Should MPs take a pay cut?

[scotrail158713]

#moderator note - split from this thread:

ScotRail Industrial Relations issues (including conductor strike action)

RMT ScotRail conductors have just announced strikes for the next six Sundays: https://www.scotrail.co.uk/plan-your-journey/passenger-disruption/sunday-strikes-planned Due to RMT strike action, there will be a limited number of services running on Sundays. It has been confirmed that these...

www.railforums.co.uk

Just to play devil's advocate, are we all fine with MP's managing an almost annual pay rise then?

 

[Bald Rick]

Just to play devil's advocate, are we all fine with MP's managing an almost annual pay rise then?

Not this year they haven’t.

 

[Class 170101]

Not this year they haven’t.

And frankly all MPs should take a 10% pay cut (at least) nevermind a wage freeze.

 

[Bald Rick]

And frankly all MPs should take a 10% pay cut (at least) nevermind a wage freeze.

I disagree. Having met hundreds of MPs in my time, I’d say that 95% of them work extremely hard and deserve every penny they get (and more). It’s certainly not a job I’d want to do for that salary. And trying to keep on topic, I don’t suppose it’s a job that many (any?) train drivers would want to do for that salary either.

 

[baz962]

I disagree. Having met hundreds of MPs in my time, I’d say that 95% of them work extremely hard and deserve every penny they get (and more). It’s certainly not a job I’d want to do for that salary. And trying to keep on topic, I don’t suppose it’s a job that many (any?) train drivers would want to do for that salary either.

Many people work very hard for far less pay. I would base it on competence and honesty. Maybe a 50% cut would be better.

 

[GALLANTON]

I disagree. Having met hundreds of MPs in my time, I’d say that 95% of them work extremely hard and deserve every penny they get (and more). It’s certainly not a job I’d want to do for that salary. And trying to keep on topic, I don’t suppose it’s a job that many (any?) train drivers would want to do for that salary either.

It must be hard for all those MPs to sit in the House of Commons shouting and jeering at each other, waving bits of paper about and slagging each other off whilst folk like Firefighters are running into burning buildings and risking their lives for a lot less....

 

[InOban]

This is going off topic, but hardly any of the work of our MPs is done in the chamber.

 

[alf]

This is going off topic, but hardly any of the work of our MPs is done in the chamber.

This is also going off topic, but there is no need to allow MPs such
huge salaries & write it yourself expenses.

There is no shortage of people wanting to be MPs.

I guess each seat has 60 people wanting to be on the short list to be chosen as the candidate for the three main parties plus there are the 5 to 10 candidates in every seat who are prepared to stand for other labels & lose their deposits.

We could halve MPs pay & still have a full roster of candidates wanting to go to Westminster.
It might weed out the money grabbers & give us idealists instead.

 

[Hadders]

I don't think MPs are overpaid. The annual salary is £81,932 which although high compared to the average wage really isn't high compared to a senior manager level in a large organisation.

 

[baz962]

I don't think MPs are overpaid. The annual salary is £81,932 which although high compared to the average wage really isn't high compared to a senior manager level in a large organisation.

Well , performance aside etc. MPs work for the taxpayer and not for private companies. If people think a train driver has too much pay and benefits, then surely MPs earn too much. I'm happy to let them earn what they do , if my pay and terms are left alone. MPs also have expenses and allowances for second homes and can take gifts and other jobs .

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

No, they shouldn't have a pay cut, but perhaps they should be prevented from having huge incomes from second or third jobs when they should be devoting their time to their parliamentary work.

 

[brad465]

Maybe not a pay cut, but I would very strongly favour barring MPs from having second jobs/sources of income, or at the very least be required to disclose these conflicts of interest, and in turn be barred from voting on anything related to them (e.g. MP landlords not being allowed to vote on anything to do with housing). If they hide a conflict of interest and are found out, they should be struck off as an MP and a by-election take place.

 

[Gloster]

The trouble is that there pretty well no performance standards for MPs. As long as they don’t annoy their constituency party or the whips, or commit a serious criminal offence they can stay there as long as they want. Most probably do their best to look after their constituents‘ and what they perceive to be the country’s interests: some are good at this, some aren’t and some are carried by their office staff. Some are solely interested in climbing the greasy pole, others are flattering their egos and others are only interested in what they can make. The trouble is parliament’s own mechanism for disciplining MPs is so weak: as far as I can check only two MPs have been expelled in the last hundred years.

