I did an interview on the subject of MP's pay on LBC Radio last night. I think it is available on catch-up here, but there might be an app to download.
I was asked whether I thought MPs's pay when set at more than £90,000 a year was fair and I suggested it was. I suggested I might even consider it going a bit higher, but in either case I thought there were some very serious conditions to be attached to that pay.
First, there should be no side hustles. In cases like those of doctors where skills had to be maintained allowance could be made, but these were exceptional. Otherwise the pay was for the whole job and nothing else was allowed.
Second, freebies must be very seriously constrained. Tickets to a local football match, theatre or community event worth less than, maybe, £100 might be acceptable, but must be declared. Nothing else should be. And gifts should be barred. And if an event is necessary for parliamentary work, e.g. visiting a firm, then that must also be declared.
Third, private gifts to MPs offices must end, and political parties must not be allowed to accept gifts of more than £5,000 from a person per annum. Corporate gifts should be totally barred. Trade unions and other organisations must be able to demonstrate specific named member consent to any donations. State funding of political parties must begin.
Fourth, MPs must have a legal duty to their constituents and not to a political party. The draconian rule of the whips must come to an end.
Fifth, this duty to a place must be reinforced by proportional representation from multi-member constituencies.
Sixth, parliament must enter the twenty first century. Digital voting must be required to speed up its work, for example.
And seventh, MPs must undergo continuing professional education to keep their jobs in:
- Ethics
- Parliamentary procedure
- Law
- Macroeconomics
I think that entirely reasonable.
Thoughts?
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:
Buy me a coffee!
An estimable start in every meaning of the word.
A quickie – do we feel that we know enough about those who advise our politicians their backgrounds, influences, bias’ etc?
I feel that is these people who have a really destructive effect on the politicians we get.
I think that we need more disclosure, and it is these people who should be taken on and challenged as much as the politicians themselves.
All political parties should be funded centrally and not accept donations of any kind.
Civil servants are forbidden from accepting donations[1] so why should politicians be allowed?
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-civil-servants-receiving-hospitality
You were a professor in international political economy once. How do the richest democracies like Switzerland, Netherlands and Denmark do it?
Does it matter? It’s what suits our society that matters.
Are you saying that because what divides us is far greater and more important than what we have in common?
I have no idea what you are suggesting
It’s the idea of British exceptionalism – that we can’t draw from the pool of policies that work in other countries which are more successful than we are, but even more than that it’s the idea that the British don’t even need to look. Other countries are different, even if something works there, it wouldn’t work here because we’re different in important ways.
When we had Indyref, I was in a group which jumped the gun and even looked at future constitutional arrangement options for a progressive independent Scotland.
(Elected and appointed representatives conduct included)
England had little to offer then. The expense scandal stink, still lingered.
By far the most interesting alternatives were our European friends and neighbours, with the Scandi nations, and Switzerland highest qualitatively.
These also happen to be the countries which have most engagement with politics, and tend to have higher levels of trust in the political process. I’d suggest there is much to be learnt from them.
Incidentally, the MSP expense procedures in devolved Holyrood were designed to be more open and rigorous than Westminster. Devolved structures were meant to take account of WM failings even if it hasn’t always worked.
Protection from ‘bad actors’ has to be designed into the system, even though the corrupt and corruptible are so cunning.
Power is often sought and gained to serve personal and sectional interests, and the pretence of dedication to public service is often risible.
I do not believe we can rely on the innate goodness of our representatives or automatically expect their sterling resistance to seduction by power.
I want a system that protects me from these people.
I would only allow political parties to raise money via flate rate membership fees. It would likely force their HQs out of London, but that’s not a bad idea. As for the promotion of the party via media, they’ll have to go back to ‘hustings’.
Draconian? Likely. But I feel that parties have long since abandoned the idea that they must live within their means and need to brought back into that idea, the one they impose on everyone else.
As for the rest of your list, I fully agree, even if it does mean paying MPs a bit more.
Looks quite reasonable list. Who could object?
On continuing professional training I would add HR – managing staff/volunteers that work for them. Horrendous stories of mistreatment over the years. Although one could say this included in Law or Ethics, I would prefer a separate heading.
