I have worked in both "the city" and space industries. I have mostly found that the brightest are only considered so because they had the opportunities and life momentum to achieve in education, they are not naturally brilliant or special. The most successful are the ones who attach to the right clique once they are through the door.
Very few of them realise how lucky they have been, and/or understand the difference between them and a more normal life experience, and in fact frequently display Trump levels of arrogance and narcissism.
They are not people I would want running a country for the benefit of all.
Nor is the number that MPs actually make, it’s just the headline.
Aye thats true, but in order to get there they have created a house of cards which teeters on the verge of scandal at all times. Surely better to say 'listen, you're really well paid, in an open in transparent way. Go out and do a great job, just this one, nothing else, and you can keep getting well paid. Step out of those bounds and you're gone.'
I have found that the brightest are only considered so because they had the opportunities and life momentum to achieve in education, they are not naturally brilliant or special. The most successful are the ones who attach to the right clique once they are through the door.
This is a universal truth. Just look no further than our poor excuse for a PM, absolutely no relevant experience or skills at all. He is a journalist that could not hold down a job, famous for a lack of interest in details and the truth.
Absolutely, I have worked in many industries (City, IT, Sports) where idiots make a lot of money through luck, privilege, connections and anything else other than skill. But that doesn't mean its the case that we should not pay a premium still for the best. The trick would be to ensure that we actually get the best. Getting rid of the FPTP system would be a good start down that road as it virtually guarantees mediocrity. If nothing else could ever been said good about Bojo his demonstration that it's possible to rip up that playbook is an important lesson for all parties to learn going forward.
I think being an MP should attract (and be available to) a wide selection of folks. I don't think we should necessarily draw our MPs from a select group of the "professions" simply because those jobs are done overwhelmingly by white middle class white men. (just look at any picture of a bunch of MPs)
I'm not sure whether that's an argument for raising or lower the pay though
Aye thats true, but in order to get there they have created a house of cards which teeters on the verge of scandal at all times. Surely better to say ‘listen, you’re really well paid, in an open in transparent way. Go out and do a great job, just this one, nothing else, and you can keep getting well paid. Step out of those bounds and you’re gone.’
What is the minimum wage for honesty? Does everyone get a free pass if they earn less than an MP? Sure would ease the pressure on prisons, although being a shareholder in g4s and serco may not be so lucrative.
Wouldn't MPs voting to, say, double their salaries providing they followed their own rules be electoral suicide in the present (or any) climate?
I'm not sure that there's a definitive correlation between talent and salary, and I'm aldo not sure that paying MPs more would attract better MPs - is it reasonable to assume that Cox would still have been doing his consultancy work if MP salary was 130k, or 150k, or 180k? I think so. Would he be an MP if it was 80k and second jobs weren't allowed - possibly, possibly not, but I would hope he would spend more time on constituency matters if he weren't allowed to coin it in the Bahamas.
I don't want people to want to be an MP because of the salary, I want them to have a passion for doing the best they can for their constituents and their country.
Its funny isn't it that despite serious shortages of healthcare staff raising pay to " attract the brightest and best" is not a path taken but we need to pay mps saleries in the top 1% of the population to attract the "brightest and best" it really seems to work
personally I believe that a serious reduction in pay and perks would weed out those only in it to enrich themselves and thus mean a higher standard of MPs as they would be doing it for " public service" not cash
I mean does anyone actually think someone as plummy as Geoffrey Cox would survive on south of say £300k a year?
He did when he was Attorney General.
Just look no further than our poor excuse for a PM, absolutely no relevant experience or skills at all.
He had more relevant experience on becoming PM that either Tony Blair or David Cameron.
He did when he was Attorney General.
Did he though? He would get another £100k a year basic on top of his MPs wage, and then probably still work on the side too. Also, given its a temporary position, he'd factor in future earnings if it did mean he couldnt do side work. Like say a million quid from the BVI.
He had more relevant experience on becoming PM that either Tony Blair or David Cameron.
Yeah, nice examples.
