[Politics] MPS to get £2,000 pay rise.

[dsr-burnley]

I'm a bit conflicted on MPs pay. They are public servants getting a rise while many others don't, but many others have secure employment whereas an MP generally has 5 years, then out of the job potentially. If you want the best people you can find to run the country, giving up their full time careers to become MPs, to go through a whole raft of selection processes to even get to contest a seat, then the campaigning itself - it is not the most attractive proposition to many talented people who may make great MPs.

It's why we end up with a high portion millionaires with trust funds behind them as they don't actually need the money, just the power. Those with real talent know they can secure roles in commercial business that will outstrip what they'll get as an MP without all the public campaigning and engagement required etc. and after all that potentially losing.

The counter to that is many sit in 'safe' seats, barely needing to campaign at all, or seemingly needing to do much enjoying a very cushy role. Hence I'm often torn on the subject.

Remember that when they lose their job, they get a year's salary tax free. That's such a generous severance package that they had to make a special law so that they didn't have to pay tax on it. Everyone else who gets redunadancy pay of over £30k has to pay tax on it, but MP's voted themselves to be exempt.

Incidentally, they also voted in a special law about pensions. Other people with high pension have to pay large amounts of tax on what is deemed to be the excess. MPs get 2% of salary for every year's service, so even if they only do 5 years they get a £8,500 annual pension; they don't have to work for all that long before their pension is so large that it would be subject to extra tax if they hadn't passed their law to make themselves exempt.

Most of their expenses would be taxable in the real world too. If you buy a second home for your job but your employer pays the mortgage for you, then it's a taxable benefit. So are many of the other gifts and rewards they collect from the taxpayer - TVs and such. They keep having to pass special laws to ensure they aren't taxed like everyone else.

 

[Berty23]

I am not convinced it is as simple as “pay them more and get better people”

My understanding is that local wings of parties choose who their candidate will be and they interview potential applicants etc. loads of questions with things like “which politician do you most admire?” It takes a certain person to impress the people making decisions at a local level and many of them prefer a moron who will do their bidding in Parliament rather than someone who will be a high quality Mp. I wonder how many higher quality people are not involved because of all this nonsense.

We saw how the conservatives removed some more sensible MPs because they dared to suggest that brexit wasn’t actually being done. So what we mean by higher wages higher quality is that we might get some higher quality people into the process but will they make it to the ballot form? I fear in the current political climate we won’t.

 

[dsr-burnley]

No. It would be relative to the area and based on improvement, not a catch-all set of standards.

Think things through will you, please.

So if the schools in Brighton are poor and the hospital appoint a bad chief executive, and the roads are full of potholes, Caroline Lucas should get the blame?

 

[The Clamp]

So if the schools in Brighton are poor and the hospital appoint a bad chief executive, and the roads are full of potholes, Caroline Lucas should get the blame?

I don’t believe in blame for these type of failures. I believe in responsibility and structured improvement. Whether that’s under Lucas or a replacement if she’s not capable of that improvement.

 

[dsr-burnley]

We saw how the conservatives removed some more sensible MPs because they dared to suggest that brexit wasn’t actually being done. So what we mean by higher wages higher quality is that we might get some higher quality people into the process but will they make it to the ballot form? I fear in the current political climate we won’t.

That's a misrepresentation. They had the party whip removed because Conservative policy was to leave the EU in accordance with the referendum, and they wanted to stay in the EU disregarding the referendum. They couldn't expect to stand for election as a member of the Conservative party when they were fundamentally opposed to a key policy, any more than a SNP MP could stand on the basis of remaining in the UK or a Green candidate could stand on the basis of re-opening the oil fields.

The MPs who had the whip removed were free to stand and be re-elected, but they weren't allowed to claim to support Conservative policy and they did not have the benefit of the grass roots organisation. More pertinently, they didn't have the benefit of the UK electorate's tendency to vote for the party ahead of the person, which leads to another can of worms about excessive power of the party machines.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I agree with [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] [MENTION=17261]Iggle Piggle[/MENTION] [MENTION=2095]Commander[/MENTION] etc arguing for a more attractive base salary, to attract higher calibre MPs.

