We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
MPs overpaid by £11,000 already according to the public
Comments
-
What skills are required?
A fairly unique set of skills probably not present in many other professions. In developing this skill-set, potential politicians become attractive to other areas of society and thus salary becomes an important issue. Do we want competent individuals to be poached by other sectors or do we make sure that we compensate them attractively within politics?What is all this stuff about getting the "right" people?
The main qualification for the vast majority, is just getting accepted as a candidate by the local party. I would rather see someone with commitment to help rather than some pro politician who cannot do anything else.
Double a bus drivers salary should get the "right" types in and discourage the chancers.
You're criticising the selection of candidates by individual parties, you're not giving the underlying system fair consideration. Parliament must attract the most competent (and arguably most dedicated) individuals that it can afford to. We (the people) deserve the very best to represent us at the top table. Salary does make a difference in attracting 'the best'. I doubt you'd have half as many doctors or lawyers if they weren't sufficiently compensated for their expertise.0 -
The_Hurricane wrote: »I'll stick my neck out and say I'm in favour of the pay-rises provided it attracts better caliber candidates to the role.
Some of the key skill requirements for a good MP (IMO):
1) Be available for and listen to your constituents.
2) Provide assistance to your constituents where you are able.
3) Be a voice for your constituents in parliament.
4) Be passionate about improving your constituency and the lives of the people in it.
5) Fight for local causes, especially when this involves detriment suffered as a consequence of a government decision.
6) Further to (5) - Possess the ability to put "party politics" aside and oppose your "own side" in order to best serve your constituents.
When you think about the essential function of what an MP's role should be, it seems to me that the kind of person best suited to the job would be a local person who was passionate about serving their community well.
What seems to be commonplace today regarding the type of person who becomes an MP:
a) Someone who is self-interested, self-serving and does the bare bare minimum or
b) Ambitious career politicians who have no genuine interest in their constituency and have been parachuted in by their political party of choice - This also makes it difficult to fulfil skill (6) above.
IMO, we are not going to get a higher calibre of MPs by increasing salaries. People who are passionate about (and would therefore be good at) serving their local communities do not need additional financial incentives to do so.
I think higher pay will attract exactly the wrong sort of candidate. We are bound to end up with people who are more interested in a lucrative career and furthering their own personal ambitions instead of serving their constituency well. We would end up with better candidates if we could somehow strip out the "party politics" and progression to cabinet / shadow cabinet posts at a local constituency level.
Other points to note:
An MP needs no qualifications or previous experience, the position is also not "time-served" and a new MP on his/her first day is immediately on par with the longest serving MP in parliament. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think being an MP is a "full-time" job anyway? (Not in the traditional sense of the phrase in any case).
During the course of this national debate, I also think some people have been conflating the duties and responsibilities of being a government minister (in cabinet) or a member of the shadow cabinet with those of a "normal" MP.0 -
I think that expenses was part of the problem in the first place. They were allowed generous expenses to paper over the cracks of their pay being restrained by too much for too long - "Never mind, you can make it up on expenses nudge nudge"
I don't want to be a part of the MP expenses bashing / "public opinion" brigade, but I think the real reason was that they just thought "Hey, free money" and human nature took its course. No-one can seriously suggest that only did it because they felt they were hard done by. They knew what the pay was before they took on the role and there could be no resentment about being paid less than a colleague doing the same job (which you find in private companies up and down the country every day). The normal working person who was aggrieved at being paid less than a colleague would not make up for it by fiddling their expense claims.I don't think that the low wage is preventing the bus driver becoming an MP in the first place. It is the low wage which is encouraging the barrister to continue as a barrister.
Plenty of barristers in the commons; do we need more of the same skill set?
I think obstacles facing barristers who do not become MPs are more likely to be:
1) A lack of interest in politics.
2) A lack of interest in local / community issues and an unwillingness to put on a pretence of being interested.
3) Affiliation to a political party with a safe seat available (independents would not stand a chance unless they were famous).
So experts on health, education, transport, defence, tax, international aid etc and not just a lot of lawyers and ex advisors with politics degrees?
Couldn't agree more! It would certainly help to eradicate incompetent decision making and ensure we had a safe pair of hands to steer us on important decisions.0 -
Those who are most concerned with the goals and expectations of achieving power and wealth can be the most easily corrupted by them, therefore many in the traditional polititical classes can easily be bought - no matter how much they are paid. Simply increasing the sums involved will not recreate a 'pure Sir Galahad' or an 'incorruptable Gandhi' for society, no matter how much some of you would like to imagine it will. Let's be realistic - when it comes to the vast excesses of financial power, greed has no maximum limit, and in this financial underworld there are always plenty of opportunities open to ex- gang members, no matter how criminal their behaviour.