I think we should to be clear in this argument... £250+k is not a lot of money in terms of this discussion. The names mentioned Cox, Bojo, etc. are/were/will be taking way more than that each year. So what we're talking about is a pay cut for many MPs, and a pay rise for others. Levelling it out such that being an MP is no longer an opportunity for self enrichment on a virtually unlimited scale, but recognising that it's one of the most important jobs in the UK, and paying commensurate to such importance.
Of course, many will think it's not important. And thats probably the crux of the problem. It should be the very pinnacle of employment, the gold standard to which all others are held. Instead it's a bloody cess pit in the main. Granted paying people more wouldn't fix that in of itself, but it would provide the opportunity to make a clean break from the past, and reset the expectations of our elected MPs.
the salary thing is difficult. You want to pay enough to get the best people in, but not pay so much that people want to do it just for the money. Given the bredth of backgrounds\industries from which ‘the best people’ may come, I don’t think there’s an easy answer.
The pay isn't meant to be a motivator, it's not banking. Being an MP is supposed to be a "public service" role, you take it up to represent your constituents, a majority of whom apparently vote for an MP who supposedly represents their interests and concerns...
(IMO) MPs should get a wage in line (nationally) with someone in a senior managerial position in wider industry, someone expected to do a 40-70 week with no overtime, travel expenses covered and it expressly stated that any other professional interests are declared, cause no conflict with doing their primary role as MP and take up no more the, let's say, 10 hours a week on top of their parliamentary commitments...
Here's a stupid question, do MPs have an employment contract?
I think there is some conflation of the assumed responsibilities of MPs and ministers in this thread.
Being a no-mark backbencher MP is really not equivalent to being a 'leader of industry'. Looking at managerial salaries in the NHS and Civil Service would be a better comparator than the private sector anyway.
Also if you get outside of the SE bubble, many currently-elected MPs - even Conservative ones - couldn't dream of earning £100k+ (because it is a six-figure salary minimum when expenses are taken into account) in another field.
He would get another £100k a year basic on top of his MPs wage, and then probably still work on the side too.
No outside work when Attorney General
Also if you get outside of the SE bubble, many currently-elected MPs – even Conservative ones – couldn’t dream of earning £100k+ (because it is a six-figure salary minimum when perks are taken into account) in another field.
And thats fine too. Give them 250k a year say, and if they spend 150k of that a year supporting local charities etc. because they couldn't dream of / wouldn't know what to do with the money, thats fine. Im sure they can use that in their re-election pitch.
I think there's an assumption that somehow high pay would = less 'worthy' applicants. Far from it I would think. If you're genuinely not in it for the money just think of the additional difference you could make to small causes within your community with a couple hundred grand a year to spend at your discretion.
if they spend 150k of that a year supporting local charities etc. because they couldn’t dream of / wouldn’t know what to do with the money, thats fine. Im sure they can use that in their re-election pitch.
😀 Have you met many MPs? (with over a decade working in Whitehall, I have)
Although I agree. You don’t get the best by buying cheap.
You dont necessarily get the best by buying expensive either.
There are lots of jobs which pay relatively low and yet you still can get the best going into them. Look at many R&D or academic research jobs in physics and maths where there would be plenty of opportunity to make a lot more money in the city.
The idea that with Johnson and co paying them more would make them less self serving seems rather flawed. I would suggest the likelihood is they would still be looking for other money making opportunities on top.
😀 Have you met many MPs? (with over a decade working in Whitehall, I have)
Yes I have had the mis-fortune of meeting a number. Most of which were complete arses. My least favourite was lunch with Andrew Bridgend. You can imagine how much fun that was.
I would suggest the likelihood is they would still be looking for other money making opportunities on top.
But the idea is you completely stamp that out with virtually no exceptions. Perhaps someone could have additional income but like some kind of means test you reduce their parlimentary salary accordingly. What you're saying is that you have x to play with and thats it. That amount is generous, but not completely over the top, and doing actual paying work outside of your MPs job just isn't allowed any more.