HOWEVER, I'm paying them this increased salary on the understanding that this will be their full time occupation / vocation. Whilst in office, they will not be permitted to work in ANY other roles. No secondments, no 'consultancies', no lobbying fees / arrangements. And there will also be a strict review of the expenses system - with what is permissible, hugely narrowed down.

 

[Bozza]

I agree with [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] [MENTION=17261]Iggle Piggle[/MENTION] [MENTION=2095]Commander[/MENTION] etc arguing for a more attractive base salary, to attract higher calibre MPs.

HOWEVER, I'm paying them this increased salary on the understanding that this will be their full time occupation / vocation. Whilst in office, they will not be permitted to work in ANY other roles. No secondments, no 'consultancies', no lobbying fees / arrangements. And there will also be a strict review of the expenses system - with what is permissible, hugely narrowed down.

Absolutely.

If you're involved in running the country, it should receive your full focus 100% of the time.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I am not convinced it is as simple as “pay them more and get better people”

My understanding is that local wings of parties choose who their candidate will be and they interview potential applicants etc. loads of questions with things like “which politician do you most admire?” It takes a certain person to impress the people making decisions at a local level and many of them prefer a moron who will do their bidding in Parliament rather than someone who will be a high quality Mp. I wonder how many higher quality people are not involved because of all this nonsense.

We saw how the conservatives removed some more sensible MPs because they dared to suggest that brexit wasn’t actually being done. So what we mean by higher wages higher quality is that we might get some higher quality people into the process but will they make it to the ballot form? I fear in the current political climate we won’t.

I don't disagree that the logical outcome of my paying them more plan is higher quality grifters rather than better thinkers as things stand. Things wont change until the safe Tory in a 20k majority isnt automatically ushered back in which means an overhaul of the existing system. That's years away, if ever, which is probably more likely.

Political funding is the other one. It's rife for Chinese and Russian corruption and the consequences are for all to see in the Ukraine. Huge donars getting favourable laws passed is as old as hills. I'm not sure fixed state funding is the answer either for example.

 

[Commander]

I agree with [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] [MENTION=17261]Iggle Piggle[/MENTION] [MENTION=2095]Commander[/MENTION] etc arguing for a more attractive base salary, to attract higher calibre MPs.

HOWEVER, I'm paying them this increased salary on the understanding that this will be their full time occupation / vocation. Whilst in office, they will not be permitted to work in ANY other roles. No secondments, no 'consultancies', no lobbying fees / arrangements. And there will also be a strict review of the expenses system - with what is permissible, hugely narrowed down.

Yep. £150K or something and that is your ONLY job and source of income. It would remove people like Jacob Rees-Mogg and his ilk immediately, and would attract a better calibre applicant that currently wouldn't think it was worth the hassle. And they should have some kind of performance-based bonus structure as well, based on how well they do the job in their constituencies, although this would be quite hard to make fair. Expenses system should be fair and reasonable. 1st class train ticket from Manchester to London is acceptable, private jet from London to Paris isn't.

 

[Commander]

I am not convinced it is as simple as “pay them more and get better people”

My understanding is that local wings of parties choose who their candidate will be and they interview potential applicants etc. loads of questions with things like “which politician do you most admire?” It takes a certain person to impress the people making decisions at a local level and many of them prefer a moron who will do their bidding in Parliament rather than someone who will be a high quality Mp. I wonder how many higher quality people are not involved because of all this nonsense.

We saw how the conservatives removed some more sensible MPs because they dared to suggest that brexit wasn’t actually being done. So what we mean by higher wages higher quality is that we might get some higher quality people into the process but will they make it to the ballot form? I fear in the current political climate we won’t.

It's a fair argument, and it's definitely more complicated than just pay more and you get better. The whole system needs a complete overhaul. Sadly, that's not going to happen, and the best bet for a fair and sensible system is probably Mars once Elon gets us there in a decade or two.

 

[The Clamp]

Pay them more and limit their outside interests and they’ll just get better at hiding their multiple incomes and getting family members on board to stack up the expenses benefits.

Pay them the current rate and stop all other incomes, interests and exploitation of expenses. Then you’ll get good candidates who are doing it for the people. You’d flush out the profiteering scum overnight.

 

[BBassic]

I wonder if there's an argument for pay increases based on elections won.

First time elected? £40k, no second jobs etc etc etc.

Then, each time (if!) you get re-elected, an additional £10k up to a maximum of £100k.

I've solved it. Somebody get me whomever is in charge of MPs salary.

 

[bluenitsuj]

*****

 

[Commander]

Pay them more and limit their outside interests and they’ll just get better at hiding their multiple incomes and getting family members on board to stack up the expenses benefits.

Pay them the current rate and stop all other incomes, interests and exploitation of expenses. Then you’ll get good candidates who are doing it for the people. You’d flush out the profiteering scum overnight.

Except you wouldn't. You'd miss out on a large number of really good candidates.

 

[The Clamp]

Except you wouldn't. You'd miss out on a large number of really good candidates.

It doesn’t really matter. As long as we have enough good people to fill the roles. Which ideally would number a third less than we currently have.

We have people in jobs like the armed forces, emergency services, social care, the NHS who commit a lot more to their work than MP’s and for a lot, lot less. Pay them half what an MP gets and you’ll never have a problem filling those roles. Would be the same with MP’s.

 

[Commander]

It doesn’t really matter. As long as we have enough good people to fill the roles. Which ideally would number a third less than we currently have.

I agree we need less people doing it. I just don't see why anyone in their right mind would do that job for £84K, especially if you live in the South East. It's an incredibly hard, stressful, horrible job. One that you would never be able to switch off from, wherever you went.

 

[The Clamp]

I agree we need less people doing it. I just don't see why anyone in their right mind would do that job for £84K, especially if you live in the South East. It's an incredibly hard, stressful, horrible job. One that you would never be able to switch off from, wherever you went.

We have people in jobs like the armed forces, emergency services, social care, the NHS who commit a lot more to their work than MP’s and for a lot, lot less. We still fill those roles.

Pay them half what an MP gets and you’ll never have a problem filling those roles again.

Would be the same with an MP role. There are plenty of decent people who would do an MP’s job for half the salary.

 

[Commander]

We have people in jobs like the armed forces, emergency services, social care, the NHS who commit a lot more to their work than MP’s and for a lot, lot less. We still fill those roles.

Pay them half what an MP gets and you’ll never have a problem filling those roles again.

Would be the same with an MP role. There are plenty of decent people who would do an MP’s job for half the salary.

You say that- why aren't they doing it now for double the salary then?

I also think that being an MP is a more skilled role than nurses / armed forces etc. I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion, but you can train most people to be a nurse. You couldn't train most people to be an MP.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You say that- why aren't they doing it now for double the salary then?

I also think that being an MP is a more skilled role than nurses / armed forces etc. I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion, but you can train most people to be a nurse. You couldn't train most people to be an MP.

There are people in charge in Westminster whose only qualification is being a journalist.
Nurses need a degree to qualify. MPs don't.

 

[Berty23]

That's a misrepresentation. They had the party whip removed because Conservative policy was to leave the EU in accordance with the referendum, and they wanted to stay in the EU disregarding the referendum. They couldn't expect to stand for election as a member of the Conservative party when they were fundamentally opposed to a key policy, any more than a SNP MP could stand on the basis of remaining in the UK or a Green candidate could stand on the basis of re-opening the oil fields.

The MPs who had the whip removed were free to stand and be re-elected, but they weren't allowed to claim to support Conservative policy and they did not have the benefit of the grass roots organisation. More pertinently, they didn't have the benefit of the UK electorate's tendency to vote for the party ahead of the person, which leads to another can of worms about excessive power of the party machines.

Sorry. Not having that. You can’t say it is a misrepresentation and then misrepresent. They did not “want to stay in the EU despite the referendum” they wanted a proper brexit policy that would not create a border in the Irish sea. They voted against a deal that was not fit for purpose whereas others voted for it and then…now say it is not fit for purpose because they have a bit more understanding what it actually means. IDS stood up in Parliament and said it didn’t need a proper debate because it had been covered and now says it was no good.

Let’s not try rewriting history.

My point about picking candidates stands. If they are bright and high calibre then just about by definition they would not support that ridiculous deal so would have been ruled out of standing.