Forum menu
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.
So who will they pick a fight with now? Frost seems to have drawn back from the brink with the EU but suspension of the NI protocol and thus the ending of the general trade agreement and a trade war with the EU? My top bet
Second bet is picking a fight with the medical profession
third more furriner bashing from Patel
Why do people keep saying they have to give up a career to be a MP?
most of them never have had a proper job - its been internships, party appointments etc etc
1% of the population reach that high level of salary.
that's not true. 5% of the population are currently earning £80k. If you consider that most people's salaries peak in the last, say 20% of their career, you can times that by 3 or 4. So under 20% of people ever reach that level of salary? sure, but a lot more than 1% of the population reach that level.
5% of the population are currently earning £80k.
I haven't checked but suspect it's not 5% of the population, as that would include children, pensioners and others who are economically inactive.
Also worth noting that the mean salary is considerably skewed by a small number of very high earners - I think the median salary is around £32k pa
poverty exists not because we can’t support the poor, but because we can never satisfy the rich
Powerful words there. Anyone know who first said it?
5% of the population are currently earning £80k
104% of statistics are made up.
Definitive data on earnings in the UK comes from the [url= https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2021 ]ONS[/url] and the [url= https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in ]IFS[/url]. Show me where either of those say 5% of the population earn £80k.
5% of the population are currently earning £80k.
No ****ing chance.
Eff eff eff - I misread the spreadsheet *embarrassed face*
data is here
The email today from Momentum put it better : "MPs already earn more than 95% of the British public."
I’m not a fan of second jobs but there probably should be some regional weighting on MP’s salary. £80k in London / SE is a lot different to £80k in the North. I don’t see many other ‘professions’ having a flat rate throughout the country, irrespective of living costs.
Errmmm - they get a house bought for them in london they can then sell and pocket the profits and get all fares home paid. so no - no london weighting as they have no extra costs
5% of the working population is an under-estimste as it's based on salaried employees in permanent roles.
Look at professional interims with arrangements outside of IR35 and day rates north of £600/day - there are loads.
Look at professional interims with arrangements outside of IR35 and day rates north of £600/day – there are loads.
Loads? How jolly scientific. Now - has Sir ever been to a supermarket, or a pub, or a cornershop, or a garage, or a hairdressers, etc etc etc.
They get a house bought for them in London? Bloody hell, never knew they had a £1 million sweetener thrown at them straight away.
They have to take out a mortgage but the mortgage is paid for them by the state - and then when they leave parliament they sell the house, pay off the mortgage and trouser the profits
so they have no extra costs being in London.
Pondo - arf arf.
You don't appear to have an intelligent comment to make; if you do, here's your opportunity.
The interim sector is, largely, invisible to the majority.
I'm part of it so a fact-based response from you would be...helpful otherwise I'll categorise your earlier post under 'lobotomised chimp'.
5% of the working population is an under-estimste as it’s based on salaried employees in permanent roles.
Look at professional interims with arrangements outside of IR35 and day rates north of £600/day – there are loads
Great point, higher income earners are much more likely to be contracting and/or self employed.
They are also probably technically earning salaries of about £9k a year and actually skewing the numbers down.
Loads? How jolly scientific
That’s sort of the whole premise, it would be impossible to get clear yearly income numbers for people being paid in this way. The numbers often aren’t realised yearly, that’s why they are taxed much less.
5% of the working population is an under-estimste as it’s based on salaried employees in permanent roles.
Nope - its based on tax returns! You can alos get the stats including those with unearned income
It it closer to 5% that the 1% I misread but it include all income from all sources not just saleried
The whole thing of buying a house in London on expenses, selling at a later date, and keeping the profit, disappeared many years ago. MPs can now only claim rental costs and then only if they have a constituency outside London, don't get a grace & favour property in London and don't already own a property in London.
Johnson hasn't thrown a protective ring around cox
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1458571404652199951?t=Ht8DA6oyNNblA6dER1M7DA&s=19
If cox is forced out even more of his MPs will be pissed
4 MPs have been caught lobbying for gambling companies
IDS broke rules lobbying for sanitiser Co.