Agreed
I would add in something about attendance and participation records (where practical), to prevent MPs going AWOL for long periods of time. Dorries, Johnson and Farage are obvious examples, but I’m sure there must be many more.
Thank you.
Yes. Labour MPs ecorting Israelis around Paris for the Olympics and campaigning for Kamala Harris in Ohio. The latter are west wing obsessives. I will write more about them.
If we are looking at setting UK Politics on a modern footing fit for the 21st Century I suggest that some sort of support for running Constituency and Westminster offices would be a must so staff were employees of Parliament with proper HR, Pensions, Pay etc.
Clearly something that would no doubt take a lot of stress of MP’s
Alternatively we could look at other ways of providing the ‘Tribunus Plebis’ role that MP’s currently undertake such as better funding for Citizens Advice.
MPs offices are funded by Parliament – to certain limits. That includes physical and comms security, office equipment, postage, rent and staff salaries. Check with Mr Speaker et al.
“And seventh, MPs must undergo continuing professional education to keep their jobs in:
– Ethics
– Parliamentary procedure
– Law
– Macroeconomics”
Yes, absolutely. In both commercial and public service companies I was required to take courses in things such as fair trading, what could be accepted in hospitality, non-discrimination, fair recruitment etc etc.
I would suggest that such courses should be part of an induction. Perhaps then Kier Starmer and cronies might not have got themselves in such a mess over donations.
I would go further, and require candidates for Westminster to have passed a ‘driving test’ covering the basics of those subjects (and probably a few more, such as some statistics, the roles of international organisations and agreements to which UK is party — GATT, WHO, UN, NATO, etc, the governance of the UK’s four nations, and so on.)
Accepted
I agree absolutely, Kim, about the need for MPs to pass your ‘driving test’, but only if it covers the real formal constitutional structures of the Union, and not the false one promoted by England’s establishment. Given that England’s establishment has lied too frequently and too outrageously about the nature and extent of its alleged authority over the Union, and have managed to have their views entrenched within the establishment’s legal and legal-educational structures, no-one can trust that establishment to mark such tests in line with the actual formal truth of the Union’s constitutional nature.
As I have tried to point out here more than once, there is literally nothing in the three founding documents of the Union, the 1707 Treaty and Acts of Union, that formally obliges Scotland and her MP representatives to defer to England and her MPs on any matter of Union governance. MPs numbers are irrelevant to the sovereignties of the Union’s two parent kingdoms. As large as England’s population is, their MPs can speak on behalf of only the English half of the Union’s two sovereign partners, and neither partner has ever had any legitimate formal authority over the other, and nothing agreed in the Treaty changed that.
The very idea that Scotland’s representatives should give way to the representatives of an actual foreign country solely on a spurious numeric basis that has nothing whatsoever to do with actual sovereignties, constitutions, or even meaningful democracy, is patently ludicrous, presumptuous , selfish and abusive. That this arrangement is expected and enforced despite the utter lack of formal agreement for it is frankly incredible!
In what sane polity do the representatives of one sovereign country have more authority over a neighbouring sovereign country than that neighbour’s own representatives?
Neither kingdom gave up its sovereignty in the Treaty, neither agreed to be governed by the other in the Treaty, and neither agreed to the use of a flat vote of the Union’s two bodies of MPs in the Treaty, nor did they accept any of these things in any other formal document agreed between them.
Scotland’s so-called ‘democratic deficit’ isn’t a deficit, it is the deliberate theft of Scotland’s sovereign authority over itself, usurped from Scotland’s MPs by England’s MPs, who consider themselves fully entitled, despite the complete lack of relevant formal authentication, to overrule the sole representatives of the entire sovereign kingdom, country, nation, territory and people of Scotland.
That deficit goes far beyond votes in the House of Commons because it leaves Scotland wide open to all kinds of English abuse, and Westminster being the very epicentre of ‘perfidious Albion’, we thereby did indeed get all kinds of that abuse in barrowloads, and this is ongoing!
Time for a fundamental reset, and there is only one such reset of interest to the Scots.
I hate to say this, but I think you are placing too much faith in a very old treaty.
