I seem to be one of the few people the BBC knows who is willing to talk about MPs' salaries, and so I did an interview on BBC Look North television on this issue last night.
I recorded the interview as it was taking place from my computer and of me talking in my home, meaning that the sound quality could be more balanced:
This is the transcript, which may be as easy to follow:
Peter: We asked all of our local MPs if any of them would come on the programme tonight and talk to us about their pay rise, but unfortunately, they weren't available to talk to us.
However, I'm joined by Professor Richard Murphy. He's from the University of Sheffield, and he's written about MP salaries.
Professor Murphy, good evening to you. Good to have you on the program. Thanks a lot for coming on.
Richard: Hello, Peter.
Peter: Does it surprise you that we haven't been able to get, get an MP to talk about this tonight?
Richard: No, not at all. Well, of course they're not gonna want to talk about their pay. No one wants to talk about their pay, but I suspect they're a bit embarrassed by being paid near enough, 94,000 pounds a year, and some of them will be having some difficulty trying to justify that.
Peter: I am asking people at home tonight watching what they think is the right salary for an mp. What would that, uh, answer be from you? For the same question
Richard: I am quite happy that MPs should be paid £94,000 a year subject to some massive conditions. Remember, this salary is comparable to senior head teachers and many GPs as we've just heard, and hospital consultants and people like that. People who, who are heading major public services and can therefore make decisions.
A lot of business managers will also get this sort of sum of money and we, we might well want those people in parliament, but, and these are my very important buts, first of all this has to be their only job, and far too many of them are freeloading with other jobs as well.
Secondly, they cannot take freebies. It is unacceptable that they get free tickets to Sabrina Carpenter concerts. It's also unacceptable that they get so many bungs to support their work from large companies.
Peter: Okay. We don't wanna talk about that one. Mp Rachel Massow says she opposes the pay rise. She thinks that pay should be cut to be more in line with her constituents. Do you think that's a good idea?
Richard: No. Because I do think we want to make this a job that people who have real ability can do. But again, the problem we actually get, and your people who you just interviewed, reflect this. People don't hear that their MPs are competent because they do exactly what their party tells them. They vote as they're told. They don't exercise their judgment. So we have to free these MPs to actually use their own discretion.
Peter: So, yeah. So when it comes to things like winter fuel bonus and stuff like that. They might think one thing, but they, they, they say what the, the company line is, so they, they, they don't wanna jeopardize their promotion.
Richard: Precisely. And I think that's unacceptable. So we should have no whipping system. They should be able to say what they want as happens in the USA, by the way, for example. And we should not have our current first pass the post system. We should actually have proportional representation with a wider range of views in Parliament as a result. That would then mean that our mps were really accountable to us, the electorate.
Peter: I've got an email here from Mo. He says, the pay should be much higher than we might attract high quality people, not like the rubbish we seem to have today. His words.
Well, a lot of the people who go into parliament seem to be pretty good before they get there, and then they become completely dumbed down by the system. They are competent, but they daren't speak out. What we have to change is the way in which Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch, whoever it might be, can control their MPs so they say nothing of any use and don't represent us. If they did that, they're worth 94,000.
Peter: But they, they then jeopardize their career. It's like me saying something outrageous. Now you jeopardize your career.
Richard: No, they should not be in that position. We should have a parliamentary system that lets MPs be our representatives, not the representatives of their parties. That's what we need to make Parliament work.
Peter: So interesting to, uh, chat Professor Murphy. Good to have you on the programme.
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 don’t think UK mp pay is excessive for many of the reasons stated in the interview.
But a TD (Irish mp) getting a basic €115,000 plus expenses, now that’s taking the preverbial!
Why shouldn’t they get expenses?
That’s not what I wrote. But since the UK had its expenses scandal, you know there’s expenses and taking the preverbial expenses.
No, I don’t
There were
There aren’t
I believe change is possible
> TD being paid €115,000 is taking the “perverbial” (sic)
That’s £95,000 at current exchange rates. What a scam. Especially when considering how much cheaper the cost of living in Ireland is.
/sarcasm (necessary given the “clue”)
In the Netherlands, members of the Socialists Party give all their pay to the party and receive a modal salary in return. Obviously the party pays for their assistants and all costs, whereas most mps in most countries pay for their own assistants out of their salary.
They don’t pay any assistants out of their salary. They claim those costs as expenses.
Well said Richard. I’d be happy with MPs earning a bit more – say £125,000 or so (just below the top rate limit) if 2nd jobs and freebies were banned.
I also think any increases in MPs’ pay should be pegged to increases (or decreases) in working age social security benefits. So if benefits get frozen or cut, so does MPs’ pay. That might help concentrate some minds in the PLP in particular!
I like that last one.
I gather local radio stations are re-broadcasting [arts of my interview this morning – they mist have liked it
Agree 100% & it gets to the dichotomy – elected by citizens but controlled by a combo of the party machine (which decides who can stand for election – recall the LINO shenanigans on who decides who stands) and the utterly outdated Wezzi system – as profiled by Caroline Lucas – who, taking one example, contrasted the pathetic Wezzi voting system (lobbyies – really?) with the European parliament (electronic).
I have no problems with £94k – but lets have MPs working for constituents and their needs, not LINO & its needs (argument extended to Tories and LibDems etc).
As for the bungs – no bungs, no directorships etc & make it an offense that leads to the MP losing their seat and a by-election. This would take a lot of the steam out of the lobby industry. Oh & ALL meetings MPs, ministers etc with the public or lobyists a listed on a spreadsheet – everyday. Plus – who the lobbyists is representing.