Johnson himself is still under investigation for flat & holiday
Edit- missed out Kawczsinky for mining lobbying & bullying
And the stitch up of Dacre becoming head of OFCOM will be another cronyism case...
Its not straight forward, i make a very good living probably the same as an MP and live in the North of England. However we only have my income coming into our household so in practical terms we have the equivalent of two median incomes.. not complaining!
An MP has a virtually bottomless pit of expenses, allowances that i dont have so i would expect an MP to be able to have a reasonable quality of life without resorting to "fiddles"
In respect to Mr Cox... his constituency voters dont want someone running about on their behalf fighting for social justice, housing etc. What they want is Mr Cox to come out swinging (legally) when their NIMBY existence is threatened by planning, infrastructure, public transport etc.
He is exactly what they want... a bluewall that wont fall.
Boris needs to be very careful, the Tory old guard have lots of buses...
Could be a night of the long knives? After all they have done a "Julias Ceaser" on more popular PMs than Boris.
Tory party vice-chair Andrew Bowie resigns in protest over sleaze
MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine becomes first party figure to step down as a matter of conscience over scandalThe Conservative MP Andrew Bowie has announced he will resign as a vice-chair of the party in the wake of the sleaze scandal engulfing Boris Johnson.
Bowie said he requested to step down but agreed to stay in post until a successor has been appointed. He believed he could not continue to defend the government after the prime minister’s botched bid to save a colleague from suspension and overhaul the standards system.
In respect to Mr Cox… his constituency voters dont want someone running about on their behalf fighting for social justice, housing etc. What they want is Mr Cox to come out swinging (legally) when their NIMBY existence is threatened by planning, infrastructure, public transport etc.
He is exactly what they want… a bluewall that wont fall.
I agree with the sentiments, ie many traditional Tory voters couldn't give a monkeys how self-serving their MP is as long as they also serves their interests (voters generally sadly don't care that much)
However you have chosen the wrong example imo. The reason Geoffrey Cox represents a safe Tory seat is purely down to the collapse of the LibDem vote following the coalition government.
Previous to that Cox had a small majority of about 3k. In fact far from being a "blue wall' seat the LibDems have on a couple of occasions won the seat.
The most likely reason Cox might hang onto his seat next election, should he stand, will be because Nick Clegg destroyed the credibility of the LibDems, otherwise I think it would be a certain LibDem win.
Salaries aside..... is being an MP not a full-time job?
The apparent incompetence of the current batch of (in particular, Tory) politicians is staggering - but maybe it's not incompetence after all? Maybe they are just too busy to concentrate on what they are supposed to be doing?
Pondo – arf arf.
You don’t appear to have an intelligent comment to make; if you do, here’s your opportunity.
The interim sector is, largely, invisible to the majority.
I’m part of it so a fact-based response from you would be…helpful otherwise I’ll categorise your earlier post under ‘lobotomised chimp’.
Cool story, bro - categorise away if it makes you happy.
ernie seems to be drowning in the mire of the questionably excellent debating skillz he has created for himself.
Paterson, at least, resigned.
most of them never have had a proper job – its been internships, party appointments etc etc
I think you'll find the majority of them have had real, external jobs. There's a lot of bias and prejudice being expressed based on out of date information and - rightly - anger at those who take the piss and get away with it.
The apparent incompetence of the current batch of (in particular, Tory) politicians is staggering – but maybe it’s not incompetence after all? Maybe they are just too busy to concentrate on what they are supposed to be doing?
And that should be the key issue for the public. If its not a full time job, then we should be paying for fewer of them.
And that should be the key issue for the public. If its not a full time job, then we should be paying for fewer of them.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any performance/quality measures for MPs. It's just down to "if you do a poor job you'll be voted out" - which I think we can all acknowledge is an unrealistic expectation in modern party politics.
So with that, (largely tory) MPs are motivated to do as little as possible for their actual job - whilst just stopping short of being quite so terrible that they'll get voted out (thus giving them maximum time to devote to nest-feathering/self-promotion/aide-shagging).
So all that happens is that "quality" just gets eroded and eroded. We shouldn't be pushing for fewer MPS, or less/more pay for them, we should be pushing for them to be doing a better job, representing their constituents for 38 hours a week..... not however much is left over when they have finished working for themselves.
