'What should we pay our MPs?' poll discussion 18 May 2009 at 11:23AM edited 26 May 2009 at 10:50AM in MoneySaving polls 87 replies 9.8K views

adwat

I think that people should be picked at random to sit as MPs in a peoples parliament for a fixed length of time, maybe 12 months or so. It would be similar to doing jury service. They would be paid at their current salary level with an additional fixed allowance to cover travelling and accommodation costs - the level of this allowance is not really very important, let's call it £100K. This would remove all career polticians from the scene, after all this is how we let our parliament get into this mess in the first place.
This would have the effect of making parliament non-partisan and maybe make it a place where real debate and representation of the whole population takes place.
Incidentally, it would be several orders of magnitude cheaper than the current system.

seven-day-weekend

MSE_Martin wrote: »

I must admit I don't agree with the consensus here.

The idea MPs should work for nothing certainly seems a strange one - don't we want conscientious MPs dedicated to their task. If we dont pay them either its the super-rich or those supported by outside interests that would be our parliamentarians.

Personnally I'd like to see a system where being an MP was a prestigious job which talented people fought to get, and were rewarded for. Once elected there should be no outside interests.

Each MP should have a consituency officer, one or two researchers and an assistant. These while selected by MPs should be employed by parliament on a structured salary package so the money never passes through the MP. And should be evaluated by the MP AND HR officers to ensure they're doing the job they're paid for (and not a family members doing nowt).

There should also be office equipment and supplies as needed, phone bills paid and a constituency office supported. Plus a parliamentary team to help build websites which can be accessed by all. If we want our MPs to do a good job, then lets ensure they're well equipped.

Then each MP should be given a salary - pegged to something else (a district judge seems about right to me, similar level of high end public sector job - so that's currently £110,000). Those MPs with distant constituencies should be given an additional allowance for living in london and travel (this should be fixed).

After that no more expenses are needed it can be paid out of their pocket.

A nice clean system like that works. My worry is we'll punish future MPs for the conduct of the current ones, and that'll mean worse candidates in future.

(and just to clear up, while once I had political ambition, I ended that years ago and now genuinely couldn't think of anything worse than being an MP - so I won't be joining Esther Rantzen or Lynne Foulds Wood my fellow consumer journalists and standing)

Martin

Yay! I voted the same as Martin! And for somilar reasons.

I think we need high calibre people to be MPs and people shouldn't be stopped from doing it because they don't have enough money.

Thiose without London constituencies could be allocated a small flat for when they are in London.

Or do what the MPs for my home city do - all three of them share a house in London and claim one lot of housing allowances between them. Well done Wolverhampton MPs!

bubbles0169

who on earth voted for them to have £50 million a year?
please tell us why?
worthy peops like doctors dont even get that!!!

Dingers51

All this talk of building a block of flats near parliament for them to use is a bit un-necessary isn't it? How many military barracks are there in central London which are currently empty or underused? If the accommodation is good enough for those who really do serve their country to the extent of possibly dying for it, then it most certainly should be good enough for the self-interested bunch of money-grabbing experts who send them off to fight for us in the first place. Any MP who lives closer than 100 miles should be excluded and not be able to use it. After all there are plenty of city types who commute daily from outside London from as far away as Brighton. Why should MP's be any different? No travel expenses, they can pay that from their salary like ordinary mortals.
This whole business has made me so angry I cannot express it adequately. :mad:
If there are no prosecutions as a result of this mess I shall never vote again.

werdna75

Cahssius wrote: »

Ok, there might be a few monkeys at the moment anyway.... but YOU voted them in!!!

Actually I didn't. I live in a constituency where less than 50% of the local voters actually voted for the MP for the area. I made the choice not to vote for her and instead voted for the candiate I thought was best, as did many hundreds of others. Unfortunately due to our first past the post system she still got in.

She represents her political views in parliament and not those of the majority of her constituents. They disagree with her party and didn't vote for them.

I would stand for parliament but I can't afford to do it independently and I have no intention of joining any of the parties on offer who don't represent my views in parliament.

fightfirewithfire

1. Start the MPs on a lower salary rate with regular yearly increases until they achieve full salary after 6 years and re-election to the next parliament. Police,Firefighters,Nurses etc have to do it when they start, why can`t MPs?
If they fail to get re-elected then the process starts again from scratch.

2. To achieve their full salary entitlement they should achieve a minimum 75% attendance of sittings at the House of Commons each year, with at least 6 hours per day spent within the Palace of Westminster on PArliamentary business

3. Pension.. buy your own like everybody else.

4. expenses.. travel to & from constituency at lowest available air or rail fare (if that means buying a standard rail season ticket (not 1st class) then so be it).

5. 2nd home allowance? basic single rate for MPs travelling more than 120 miles from their constituency to Westminster `as the crow flies`

Paulgonnabedebtfree

I've gone for 30 grand p.a. but of course there would need to be expenses on top of that. The expenses claims should accurately reflect actual costs incurred, should only be expenses that are essential for doing the job, and there should be a ban on employing family members as "researchers" etc.
Having a second home is a necessary expense for MPs who represent areas well away from London. I do appreciate the impracticalities of running the job from hotel rooms and rented accommodation may not have adequate security. Therefore, any MP needing a London second home (presumably most of them) should have that home provided by the state and kept by the state for its next occupant. There would be no profit (or loss) for an MP upon vacating the second home.
Mind you, I also think there is a case for having enough MPs to be selected at random (like jury service) to hold the balance of power. e.g. govt. majority + 50. If govt majority is 77 then 127 MPs selected in same manner as jury service. Yes it's radical. So was allowing the working class, then women, the vote once upon a time. It may be the only way that Parliament can keep some respect in the longer term.

Mozette

Pay them the average wage. And same expenses as any one else gets.

Sponge

MSE_Martin wrote: »

I must admit I don't agree with the consensus here.

The idea MPs should work for nothing certainly seems a strange one - don't we want conscientious MPs dedicated to their task. If we dont pay them either its the super-rich or those supported by outside interests that would be our parliamentarians.

Personnally I'd like to see a system where being an MP was a prestigious job which talented people fought to get, and were rewarded for. Once elected there should be no outside interests.

Each MP should have a consituency officer, one or two researchers and an assistant. These while selected by MPs should be employed by parliament on a structured salary package so the money never passes through the MP. And should be evaluated by the MP AND HR officers to ensure they're doing the job they're paid for (and not a family members doing nowt).

There should also be office equipment and supplies as needed, phone bills paid and a constituency office supported. Plus a parliamentary team to help build websites which can be accessed by all. If we want our MPs to do a good job, then lets ensure they're well equipped.

Then each MP should be given a salary - pegged to something else (a district judge seems about right to me, similar level of high end public sector job - so that's currently £110,000). Those MPs with distant constituencies should be given an additional allowance for living in london and travel (this should be fixed).

After that no more expenses are needed it can be paid out of their pocket.

A nice clean system like that works. My worry is we'll punish future MPs for the conduct of the current ones, and that'll mean worse candidates in future.

(and just to clear up, while once I had political ambition, I ended that years ago and now genuinely couldn't think of anything worse than being an MP - so I won't be joining Esther Rantzen or Lynne Foulds Wood my fellow consumer journalists and standing)

Martin

Agree. :money:

teddyco

At this point, my wife and I are sitting and waiting patiently for a GENERAL ELECTION!