Much to agree with
Thank you, Richard, for this piece.
I think there may be grounds for one exception to the ‘one job rule’, with which I agree, and that would be for MPs whose professional registration needs them to maintain their competence. I’m thinking of the medical profession, but not lawyers, think-tankers, journalists, etc.
Retiring (and defeated) MPs need to have an exit route and not via the gravy train or House of Lords. This is not least to enable greater freedom for MPs to raise a valedictory, Churchillian salute to their party leader when they have spoken truth to power.
We ran through that before the programme but they said there would not be time to cover it
I agree with you.
Clive Lewis was on BBC2’s Newsnight last night. He said he have choices and gave them. He mentioned tax reliefs
Who is in charge of the economy? The democratically elected politicians or the OBR whose figures don’t always stack up.
I liked the way he mentioned Blackrock and private equity companies who will syphon off the money.
“We can’t cut our way to growth, he said. If we are not prepared to reform the economy, take on vested interests and tax wealth, we are going to be left with poor choices.”
The question is, will more Labour backbenchers support him.
Nick Watt, the BBC correspondent, said many of Clive’s colleagues were in absolute despair.
We could be in for stormy seas.
He is doing a great job.
This a difficult issue. I love the idea of smart, independently minded MPs voting according to the facts and their conscience.. but how are we ever going to get that?
When I vote for a candidate I have no idea what their exact views are on most issues; I rely on the fact they stand for a Party whose manifesto I like (or at least dislike least). If, the moment they get to Westminster, they start voting contrary to the Party line then I have some reason to be aggrieved. Under Proportional Representation this becomes worse as my vote will be pulling names from the “Party List” and I won’t even know the name of the MP that my vote is going to send to Westminster.
If the House is finely balanced we will see all sorts of horse trading going on to keep MPs in line. “Pork Barrel Politics” in the US is not something we want in the UK… although we did get there with the DUP over Brexit.
So, we need to prioritize what we want.
First, the “FPTP” system MUST go. There are shortcomings in any PR system but all are superior to FPTP.
Second, under PR we can still have constituency MPs but we will then have “Party List” MPs too. I think it would be entirely reasonable (even essential) for constituency MPs vote for the interest of local electors without “punishment” by Whips but I would expect Party List MPs to follow that Party Line except on major matters of conscience.
In practice, the problem of whipping would diminish enormously if decision making by Government took MPs views into account when deciding policy rather than deciding it in secret amongst a cabal of advisors. If a Government can’t persuade its own MPs of the merit of a policy how on earth can it expect voters to be persuaded.
I presume most of the time people will vote for their party, because the6 stood for it.
The problem is the stranglehold of the threat of removing the whip in a FPTP system. Autonomy then goes.
I think we pretty much agree.
Being an MP is not really a job and can exist only for one parliament. There is no professional entry barrier, no job description, no performance metrics. It’s not even a trade. So comparing salary with the professions is not relevant.
The priorities are to cut down on corruption and perhaps to have some sort of statutory metrics for a constituency office.
MPs though are lawmakers and that’s why we need a system of proportional representation.
MP’s don’t necessarily need to have a technical level of expertise as a Doctor or Accountant but they do have to be competent and as decision makers have a level of judgement and experience similar to that required by the professions. If we want quality law makers we need to pay them well. As has been said above I’d like to see them paid £125k providing they have no other jobs and can exercise their free will in Parliament and not just have to tow the party line
MPs were paid (by the constituency), and then they weren’t paid. In 1911 the then-Chancellor, David Lloyd George, proposed renewing payment of MPs.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1911/aug/10/payment-of-members-1
I find reading the justifications given for legislation to be very informative – but he did make a long speech. So here’s the nub, how the proposed payment was arrived at:
“After all, £400 a year is just the salary of a junior clerk in the Civil Service.”
Of course, it was also accepted that many MPs ran large estates, or had flourishing business concerns, that needed managers when the House was sitting.
I am old enough to remember the Houghton Review of teachers’ salaries in the 1970s, when the workload, the stresses, and the responsibilities were compared across society. It was a useful exercise. Such a review could restore some trust in the activities of MPs.
My view is this.
The more you pay MPs, the more they will become distant from the lives of their constituents; the more they will gravitate – socially – upwards towards the better off and begin to represent those interests. Money corrupts I’m afraid.
What the state should do is offer free housing to MPs to be closer to London or and to live in their constituencies – a house should come with the job – that might reduce the wage but it would be a wage in kind. I am all for perks really – not hard cash which perverts.
I fully agree with a proposition that MPs should well educated too and trained to do the job.
One of the perks is that once their political career is over, they should get support to live and retrain in order find real work. The insecurity with the job should be met with more help at the end, acknowledging the sacrifice.
Perks prevent the cash grab this job has become in my view, but lots of good suggestions here I must say.
Good points
@ PSR
Sweden seems to have it right.
Overnight flats owned by the Parliament Estate. I’ve seen photos, very nice Swedish birch furnishings. If we re-sited the Parliament, it could be a useful addition to the PE.
https://www.riksdagen.se/en/members-and-parties/the-members-pay-and-conditions/the-members-overnight-accommodation/
Absolutely – MPs speaking their mind would be good, and a proper debate might avoid the top-down instructions about policy. Awful decisions made by about three people, everyone else obeys or gets suspended.
But, you’d need an intelligent press. Or a government which was not afraid of the press. Blair’s pagers told MPs what to say on every point, to the degree of the exact wording they must use. Because the press portrayed every disagreement as a split in the Labour party.