermines it from within. Comments about us being poorly educated as a nation about our politics are on target.
Spot on Robin
If I’ve read John Warren right, then I agree with him.
Namely, that how parliament/democracy works needs to be changed rather than offer more pay.
Pay itself though can be a problem – it can reinforce group think – an institutional problem – and I’ve seen even my own senior management team reward themselves for getting through Covid when in fact you’d think that getting through something like Covid was part of the job anyway!
So I think that whatever external scrutiny there is on MPs pay needs to be more robust. My view is that after the expenses scandal, MPs pay was bound to creep anyway – I just saw that as immediately possible and it happened.
The thing with pay is what are we getting out of that salary?
My view is that we are not getting a lot.
And we are not getting a lot because MPs within our ‘democracy’ are always ‘managing’ the country on the basis of niggardly resources – salami slicing budgets that are already too small because of the continuous austerity we have to live through in this country.
I judge MPs by the state of the country, how happy the people are and the condition of public services.
My view is that their performance is not very good value for money at the moment – especially when one considers that people have been dying because of their decisions.
But, as John rightly alludes above, it is the systems (political and party) as much as the MPs who are the problem. A bunch of MPs could be on £100K p.a for all I care but they’d have to be delivering year on year something aligned with what you lay out in your book ‘The Courageous State’ – that would be my measure of performance for sure.
Paying people to be austerity mongers is not my idea of doing good work for good pay.
Interesting argument
“You judge a society by the decency of living of the weakest.”
Zygmunt Baumann.
I voted ‘Yes, but only if we ban second jobs’. However, I don’t think you can totally ban second jobs. We should put a limit on what they earn.
And for how long
Ande maybe what they can do e.g. keeping professional registration going is acceptable, as is outside public service
That’s a good point.
I previously said I’d want to ban all second jobs, but I didn’t account for professional registrations and the like. It would be silly to force a doctor or a teacher to drop out of their profession and not be able to go back if they left politics.
I think they ate fair exceptions
I think limited work with not for profits may be too
It is instructive to read the speeches in the House of Commons of 10 August 1911 (Hansard vol 29 cc1365-4831365) when Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke on the subject of introducing payment to Members,
“I rise to move the important Motion that stands in my name:—
“That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made for the payment of a salary at the rate of four hundred pounds a year to every Member of this House, excluding any Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary as an officer of the House, or as a Minister, or as an officer of His Majesty’s Household.”
The reasoning Lloyd George used is the basis that gave us working class men in Parliament. To argue against a salary is to argue against the means for all citizens to participate in democracy at the highest level.
And consider: in 1910 the median annual pay for the MPs’ constituents was £70, and Parliament eventually voted themselves £400 per annum.
With same ratio today and a median pay of £31,461, we should be paying backbenchers £179,642, not a “measly” £84,144.
(I’m not sure how this blog treats URLs so I hope the opening paragraph gives enough info to allow the speech to be sourced and read.)
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1911/aug/10/payment-of-members-1
Thank you
Fascinating
Only if the politicians themselves realise that they are public servants, after all they are elected by the public, they are paid out of the public purse, they [supposedly] serve the public. Once they realise this simple fact then they can start to behave like public servants and be restricted and regulated in everything that they do in their workplace with strict rules and they are for the high jump and immediate cessation of employment should they break them. Then and only then can they be paid more. However there is a snag as public service employees they will also be subject to any pay restraint currently in force, so scrap that idea come back in 20 years.
The two MPs I know a bit would say they spend 70% of their time on constituency work and that might be more common than is acknowledged. It’s the kind of thing that is invisible because it does not get reported, but I suspect that it’s the one area where they can make differences to peoples’ lives, even if they are small. Especially true for Opposition MPs. At the same time it does not get into the national news so for those focused on achievements at Westminster they get given no credit, even if they are personally rewarding. And yes of course there are MPs who cannot even be bother to run constituency surgeries.
I’d be uneasy about just wanting people with good ‘executive’ or ‘functional’ talent – that way lies technocracy and managerialism. What’s needed is a broad mix of people, backgrounds and skills which will not be present in any one MP. What this debate is making me think is that we need more transparency on what MPs do – the ‘annual report and appraisal’. Absolutely not against some standard set of performance parameters (keep the HR people well away) but so we can be clear that they are contributing in their different ways. Just being cannon fodder for the Whips in the voting lobby would not count…