It doesn’t require faith, Richard, it requires recognition of and respect for a formal constitutional and legal obligation under an agreed written and signed contract between two sovereign nations. That contract is the sole reason Westminster can govern Scotland and the Union today. If the contract has no formal force anymore then the Union’s legitimacy, and all of Westminster’s authority over Scotland expired when the contract did, and Scotland’s independence must return to it.
Either way, what we have is an illegal annexation by the English establishment. I am not OK with that, and no-one else, especially the Scots, should be either.
I am saying you are not going to win an argument on that basis.
It’s useful evidence.
It’s not a trump.
Sounds like a really good list to me. Does this include an element of employing staff etc? Or would they be, say, chosen by the MP but paid for out of government funds?
I’d perhaps add that the procedure for gifts shouldn’t be set up by politicians and absolutely should NOT be administered by them.
Also, given that they are paid that money, in part, because they’re supposed to be taking actions and making judgements that affect thousands – sometimes millions – of people their judgement should be unimpaired. So I’d include a strict Zero Tolerance of alcohol and ‘substances’ (other than medication).
I suggested they might need a greater allowance for staff and research during the interview which was broader ranging.
Ah OK.
Obviously haven’t listened to the interview! I was basing my comments on what I read here.
Basically agree with what you have said. The one exception is regarding freebies where I think they should be ended entirely.
One other point – do MPs have to declare meetings with organisations, businesses etc? Such meetings may be useful to MPs but could they also give certain groups more leverage than others?
My only disagreement is with public funding. I suspect it would be used to prevent new political ideas gaining ground.
The sado- monetarists don’t need any more arms to use against the public.
As someone else stated, parties should be funded by personal membership and those fees tied firmly to the minimum weekly wage. So for a 40 HR week the annual subscription would currently be limited to £457 per annum. No donations from private individuals could exceed that amount, and any donations by companies are treated as bribes and the MPs and Company Directors charged and punished accordingly.
Perhaps public funding based on an uplift of income from individual membership fees, with a cap on per-member contribution?
Good list and I agree with many of the other comments, SPADS, zero donations, membership fees only, state funding. But, and here we’ll probably have to disagree, but I think their salary and pension are too high. 90k elevates them to around the top few percent and means they are disconnected from most people, plus the fact that many have never worked but have gone direct into politics. So I would base their salary on a multiple of the median wage, say 1.5.
I would also want to see some accountability for bad behaviour, whether that’s lying, non-attendance, poor constituency work, or worse.
At its most extreme politics seems the only occupation where your policies can kill people (eg through austerity) yet you are not held legally accountable. Being “accountable” at the ballot box isn’t sufficient. Another reason why we need a constitution which incorporates such notions as fairness and equity. (I can dream)
We’ll have to disagree
Gejay wrote: “Another reason why we need a constitution which incorporates such notions as fairness and equity. (I can dream)”
Absolutely! The current so-called “Constitution” is a joke: it is a jumbled collection of conventions, opinions, bits of statute which, crucially, makes no attempt to define the limits of power of legislators. With a big enough Commons majority the PM and ruling party can basically do anything they want, including corruption and favouring friends. This so-called “constitutional flexibility” is cited as being an advantage in protecting our “democracy”, but an advantage to whom? The people have no direct say on the matter aside from General Election votes.
Another obvious constitutional failure relates to the Union. Wales was incoporated into England (not the UK) by Henry VIII without any treaty of Union, while Scotland became part of the UK by a Treaty which has been breached numerous times. Indeed the passing of the UK Internal Market by the Tories in 2020 gives Westminster the right to overturn any legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament, Stormont or Welsh Senedd, thereby neutering their democratic rights/choices. Only N Ireland has a clearly defined path to secession if it so chooses and this only came about as a result of American pressure forcing the Belfast Agreement (left solely to UK governments, it’s possible N Ireland might still be suffering the Troubles).
Clearly, the much-vaunted (by UK politicians and media) British Democracy is far from ideal, but I fear an effective Constitution is unlikely in the near future, so entrenched are the major English political parties in their support for the status quo.