 

[peri]

Pay them piece work per each face to face interview with a constituent, maybe with a bonus for actually helping them.

 

[Hadders]

An MP has to work at Westminster for much of the time, often a long way from their home. If I have to work away from home then my employer pays my accommodation and travelling expenses. Why should this be any different for an MP. We could arrange hotel accommodation for them but these are often people with families and schools to consider and so paying expenses for a home within commutable distance of Westminster is appropriate.

Also consider that an MP will have to leave their previous profession, and their job security isn't always great.

 

[RT4038]

This is also going off topic, but there is no need to allow MPs such
huge salaries & write it yourself expenses.

There is no shortage of people wanting to be MPs.

I guess each seat has 60 people wanting to be on the short list to be chosen as the candidate for the three main parties plus there are the 5 to 10 candidates in every seat who are prepared to stand for other labels & lose their deposits.

We could halve MPs pay & still have a full roster of candidates wanting to go to Westminster.
It might weed out the money grabbers & give us idealists instead.

More likely only get those with private means, or bankrolled by businesses and other pressure groups. Is that what you really want? Idealists won't get a look in.

 

[tbtc]

I'd quadruple their pay

It's a really messy job where you need to be doing a full time job in London as well as visible in your constituency - fine if you're a London MP but that's a lot of strain on your personal life if you're trying to represent a place hundreds of miles away

You need to be able to work with people you can trust with everything but people get sniffy if you employ a spouse to be a PA

You may have to take on responsibility for one brief only to be reshuffled into another (different) department and expected to be able to represent the Government/opposition on this subject, all whilst dealing with local constituency issues that may be a full time job in themselves

Pay only a token amount and you'll only attract people like Rees Mogg who can afford to do a job like this rather than someone from a working class career who couldn't adjust to the expense of starting to live this double life as well as the job insecurity (an election could be called at short notice or you could be out of a job)

I understand the envy side of things, but honestly feel that paying MPs a much higher wage would be a worthwhile investment for the country - you get what you pay for and paying a pittance would attract only the poorest of candidates rather than a wide range of people

(I'd certainly stop them having "second" jobs - we need them fully focussed on being MPs - and receiving income from other organisations should be stopped, especially given the implications of bribery/influence etc)

 

[johncrossley]

An MP working hard is not enough. If they work hard in the wrong way, then it would be better off if they didn't work at all. Constituency representation is also meaningless if you don't share the same view. My MP is an idiot Brexiteer, so he's obviously not going to be interested if I ask him to campaign to restore our free movement. So I would be better off talking to someone who shares my opinion even if he doesn't represent my constituency.

 

[DarloRich]

MP's don't need a pay cut - A pay cut will only encourage more rich Tory Etonian types to become MP's ( because they will be the only ones able to work for free) when what we need is a better spread of talent, profession and society. We need to demand better leaders and representatives.

I would stop them having second and more jobs and give the regulator who at present simply rubber stamps moves from public to private employment some real teeth to say no to such moves.

 

[Bald Rick]

We could halve MPs pay & still have a full roster of candidates wanting to go to Westminster.

Back on topic, you could say the same about train drivers. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t begrudge train drivers their pay either.

 

[dakta]

The annual salary is £81,932 which although high compared to the average wage really isn't high compared to a senior manager level in a large organisation

Out of interest I looked the average salary for 2020 up as I had no idea what the average salary was or what an MP earned but quick google says 31461 which is 2.6 times less than what you quoted for an MP! crikey

There's people putting bottles on a conveyor belt stood next to a kiln doing 12 hour shifts and coming home full of physical aches and pains for less than a quarter of that. I appreciate tax will take a heavy toll for the MP but they do get the benefit of filing certain expenses.

