Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 10 2013, 10:23 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23262503 that MPs are to get a 9% pay rise, putting the starting salary at £74k - that's a little more than an army colonel, and a little less than an head teacher.

I already think that politicians are self-serving scum-bags so I'm not overly surprised they're getting such a whacking great bung - and the clever little soldiers didn't even have to vote for it, so that kind of makes it all fine and dandy.

Anywho, the problem appears to be that MP's pay is decided by looking at the pay of comparable workers - and someone decided that the comparable workers would all be well paid! I agree with the principle, but if MPs are supposed to represent us all, the obvious answer is to pay them the national average wage - that would make it a whole bunch easier for the poor loves to understand the kind of things that the average schmo is complaining about all the time. I think the average wags is around £24k.

Comparing and MP with an army colonel or a head teacher is and odd choice. You basic MP needs no particular qualification or aptitude to do their job in the commons, all they need is a conscience and some life experience, and it's part of the problem that many of our MPs have neither. A couple of years in the army or straight from university into political research teaches you nothing about the common schlob. In any event with the party whips telling you how to vote an MP with her own thoughts and ideas is a downright liability and would never pass party selection.

Some MPs get involved with their constituents' problems and that takes some skill and ability, but we're not talking about commanding an infantry brigade or anything like that, you just need a little sense and compassion - so how about paying what a CofE vicar gets - that's also around £24k.

That's not going to exclude the low-paid from becoming an MP because it'll pay better than that, and it's not going to exclude the rich because they're already rich and they don't need the money anyway.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 10 2013, 11:36 PM

My first question is to ask if your proposal would likely improve the quality of parliament's performance? I doubt it. I therefore propose that their pay should go up, but only if they meet collective performance targets. If they fail, then it should go down. I understand that punitive charges for failure are more effective than enhancements for exceeding targets.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 11 2013, 07:31 AM

What performance? What do the rank-and-file MPs actually do? How about this as an experiment: suspend parliament for ten years and see if we actually suffer for a lack of any new laws.

Posted by: motormad Jul 11 2013, 08:23 AM

Cap them to £50k tops.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 11 2013, 09:36 AM

Given all the expenses and allowances they are allowed to claim I often wonder what they spend any income on. Especially where the Member employs their partner in the constituency office etc.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 11 2013, 10:15 AM

Performance is that of the country, a set a markers. Employment rates, balance of payments, modal average wage, inflation, standard of living, etc. But one could also set KPIs for MPs themselves.

Like I said, I fail to see how mundane salaries are going to make things better, not do I think it would be safe to let the country run itself. To a degree, it was the Labour Party doing that in the banking sector that has put us in the situation we are currently in, I think.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 11 2013, 10:35 AM

The national ones are the measure of the government, with judgement passed at elections. Ask any MP what they (personally) contributed to any outcome - good bad - that matters to you. Few will have much to say about the former, maybe more about the latter (in that they knew it was a bad idea etc).

KPIs for individual MPs in their core role of local representative? Interesting!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 11 2013, 10:44 AM

I see that as irrelevant; I propose that parliament gets rewarded when it does well, and penalised when it doesn't. Loosely speaking isn't that how professional life generally works? I see that as a more sensible suggestion than leaving it to business and army generals, or people who are 'only' capable of earning £24k a year.


What is up with that? If their effort is transparent, then perhaps we can learn to 'love' or reject our MP?

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2013, 04:51 PM

You may want their pay to go up but the MPs - at least the majority - are against it. They believe it has come at the wrong time.

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 11 2013, 05:13 PM

As an extension to that, at elections we should have a box "None of the Above" to put our cross in, when we feel that no candidate is worthy of the job and salary.

Then hopefully we will get a better type of politician, worthy of running the country and rewarded with an appropriate salary.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 11 2013, 05:26 PM

I do, but it is conditional, as my post hopefully explained, because I also suggested it go down too. The cost of our MPs is trivial in the scheme of things, symbolic even, but what is more important than the pay, is that they deserve or earn it.

Posted by: user23 Jul 11 2013, 05:55 PM

I'm not sure cutting salaries to a third of what's being proposed would really raise standards.

As for performance related pay, wouldn't you have to reward HM Opposition every time something went wrong or failed?

Not sure you've really thought this through.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 11 2013, 06:09 PM

You have found the answer User23, so that's why Labour let the Bankers run amok!