Much to agree with
As a PS to my piece on the UK Constitution it’s worth noting that the creation of a written Constitution for an independent Scotland is ongoing. A new work has been recently published by Glasgow University:
https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_1113131_smxx.pdf
At 55 pages it’s a bit of a marathon read, but it’s also been reviewed and discussed on the Bella Caledonia website where the main points have been addressed:
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2024/09/25/scotland-and-the-constitution/
Does any similar initiative exist for the development of a written Constitution for England or the UK?
Thanks, Ken
Thank you and well said, Richard. Timely, too.
Over the week-end, I heard that the donor at the centre of the freebie affair has lent money, in one case, over a million, to Labour politicians.
In addition, a PR firm he has an interest in was part of the network to undermine Corbyn. A senior employee of the firm is also a senior official of a Home Counties constituency Labour Party and fixed it for the son of a Labour Party official (and ex civil servant) to become candidate (and now MP).
The million story is true…
I gather Private Eye has the data
I have seen it
Largely agree – with one area of reservation.
On the in-work training…. one wonders where the education in macro-economics might come from/be provided by? At present, one would fear a flooding in of Tufton Street type vandals preaching the current ‘orthodoxy’. After all, the queston of ‘whose’ economics is taught/practiced is, itself, the very heart and guts of politics. So, who gets to decide on the training is exactly the same as ‘who is to be in power?’ – and that shows that the desire to ‘professionalise’ the role of MPs, however apparently laudable, is – beyond the enforcement of basic standards of honesty and stamping our corruption – chasing Snarks.
Accepted
There should be a duty to discuss a range of views
Politicians, including Labour show no signs that they appreciate how far the distrust of politicians and politics has gone (they are all in it for themselves’) , or any sign they want to do something about it.
As usual its just words – Labour were going to be all about ‘service ‘. Now they have suggestion the absolute minimum in respone to the freebies scandal – just a little more ‘transparency’.
Your list is very appropriate – some are sort of obvious in any job – some revolutionary – they will hate the whipping proposals.
The very least they should do is set up a cross party semi independent commission to examiine these ideas for bringing our politcs into the twenty f irst centrury.
But of course they wont
Much to agree with
Why do MPs have second and third jobs? Is there not enough work for them to do?
I would go further. 650 MPs is far too many – make constituencies bigger and cut the number in half, say. Pay them more certainly, but with no expenses or a small fixed limit
Second and third jobs would be banned. The fact we have MPs earning six figures as TV presenters is clearly unacceptable
Buy to let portfolios – which many MPs, Tory and Labour have apparently, should also be banned because of their vested interest in the property market.
With digital voting MPs would also no longer be compelled to be in the Commons – helping the drive to decentralise the country.
There’s so many things that could be done to effect real change in the UK but inevitably won’t.
I disagree strongly on reducing the number of MPs
So would they
The good ones do vast amounts of constituency work to help people with social problems, especially with official agencies. Please do not stop that happening. Your proposal would mean that it would.
Robert – think about how the MP system is meant to work and hopefully you will see that your assertion is quite wrong. The workloads could be quite high.
Everywhere we go we think we can improve things by ‘cutting’ something.
Thatcher certainly left her mark on us didn’t she?
Have we become addicted to austerity in this country?
Thank you, Richard.
I don’t disagree. A modern building to facilitate such work and interaction would be useful.
Recently, it was revealed that, as shadow Brexit secretary and MP, Starmer asked Corbyn if he could work for Mishcon de Reya. Corbyn said no. Starmer has poor judgment, but has been protected by the media.
Until 1911, backbench MPs were either self-funded, or supported mostly by – for Labour – Trades Unions.
Lloyd George’s government introduced a basis salary of £400 per annum, the salary of a lowest-paid junior clerk in the Civil Service. The purchasing power of that sum today is £59,047. I’m pretty sure a junior clerk, even in Whitehall, doesn’t earn that much! (The dangers of percentage pay increases…)
A backbench MP today, on the other hand, has a basic salary of £91,346 plus expenses.
“Something is rotten in the State…”
The Hansard speech proposing the motion in 1911 is a worthwhile read – why the Liberals introduced the payment, what it was meant to hinder and to help, why the introduction changed Parliament.
https://api.parliament.uk/…/aug/10/payment-of-members-1
I want headteachers, salaried doctors and middle managers without independent means to be MPs without having to ask too much of their families.