Rather than a payrise, I'd suggest that any polititian who would accept a severe reduction in their salary instead, will either be the most honourable person for the role - i.e. one who has a 'spiritual' calling to make a better society for all, no matter what the financial sacrifice - or one of the lacklustre mediocrities who are relatively incompetant and otherwise unemployable who also, quite probably, have the biggest fingers in the till, and whose need and criminal greed - in order to make up this shortfall - will quickly become obvious. Those who resign - or threaten to - obviously aren't of the high calibre we should expect from our respected policy makers, and the sooner we let go of these self-serving and self-important egotists the better.
On supposedly 'political traits', I witness some of the lowest paid in our society being just as noble, just as principled, just as verbosely outspoken, and just as dedicated to the pursuit of fairness, equality and excellence, as any amongst the highest paid. I would also argue that strength of character, moral fortitude and ideological motivation is, quite often, forged more profoundly through the sufferings of the working classes than it is in the halls of privilege.0 -
JimmyTheWig wrote: »Do you think more ex-barristers as MPs would result in the diversification in the House of Commons that we need? Or do you think more ex-bus drivers would?
Personally, I'd go for the ex-bus drivers.
Diversification is not all that's needed - we also need industry experience.
Take education - which head of a large school is going to take a 50% pay cut to maybe, one day, get a chance at being education minister. This is why we often have people in these roles that simply don't have the foggiest what they're talking about.0 -
People do take pay cuts though to do something they feel strongly about. I was once talking to a Judge and he said that the had been previously a Barrister and had earned a lot more than his current role. However he said that he really wanted to be a Judge as he had done years as a Barrister and wanted a change.
We need people to be M.P who feel passionate about their communities and helping them. Not passionate about being as greedy and grasping as is possible for themselves.
Remember as well, that MPs often have second jobs, plus all the expenses etc.
This current grasping, does nothing to help their image of being greedy b s.0 -
dandelionclock30 wrote: »People do take pay cuts though to do something they feel strongly about. I was once talking to a Judge and he said that the had been previously a Barrister and had earned a lot more than his current role. However he said that he really wanted to be a Judge as he had done years as a Barrister and wanted a change.
...but I bet he was confident of holding down his job as a Judge...being an MP isn't particularly stable and there's no guaranteed path to cabinet.
I think another change that might be useful is to stop the cabinet having to come from either of the houses...I'd much rather they go out to industry and appoint people to cabinet than just have to draw straws for who gets what job from the people they're allowed to select...0 -
Do MP's deserve a pay increase? I think it's less about thedeserve bit and more about practicalities. I would accept MP's beingpaid more, even up to £100,000. Because they deserve it? No,more to do with removing temptation. As far as I'm concerned, there'dbe no expenses other than travel and no paid second jobs.We only have to see the way job seekers face ever more punitivesanctions due to the minuscule amounts lost to benefit fraud. Andno-one is suggesting using the clawed back to increase benefitlevels.
We often hear MP's say "I was making more money in myprevious profession as a barrister / businessman / etc. Well, myanswer to that is GO! Go back to your previous life and stop usingpolitics as a cash cow. And stop trying to gain public sympathy whenyou already earn more than 2.5 times the national average wage rightnow.
The argument that higher wages attract a higher calibre ofpolitician could just as easily be used to justify better wages forthe cleaners who tidy these very MP's offices, not to mention theirunpaid interns. And indeed whilst we're at it unpaid workfair'trainees' nationwide!
Another favourite is “Having a second job keeps us in touch withthe real world”. No, your job as an MP and your previous experienceis supposed to do that. Second jobs should go of course, not justbecause of the extra earnings, but even more importantly, theconflict of interest that often arises. Take an MP such as DavidBlunkett. Until recently, he was earning between £25,000 - £30,000working for A4e as a “business consultant”. The very fact that A4eis a major player in the private welfare to work sector and Blunkettwas a former Education and Employment secretary is purelycoincidental of course! Considering how many on this forum have hadissues with A4e and the W2W sector as a whole, could you be confidentan MP formerly paid by this sector could remain an honest broker?
As Rafter suggests, if MP's wish tocontinue with their paid extra curricular activities, then everypound they make should be deducted from their MP's basic salary.
Politics should not be a means to make money, or at the very leastbecome rich. We often hear that MP's are lower paid than theirContinental Euro and American counterparts. Well, again go and createa political career there if this is an issue. It's a bit like sayingRichard Branson is not a wealthy as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett orRoman Abromavich. Therefore Richard Branson is a poor man!0 -
I would accept MP's beingpaid more, even up to £100,000. Because they deserve it? No,more to do with removing temptation.
Would that weed out those who were tempted to abuse their positions?
Half a million pounds to get rid of a corruptable MP for life sounds like good value for money to me.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 346.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.5K Spending & Discounts
- 238.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 614.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.9K Life & Family
- 252.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards