Owen Paterson #Torysleaze

They are allowed 15 weeks, of course most don’t, but many find time for second jobs.

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.

How senior do you need to be in London or the SE to earn more than an MP?

in IT, not particularly. Google (who don’t pay exceptionally) pay £73k average for a software eng and £120k for a senior software eng (no people responsibility, just pushing out code). Grad salaries in London are around 60k.

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salary/Google-London-Salaries-EI_IE9079.0,6_IL.7,13_IM1035.htm

https://www.levels.fyi/Salaries/Software-Engineer/London/

Tyson Fury earns more than that in a single fight, maybe they can all go and be heavyweight boxing champions the money seems rather attractive. Or maybe throwing out alternative jobs where you can earn in the top percentiles of UK earning is a meaningless distraction.

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.

5 years is a pretty secure position for a lot of people, I think that statement displays a lack of understanding of job insecurity for a hell of a lot of normal employees.

I personally think that our elected representatives should have at least some sort of financial connection to more than a tiny percentage of the people they claim to represent.

Isn’t that what they’re doing?
You know living the “Millenial experience” by having a side gig… As an MP.

All of those zero hours Deliverooists and Hermes drivers should be encouraged, they have a representative voice in Jeffrey Cox…

you could have your job taken away from you after 5 years and It could be nothing to do with you personally.

Or the other way of looking at it is you have a five year fixed term contract where it is incredibly hard to be sacked from.
A lot more stable position than one where you might get made redundant for nothing personal but just the job is being offshored to save a few quid.

No one needs more than 80k. There is no need for a second job. The only sympathy I have is for doctors etc maintaining their licence for the end of their stint in politics. Raising it would be counter productive imo as we don’t need any more London centric money chasers, we need more people with an appreciation of what life is like in the rest of the country.

5 years is a pretty secure position for a lot of people, I think that statement displays a lack of understanding of job insecurity for a hell of a lot of normal employees.

I employee folks, I understand the insecurity that people face. There’s a lot of them I wouldn’t want as my MP

Even after only one period of office, MP’s redundancy and pension packages are eye-watering (plus the housing benefits, exes etc whilst in office). If they wanted a job for life then maybe they haven’t had very good careers advice.

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.

That’s very secure job nowadays for those of us on zero hours contracts.

There is no need for a second job. The only sympathy I have is for doctors etc maintaining their licence for the end of their stint in politics.

We would need to include lawyers and accountants in that cadre as they need to maintain their professional standing (along with engineers and many other certified professions).

That’s very secure job nowadays for those of us on zero hours contracts.

So would you prefer to have a better contract or see everyone on zero hours?

No one needs more than 80k. There is no need for a second job. The only sympathy I have is for doctors etc maintaining their licence for the end of their stint in politics. Raising it would be counter productive imo as we don’t need any more London centric money chasers, we need more people with an appreciation of what life is like in the rest of the country.

I would say this creates the problem we already have.

I believe we should pay our MPs several times their current salary. That level of pay is (relatively) easily attained for the brightest and the best in the wider market, and I want the very brightest and the best employed as MPs. Paying less just creates an obvious culture of self interest. I mean does anyone actually think someone as plummy as Geoffrey Cox would survive on south of say £300k a year? Im not commenting on whether he’d be worth that, hell I don’t know if he’s worth £75k, but it’s very obvious that he’s not going to still be in the commons on just 75k pa + expenses. In order to create real competition for the job of MP, alongside a mechanism to ensure that illicit self-enrichment via other routes creates genuine risk of losing a lot, pay needs to increase many fold.

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.

but it’s very obvious that he’s not going to still be in the commons on just 75k pa + expenses

Good. Your mistake is thinking money is the only reason to become a mp.

I appreciate money is not the be all for many, but its certainly a limiting factor and for sure reducing the money (or not increasing it) is very unlikely to yield a better crop of MPs just because they’re more willing to work for less.

Pay should be commensurate with the leaders of industries that aren’t in industries which have excessive pay scales. 75k isn’t that number.

I also happen to believe that they should be held to far higher standards, and measured in terms of their performance in meaningful, published ways. I expect to get more for paying more and those that didn’t meet the cut should be removed and new by elections held ahead of time rather than wait every 5 years to then re-elect the same slackers.

That level of pay is (relatively) easily attained for the brightest and the best in the wider market,

1% of the population reach that high level of salary.

This suggestion will be met with “some” resistance.

Although I agree. You don’t get the best by buying cheap.

1% of the population reach that high level of salary.

So, the brightest and best, then?

1% of the population reach that high level of salary.

Luckily only 0.0009% of the population are MPs, so it won’t cause much of a change.

This suggestion will be met with “some” resistance.

Yes it would. This country does have an issue with other’s success. I also happen to believe many other public servants deserve much more money, and more urgently. Our whole system seems quite broken, but I don’t see anyone in the HoP with either the motivation, smarts, or personality (or more importantly a combination of the 3) to fix it. Hence why I believe that a change of approach is needed.

75k isn’t that number.

Nor is the number that MPs actually make, it’s just the headline.

MPs salaries are such a sideshow, lots of MPs could do quite fine without any salary at all, it’s not the desperation of poverty that is making them take bribes or second ‘jobs’ is it.

Although I agree. You don’t get the best by buying cheap.

Sounds good, except our world does not work like that at all does it? It’s more who you know and what you can get away with. There are plenty of incompetent, unqualified people holding down high salaries.

IIRC, one of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark?) MP’s live in state provided accommodation midweek, have free public transport passes they are expected to use and have a state appointed secretary etc for equivalent of the constituency office.

This, most definitely this. An accommodation block provided by the state whilst the MPs need to be near parliament. There is absolutely NO reason for a 2nd home in London, none whatsoever. When I have been required to work away from home I need to stay in a hotel within a set budget and need to provide receipts for ALL expenses. Why should our glorious leaders be any different?

In the interests of disclosure I earn nowhere near £82K. In fact I don’t think anyone in my circle of friends will earn more than an MP, certainly not more than the PM.

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.

:D Have you met many MPs? (with over a decade working in Whitehall, I have)