I'm a firm believer in "what gets measured gets done" - the question is: how should we be measuring MPs performance?
Turning up to vote in parliament, attendance at committees etc, is one clear performance measure.
Anything else risks subjective political application, and as has been pointed out, elected officials are not voted for on personal performance.
My MP, Mr Douglas Ross has been a bit quiet on the second jobs thing, maybe a good thing as he has three. His Twitter feed is the usual of just attacking the SNP...
Turning up to vote in parliament, attendance at committees etc, is one clear performance measure.
I agree that is clear/measurable - but is it any kind of useful indicator of their performance? Also, do you think somebody being paid that much should be measured on the basis of “showing up”? Or should we be aiming higher than that (which was my point).
Anything else risks subjective political application, and as has been pointed out, elected officials are not voted for on personal performance.
Really? ANYTHING else is invalid, because MPs can’t be trusted to mark their own homework? So the answer is… nothing?
Every other working person in the UK has their performance measured against predefined expectations…. Certainly people earning that kind of money do. MPs should be no different.
Also, do you think somebody being paid that much should be measured on the basis of “showing up”?
It would be a good start, I don't see how being absent from the chamber is representing your constituents if you're not listening to the debates and voting on behalf of your voters.
As I said earlier. Hourly rate (high) but charged against "projects" and administered from a central pot by party. "Books" to be signed off by independent accountants and publicly available.
Std free accomodation and staffing.
Wow holy wilful misinterpretation batman - I didn't say anything else "is invalid" I said it risks subjective political application. The question was - what can be measured? I would think that actually turning up to do the job is not an unreasonable baseline of performance measurement that is universally applied, although I accept that other views may differ. Another objective and measurable criterion is how many votes they got (well, objective and measurable according to rational people - Mr Trump does not agree)
I don’t see how being absent from the chamber is representing your constituents
what about the constituency work they do when they're not at Westminster?
MPs can now only claim rental costs
I suppose it depends on the guidelines of whether they can rent from themselves or their partner and what the penalty is for forgetting to mention something 🙂
They seem to have interesting abilities in ascertaining how the rules apply to thems,similar to the benefit scroungers they used to vilify in olden times.
It would be a good start, I don’t see how being absent from the chamber is representing your constituents if you’re not listening to the debates and voting on behalf of your voters.
Ah but they don’t really vote on behalf of their voters, oddly that’s not their job.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Burke 1774
There's so many different variations of what MP's do, that to define an objective performance scale would be very hard.
Some are regular attenders, active debaters, posting motions and amendments, etc. Some are well known for being very back seat but influencing through negotiation and influence. Some push for junior and senior minister and eventually cabinet roles, some never seek the positions and are true constituency MP's.
The best people to judge whether an MP is any good is their fellow MP's. They know who the liars, cheats, workshy and trough snouters are. It's up to them to judge, and that's what eg: the standards committees are supposed to be for. But there's too many old mates, all in it together or just 'don't rock the boat' because of fear of the whips office or deselection etc., that it's all sinking under a gloop of corruption.
I am very mildly hopeful that the fresh intake of red wall MP's, being asked to defend the indefensible and then look ridiculous for doing so when the back track happens might start to effect change. It's rarely / ever that the new intake are the sleaze ridden; it's the old guard, old school tie, been at it with their mates for 20 years ones and they need weeding out.
I suppose it depends on the guidelines of whether they can rent from themselves or their partner
Or, as some do, rent out their own house and then rent another for themselves to keep the money flowing in.
it’s the old guard, old school tie, been at it with their mates for 20 years ones and they need weeding out
Yep…
There’s so many different variations of what MP’s do, that to define an objective performance scale would be very hard.
Turning it into a check box exercise never really works out that well,you end up with good box tickers.
Or, as some do, rent out their own house and then rent another for themselves to keep the money flowing in.
Or in some cases… renting out the house that they had the mortgage payments paid for by us before the rule change… and renting another home paid for by us now.
Eg. Smart old Coxy.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It’s rarely / ever that the new intake are the sleaze ridden; it’s the old guard, old school tie, been at it with their mates for 20 years ones and they need weeding out.