That said I doubt being an MP is very nice at all in a lot of ways, and the workload will be high, you can't sneeze or have your own opinion without a scandal, so personally I do actually support some kind of premium to cover personal life impact, the availability required, the high profile nature of it and responsibility and influence, but 2.6 times the average wage (which itself isn't bad and many people fall underneath it is only the average) - this allows you to live in a seperate world so I think it's a bit extreme myself. (I also wonder how accurate the average is, i.e its not artificially raised by a small number of people on ridiculous wages upsetting the math or vice versa)

Don't want to say cut their wages as the work isn't nice, but god it brings home how many other people want levelling up (though practically thats an absolute no go for a billion reasons). It's not a dig at MP's I know IT contractors on even more - their skills are undeniable but I still think the worlds a bit lop-sided.

 

[Gloster]

One thing I would do is limit how much MPs get paid for newspaper columns and the like, both individual fees and retainers. It is perfectly reasonable for an MP to put forward an idea in an article and to be paid for said article, but this should limited to a standard fee agreed by the NUJ. The situation where an MP is paid large sums of money by a newspaper is, basically, corruption, even if it is, ostensibly, for producing a piece of work. (At the extreme end was the £275,000 that Boris Johnson received from the Telegraph for work that he said took him around ten hours a month. He had to give it up when he became Foreign Secretary, but when he fled from that job he went straight back on the Telegraph’s payroll.)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is also going off topic, but there is no need to allow MPs such
huge salaries & write it yourself expenses.

The expenses are because of things that MPs have to pay for in the course of their work - most obviously, employing office staff, travelling between their constituency and Westminster, etc. It's no different from anyone else getting expenses to cover stuff they have to pay for in the course of their work. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'write it yourself', but these days, expenses have to be fully receipted and accounted for. It's all but impossible for MPs to use expenses to supplement their own incomes.

 

[AlterEgo]

You can’t complain about the consistent calibre of people doing a job and then suggest halving their pay.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ideally they should earn the national average from the previous year. If the national average goes up they're rewarded... but if it drops they suffer along with everyone else. We're all in it together, right?

 

[yorkie]

Ideally they should earn the national average from the previous year. If the national average goes up they're rewarded... but if it drops they suffer along with everyone else. We're all in it together, right?

I refer you to @DarloRich and @AlterEgo's replies above.

 

[baz962]

I refer you to @DarloRich and @AlterEgo's replies above.

Well if you are going to just say that , then there isn't much point debating it anymore and may as well lock the thread.

 

[SteveM70]

I don’t think the salary is an issue. Probably a bit higher than I’d set if I was in charge, but not obscene. However I do have issues with:

- second / third jobs
- being allowed to accept hospitality and gifts over a nominal amount (free pens are fine, but four grand of hospitality at the euros from a betting company is plain wrong)
- a still over generous expenses policy, and some ongoing abuse of the spirit of not the letter of it
- subsidised restaurant quality food in parliament
- employing family members
- a hugely generous pension scheme

 

[yorksrob]

Personally, I think that any pay rises going forwards, should be linked to the general public sector pay award (the one that goes to more staid, less favoured public servants such as council employees etc).

This would benefit governance in two ways:

-It would de-politicise future pay rises to an extent if they are getting the same increase as the rest of the sector
-It would make them subject to their own future pay policy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ideally they should earn the national average from the previous year. If the national average goes up they're rewarded... but if it drops they suffer along with everyone else. We're all in it together, right?

Aside from the problems already pointed out, there's a good chance that would break minimum wage law if you're measuring it by annual salary: Remember, MPs tend to work much longer hours than most people, so a national average salary for them could easily translate into below-minimum-wage per hour.

There's also a big problem that you'd be giving MPs a huge incentive to increase one measure of national prosperity against all the others. What about clean air? How stressed/happy people are? Decent public transport? Health services? History shows that when you give anyone financial incentives to improve just one specific statistic, the results are rarely what you want.

Personally, I think that any pay rises going forwards, should be linked to the general public sector pay award (the one that goes to more staid, less favoured public servants such as council employees etc).

This would benefit governance in two ways:

-It would de-politicise future pay rises to an extent if they are getting the same increase as the rest of the sector
-It would make them subject to their own future pay policy.

That would be even worse: You'd be giving MPs an incentive to increase public sector pay at the expense of private sector pay!