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 11 2013, 06:31 PM

There is also the point that Parliament (as in the Commons - MPs) is a totally different beast from Government

We are not governed by MPs as MPs, but by Ministers appointed from amongst MPs (and Lords) by the majority party.

There are 3 major strands to running the country. Parliament; Government; Judiciary. Parliament are supposed to hold the Executive to account. Part of our current problems is that Parliament has had the wool pulled over its eyes for too long by Government for many years

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 11 2013, 06:31 PM

Err, no, why? If something goes wrong or fails, they all take a cut. Whether in power or opposition, they all are collectively responsible to parliament and the people they serve.


I'm hardly publishing a 'white paper'!

Posted by: GMR Jul 11 2013, 06:32 PM

Who decides whether they deserve it?

Posted by: user23 Jul 11 2013, 06:55 PM

So even if an MP campaigns and votes against something they don't support or can't see working, if it goes wrong or fails they take a pay cut?

There seems little incentive to oppose or change anything under this system.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 11 2013, 07:04 PM

So if the opposition see the government going in a direction that is likely to fail and therefore cost them a portion of their salary, don't you think they will be motivated to speak? Conversely, if the government is going in a direction that might succeed, then they can help it through.

Anyway, currently they are to get a pay rise regardless, so it's nothing new.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 11 2013, 07:20 PM

There are a number of ways, but as the KPIs are published, it is obvious whether they deserve it or not, but we could form a voters consultative group who publish a list of graded KPIs, and the parties decided what they can achieve at election time.

Alternatively, we could try Simon's suggestion of paying £24k a year, or disband parliament, or even just keep the apparent failing parliament as it is; if that is what people would prefer.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 11 2013, 07:45 PM

I feel less generous towards the MPs than you: I don't think they're having the wool pulled over their eyes, I just don't think they could care less. It seems to me that politicians of all persuasions and vocations surrender to some overarching don't-rock-the-boat establishment pressure.

I would add a fourth strand of the state apparatus: the administration, the most malign and self-serving strand of them all. It's a deception to think that the politicians are in charge, they're not, they're just front-men, the power is in the hands of the administrators: and the administration keeps the politicians occupied with their snouts in the trough while they get on with the real work - administration for its own sake!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 11 2013, 07:57 PM

'If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It' by Ken Livingstone

Posted by: user23 Jul 11 2013, 08:19 PM

The Opposition almost always speak out when they think the Government is likely to fail, already. They can rarely affect what happens because they're in a minority though. I'm not sure you understand how works.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 11 2013, 08:30 PM

Do you really think that, or are you just being you snide?

Posted by: On the edge Jul 11 2013, 08:35 PM

Nice little number being a basic MP. Doubt if any if us would refuse; even at today's package. In effect, your own 'boss', no real effort needed and a pretty comfortable place to work, just the odd vote; which simply means walking through a doorway. Only downside are the elections and some noise coming from the constituency. Even better, get on the Euro list, even bigger take, far less supervision plus some 1st class foreign travel.

Oooh yes please!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 11 2013, 09:40 PM

There is the little matter of wining an election first, which in most case involves being selected by your party to represent you. Unless you are a shoe-in, I don't think the task is as easy as all that. Also, PMQs and voting in the house is only a small part of what you have to do as a MP.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 11 2013, 10:41 PM

Surely the real trouble is that too many of them see politics as a career - and hence do what their bosses tell them in order to move up the ladder towards a nice ministerial post. It even oozes down to the local level, with would be MPs setting off on the first (and usually the last) rung of their would be career.

That said I'm with OTE - oh for the life of an MEP!

Posted by: newres Jul 12 2013, 04:33 AM

I don't think it is a massive salary for the job they do. It seems about right to me or even a little low. Should an MP earn less than a Head Teacher? But I do think outside jobs/consultancies should be forbidden.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 12 2013, 01:10 PM

I think that you, and others above, are over-estimating the salary of a head teacher.

For the majority in West Berks it is £42 - £61 K

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 12 2013, 01:13 PM

Many, many times have we seen reports of ministers (and Prime Ministers!) being economical with the truth when reporting to the Comons (WMD anyone)



The 'administration' is a part of the executive and frustrates ministers just as much

Posted by: On the edge Jul 12 2013, 03:12 PM

Perhaps if we made Politicians follow the rules they lay down for others; they might gain back some credibility. The sales and advertising regulations for a start.