I'd like to see MP's position have a maximum career length, similar to the two terms a US president can do, maybe 20 years as a MP could be the max.
vazaha Free Member
ernie seems to be drowning in the mire of the questionably excellent debating skillz he has created for himself.Paterson, at least, resigned.
It took a moment to figure out why someone should feel the need to make that remark as it clearly doesn't contribute anything to the Tory sleaze debate, and Paterson and Cox are clearly two completely different people.
I then I realised that what undoubtedly triggered that bizarre comment was my remark claiming that Nick Clegg had destroyed the credibility of the LibDems.
That's what it was wasn't it vazaha? Criticism of the LibDems is never goes down very well on STW, and for good reason. The LibDems are the
archetypal middle-class liberal party. The appeal to STW is obvious.
However typically when push comes to shove all the fine moral platitudes go out of the window. Without a moment's hesitation Nick Clegg was happy to make his grubby little deal with a vicious right-wing party and impose austerity on the people with devastating consequences, all in return for a huge ministerial car and the CV flattering Deputy Prime Minister title.
I know that I am grossly oversimplifying, not all middle-class liberals are morally bankrupt. Charles Kennedy is an excellent example of one genuinely committed to social democracy, he certainly wouldn't have enabled the Tories. Sadly there are far too many like Clegg.
It would be a good start, I don’t see how being absent from the chamber is representing your constituents if you’re not listening to the debates and voting on behalf of your voters.
Surely depends why you are absent from the chamber, and what is being debated? Friday afternoon discussion on the technicalities of some uncontroversial policy that will definitely by voted through anyway v's actually making it back to your constituency to talk to constituents about issues that really affect them.
I recon you could produce some kind of scoreboard, so that the public could gauge their performance based on some kind of metrics:
Votes/debates attended
Members of what committees, hours spent accordingly
Some sort of measure of how active they are in their constituency? Not sure what this might be.
Expenses claimed (ranked against other MPs).
Other paid positions held, and hours committed to each.
And some sort of “bellend” rating…. maybe how many times they’ve been referred to the standards commission or something?
Dunno, something like this
Errmmm – they get a house bought for them in london they can then sell and pocket the profits and get all fares home paid. so no – no london weighting as they have no extra costs
tjagain - have you got a link or anything for this? All I can find is information that their rent or associated expenses are paid:
https://fullfact.org/online/mps-free-housing-alcohol/
tjagain – have you got a link or anything for this?
You won't find one, because it's wrong
tjagain – have you got a link or anything for this? All I can find is information that their rent or associated expenses are paid:
They used to get 2nd mortgages paid but no longer, so they do a buy to let and rent it to another MP instead 🙄
On a related note - I see Mr Sunak has started his run for the job of next UK Prime Minister. But of course, he doesn't need to work.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59245737 --++-++-
An MP has a virtually bottomless pit of expenses,
C'mon Oldman I'd expect better from you.
Work should reimburse ANY costs that are spent to do a job, but the problem we have is a system that for lots of these 'expenses' they shouldn't be lumped in with MP Expenses. Offices, staff, infrastructure - these should be provided by the State and used by whoever is the MP at the time.
Also because many folk never do jobs that have large amounts of expenses, they don't actually understand them. For example, for probably a decade my expenses exceeded my salary by a considerable margin (and I was a high earner), regularly at +£10k pcm and often over £20k pcm.
The whole system is clouded in bollox too, and yes while there will be MP's taking the p1ss, the vast majority will be wasting considerable time on the increased admin. The whole system needs sorting IMO.
Good example here
Bradley is a clown but sitting on a comfy Leave majority , his base wont care that he appears to leave no time to work for them...
https://twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1458424836578062341
To be fair the less time a Tory backbencher spends being a Tory MP the happier I am.
Eg. Smart old Coxy.
Probably got told about it by Chris Bryant
I don't have a problem with it, they have to have a second home or stay in a hotel so should be entitled to claim for a modest amount of rent, owning another property is irrelevant, it is just an investment decision. If they have a significant share portfolio should they be forced to sell up and use it to buy a second home?