Anyone who thinks they need to earn more than 80k can't possibly have any concept of what normal life is, so how could they make effective decisions for normal people? The vast majority earning over that mark have got there due to a privileged upbringing with no bearing in the reality for most of the UKs population. So I agree with some of the other commenters - the pay can't go up because if it did, the number of MPs doing it for the money would rise even further beyond those who already are working the second job "access to an MP" system
Yes I have had the mis-fortune of meeting a number. Most of which were complete arses. My least favourite was lunch with Andrew Bridgend. You can imagine how much fun that was.
Fair enough - yes, I bet. Back on the topic of the thread, I organised a trade mission for Owen Paterson to Germany once when he was Defra SoS.
I still get mad remembering him referring to anyone who cared about the environment as "the big green blob".
But the idea is you completely stamp that out with virtually no exceptions.
If you're going to ban second jobs, you don't need to pay them 250k - conversely, not banning second jobs and paying 250k won't stop them getting second jobs.
I still get mad remembering him referring to anyone who cared about the environment as “the big green blob”.
Lol. My wife works for the EA and I get mad hearing about the stuff she has to put up with so I can imagine. The thing is I've also met some amazing politicians in my life too, just not enough and rarely a British one.
If you’re going to ban second jobs, you don’t need to pay them 250k – conversely, not banning second jobs and paying 250k won’t stop them getting second jobs.
Theres a difference from income and a job and you can't expect someone to give up a long established income (such as a rental property) to work as an MP for 5 years - thats then heading the wrong way again.
The point being that there should be (or rather would be when I assume control of the system bwahahaha) much tighter restrictions on what can be done and when, and if you have significant other income, you get paid less for being an MP as you don't need the public's purse supporting your lifestyle.
Anyone who thinks they need to earn more than 80k can’t possibly have any concept of what normal life is
I know a chef who makes about £90K depending on how busy he is. Grew up in an average bit of Newcastle. Parents and family still live there AFAIK. His concept of life is pretty similar, if not identical to yours and mine. I think it's probably flawed thinking to conflate earnings with outlook.
Is there a shortage of people wanting to be MPs erm.. no.
Clearly the pay is enough to live very comfortably on. let's not make excuses from the greed please. If increasing pay would increase quality I would be all for it, but we all know it would not.
I think it’s probably flawed thinking to conflate earnings with outlook.
This, 100%.
So would you prefer to have a better contract or see everyone on zero hours?
I would prefer zero hours to be abolished, not so much for me as it suits my situation but if employers are taking on a youth that person requires financial stability to allow them to fully contribute to the economy. It would help remove the petty martinets that are such poor managers that the only way to ensure compliance is to bully their staff by threatening to withhold income.
I'm at that stage in life where any attempt at that would be met with a "so long, I'll not be in again" reply.
I don't get the argument that we cant change the pay structure for MP's because theyre all a bunch of dossers and they don't deserve it.
My point is similar to benpinninck's. Changing both pay and conditions could potentially lead to better candidates putting themselves forward, both in relation to pay and by making the job look (and be) less sleazy to those who might be put off from putting their name forward.
Binners noted that duffer candidates Mark Francois and Richard Burgon wouldn't stand a chance of earning 80k in the real world. Well in the real world they were selected because they were seen as the best candidates to come forward by their local party selection committee. Would altering The pay structure whilst placing more restrictions on MP's activities encourage some better candidates to to put themselves forward at those constituency meetings? I think it would.
You know you've got a problem when Burgon and Francois are the best people in the room, something needs to be done to introduce some competition in order to attract better candidates.
It's not about making the job more lucrative or rewarding those that are already there, it's about making the job more transparent and clearly defined in order to replace the dead wood with better politicians all round.
So, the brightest and best, then?
Liz Truss is sat in one of the highest offices of state. A woman so dense that light bends around her.
Granted, she probably thinks the moon is made of cheese but at some point she was selected to represent her constituency. We need better people than her to put themselves forward at constituency level.
Simplifying and detoxifying the job might encourage better candidates to come forth.
We need better people than her to put themselves forward at constituency level.