Is that unreasonable?
Perhaps it’s the spread of salaries that is at fault.
If an MP deserves that for the work they do, why doesn’t the lowest clerk in Whitehall?
Why do salary-setters always work from the bottom up, never the the top down?
The top is out of control
£90,000 is not a sign of salaries out of control
I live in the real world
I now it is big – bit not out of control
No, it’s not unreasonable, but that’s what expenses are for, to ensure that an MP can make reasonable accommodations such that they can enjoy as near as possible a “normal” family life (if they have one), or whatever kind of life they would have in any other job. I wouldn’t have any problem with increasing expenses if required.
As for pay, £90k, which for an ordinary MP can be taken as the median since they all get the same, compares very favourably with the median pay of most workers analysed by the ONS with only CEO median pay approaching.
But we need to make other changes to the parliamentary workplace, such as moving it elsewhere and perhaps building accommodation on the campus.
Ok agree with all those last
If MPs workloads are high (and I’m not denying that many MPs do work hard for their constituents), why do so many have 2nd and 3rd jobs?
Reducing the number of MPs isn’t “cutting” in the austerity sense but making the state more efficient, surely? I agree they should be paid more
They aren’t doing the fist job – as an MP – porperly
That is what we should demand of them – by banning second and third jobs.
I don’t think they need to be paid more. £91,000 is generous.
Graham says:
September 30 2024 at 10:16 am
“It’s the idea of British exceptionalism – that we can’t draw from the pool of policies that work in other countries which are more successful than we are, but even more than that it’s the idea that the British don’t even need to look. Other countries are different, even if something works there, it wouldn’t work here because we’re different in important ways.”
When I compare how other countries run their train services, provide reliable low cost energy and run efficient health services for their constituants, then, I’d go so far as to say its arrogance rather than exceptionalism that prevents our leaders from learning from others
Roger, I’d say both arrogance and exceptionalism are at play, but there’s another centuries-old factor too: the preservation of as much of the feudal state as is possible. It’s about keeping the wealth and entitlement of the elite intact: it’s ever-present behind the daily MSM barrage of current news and keeps a watchful eye on developments that might affect the elite’s wealth and entitlement. In Scotland it appears whenever there’s a whiff of potential (and much-needed) change in land-ownership legislation. Sadly resistance to change in the UK is endemic.
My thought, which probably needs more thinking through… Pay MPs a much larger sum (perhaps twice what they currently get), but make that cover their expenses, for which they might claim a sum in tax relief (which would be between them and HMRC), with the expectation that they would publish their tax return/accounts (including other income), also a report on what they had been doing (as MP). Which perhaps should go to a ‘jury’ selected from their constituents, who could question them on it (and make comments). Also make a deduction from their ‘pay’ (in the same way there is a deduction from UC or other benefits) if they have other income.
Sorry, but that makes no sense, especially re tax.
The existing systems on expenses work now.
PMQS is a joke there is no way to hold anything that is said to account , no fact checking two liars shouting lies at each other it’s just a absurd puppet show nothing is achieved
I agree with much you have set out. I would go further in that I would not allow any MP to vote on or have a role in developing policy where there is a conflict of interest, eg no role re NHS if they use private medicine, same for education.
I was once a town Councillor (Labour). We had an ugly issue with the new Town Clerk who had no relevant qualifications but was a favourite of the usual ruling Party (not Labour). The previous Clerk had left after a campaign against her. Yet she had had a Law degree and a qualification in Local Authority admin. It seems that the new Town Clerk was NOT required to have such qualifications. She did not perform well and was eventually required to leave (with a reward for going !)
It occurs to me that all such vital administrators should be required to have recognised qualifications. And that the senior staff who administer MPs offices should also have such qualifications. Being a favourite of the local Party (let alone the MPs spouse!) should not be a factor. Otherwise, Party high-ups will just dispense favours and jobs to local members using public money to do it. (That happened quite blatantly in our local Town Council as well!) Local Party admin. could become a professional career like admin in local government.