She would have still been selected. Selection isn't a meritocracy, it is like a magicians card trick, the candidates the party HQ wants will get selected, every now and then a local constituency might make a mistake and pick the wrong candidate, then they just get parachuted into another safe seat.
Well in the real world they were selected because they were seen as the best candidates to come forward by their local party selection committee.
There was, at the start of WW2 a real problem selecting folks for officer training. The people that selected candidates were biased to men that they thought were the "right sort"...Thusly Leslie Phillips (the actor in Carry On films you think of as the upper-class cad ) was put forward...Leslie grew up in Tottenham as the son of a factory worker. His cut glass accent was born from elocution lesson he got through stage school.
Selection committees are always unconsciously biased someway or another. Get rid of them, and perhaps even the party system altogether... and I think we'd probably have a better chance of getting decent MPs that are worth paying £80k a year or more..
You know you’ve got a problem when Burgon and Francois are the best people in the room, something needs to be done to introduce some competition in order to attract better candidates
Yes but I am not seeing why just paying more would attract that better quality of staff? It seems premised on the idea that pay does equal performance and ability elsewhere. Which isnt obviously the case when you look at the different jobs and pay scales.
This is going to rumble on
However I suspect that the public already know that the Tories are corrupt as possible anyway
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1458400790012383234
It's not really paying more though is it, it's setting up a system that will restrict or deter those who exploit the system. The crooks will be paid less whilst the honest will be paid more. If the honest feel they are being paid too much they can donate to charity should they choose.
By paying MP's more and making it a proper job the aggregate pay for a Member of Parliament would be less.
it’s setting up a system that will restrict or deter those who exploit the system
Again, I am not quite sure how you are getting to this conclusion.
Why would paying more achieve this?
If you are suggesting other measures as well then why not just use those other measures?
Plus you get £305 per day attendance allowance, plus travel expenses and subsidised restaurant facilities.
You see that is the inconvenience of the Lords. At least with the Commons you get paid without actually having to travel to that London!
Also if you get outside of the SE bubble, many currently-elected MPs – even Conservative ones – couldn’t dream of earning £100k+ (because it is a six-figure salary minimum when expenses are taken into account) in another field.
Unless you are doing something like employing your wife as your assistant I'm not sure they "expenses" adds 20K extra on does it? Whilst some are definitely still "at it" with claiming their wife manages their diary and emails for £40K a year I had a quick trawl through some MPs I've met and it doesn't seem to be the norm.
The difficulty in comparing an MP ‘s salary with other similar professional jobs is of course, you could have your job taken away from you after 5 years and It could be nothing to do with you personally.
Mmm... perhaps if you are comparing to some very "safe" job say as a doctor or teacher where redundancy is very unlikely but very few of us can really be certain that we'll still have a job in 6 months never mind 5 years - and the transition arrangements for MPs losing their seat are very generous compared to those for me losing my job!
Here’s a stupid question, do MPs have an employment contract?
No - they are not employees. Only just starting to get maternity arrangements recently and I don't think they've got shared parental leave (borris could have ages off!).
Why would paying more achieve this?
If you are suggesting other measures as well then why not just use those other measures?
Indeed. If you look at the people we’re talking about here - and for an example let’s say David Cameron - their greed and entitlement is limitless, coupled with complete and total moral bankruptcy
Despite being rich beyond most people’s imaginings, there he was, snout well and truly buried in the trough, tapping up his old mates for grubby favours for dodgy bastards in return for obscene amounts of cash
It’s not because they need the money, it’s just what they do. The acquisition of money and power is all they exist for
binners
Full MemberIt’s not because they need the money, it’s just what they do. The acquisition of money and power is all they exist for
"poverty exists not because we can't support the poor, but because we can never satisfy the rich".
Why do people keep saying they have to give up a career to be a MP? have you seen what MPs are doing after office (and in) !?
seems the sleaze thing has gained a little traction with the electorate latest Ipsos Mori polling has Tories (down 4) behind Labour(unchanged) by 1.