Should MPs take a pay cut?

[yorksrob]

That would be even worse: You'd be giving MPs an incentive to increase public sector pay at the expense of private sector pay!

Considering they've usually been supressing it behind private sector pay for the last ten + years, they'd have to overcome a lot of idealogical preconceptions before that happenned.

 

[deltic]

Most MPs are hard working and are effectively on call 24/7. Most are highly skilled and intelligent people who could easily get a job elsewhere on similar or more money. As others state their expenses are heavily scrutinised and are to pay for their office staff etc they are not a top up to their pay. The average full time wage in inner London is £45k a year (this is the average of those starting work and those with 20 years experience which is what most MPs will have before being elected) which is a more meaningful comparison than the UK average wage. MPs constituency work is mainly helping people deal with public bodies and the like which they generally effectively do regardless of which party they are in and which party you voted for. Ian Paisley was rated by Catholics in his constituency as a good MP in this respect even if they would never dream of voting for him.

I have mixed views about them having second jobs. Ken Clarke makes the point that second jobs gives MPS a better insight into what is going on in the world outside the Westminster bubble although that was in the days when their partners were less likely to work. Clarke used to work as a lawyer in the morning in the West Midlands, catch the train to London in the days Parliament used to sit in the afternoons and evenings and catch the last train back getting home at 1ish in the morning. The workload that MPs have to deal with now has increased - far easier to drop them an email than write them a letter as in the past and parliamentary hours are less amenable to second jobs. All incomes are anyway declared in Member's Interest and MPs raise any potential conflicts before speaking (or should do and generally do).

Cutting their salaries is a very bad idea and just leads to more millionaires doing it as a career break

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Quite possibly many/most MPs work hard (I can not judge that). They seem to get a lot of money, but they have to reapply for their jobs every few years, even apparently safe seats can be lost. Train drivers, police officers and others can keep their jobs and be left in peace for decades.
..
Should MPs retire like ordinary people? Dennis Skinner wanted to be like other labourers, I thought he meant to retire at 65, but he stood for re-election aged 87. He was too sick to go knocking on doors, and lost Fortress Bolsover to a tory.

 

[deltic]

This discussion reminds me of a few councillors I know who make a big deal about not accepting their allowances - what they dont make such a deal about is that they used to be in high paid jobs, are now retired on good pensions and treat the role as a hobby. By not accepting their allowances it puts pressure on those who need the money and risks returning the role to the preserve of the wealthy and the retired

 

[Typhoon]

The main reason advanced for introducing payment was, as Thomas Attwood said in 1839, to have ‘that class of men introduced into the House, men of that station and character which would enable them to be competent representatives of the wants and wishes of the Commons of England.’

Attwood was an economist (and MP for Birmingham, in the days when it had 2 MPs).

There are two reasons why some of our MPs are not 'competent representatives'. Firstly, we keep voting for the incompetent (normally in 'safe seats'). Secondly, we have a dilemma of a competent candidate for a unacceptable party, or an incompetent candidate for an acceptable party. Solution to the latter is not to reduce their pay (we'd end up with worse - and perhaps self-serving - MPs), but to allow us to reject all candidates at an election ('None of the above') to encourage Parties to put forward a candidate of ability rather than one whose sole qualification appears to be having worked at party HQ for so many years so is dumped on the constituency.

Paying them less would just reduce the pool from which MPs are selected. You would still get many of those committed to the cause, but others would have to consider the extra burden it places on their family. One of my former MPs earned a similar salary on being elected but her partner had to give up work to take on the family responsibilities that she could no longer undertake.

Cutting their salaries is a very bad idea and just leads to more millionaires doing it as a career break

So would have absolutely no interest in working hard for the constituency as they would only be there for a couple of terms. You are absolutely right.

Quote from: MPs pay: the never ending controversy – The History of Parliament (wordpress.com)

 

[Butts]

Quite strange that people moan about MP's getting paid 80 odd Grand a Year but no one bats an eyelid about footballers getting paid that much a week or even a day in some cases.

Chances are the interviewers on TV who grill them are likely to be paid a lot more as well yet their salaries are rarely the topic of conversation.

For people entering Parliament from a poor or moderate background it must be like hitting the jackpot, particularly in a safe seat. Hence you see numerous cases such as the SNP MP who broke the lockdown rules and was asked to give up her seat so reluctant to go. For a 60 year old woman of limited education there is not a lot out there never mind the Pension and Severance Money she will be entitled to.

Conversely for a wealthy individual or someone in a good job they may have to make sacrifices in order to become an MP and take a pay cut.

As I understand it our MP's are amongst the lowest paid in Western Europe - do other Countries continually complain about their MP's remuneration or is it a "British Disease"

 

[adrock1976]

MPs once elected should resign from any corporate positions they held before being elected, as it is the constituents that is the MPs employer.

Regarding MPs pay, I would like to see all of them awarded a rate equivalent to the Universal Credit amount as an experiment for a minimum of one year, with no access to any savings or assets whether in the bank or hidden offshore, so as they have a greater understanding of how tough it can be for an ordinary person.

A long time ago, the UC architect (and Brexiteer) Iain Duncan Smith was asked to try it for a month or so, but declined. His comments about "hard working people/taxpayers" rings hollow as all of his assets are solely registered in his spouse Betsy's name, with various companies all conveniently based in the Cayman Islands, meaning that HM Treasury and HMRC receive the grand sum of zero pounds and zero pence.

 

[dakta]

Quite strange that people moan about MP's getting paid 80 odd Grand a Year but no one bats an eyelid about footballers getting paid that much a week or even a day in some cases.

Chances are the interviewers on TV who grill them are likely to be paid a lot more as well yet their salaries are rarely the topic of conversation.

Tbh over the years I've heard loads of people moan about footballers wages? I'm guilty, I've always felt there's a level of excess over which the benefits of extra money don't add much to quality of life and i think the sort of amounts they earn can be well north of that threshold. Obv this thread is about MP's specifically but where excessive pay is concerned footballers can be a legit example.

 

[telstarbox]

"No second jobs" is slightly tricky when some MPs come from professions such as medicine or law (bringing useful expertise to Parliament) where to maintain competence you need to keep your hand in for so many hours per year. As the risk of losing a seat is non-trivial I don't begrudge them wanting to keep their right to practise.

 

[Gloster]

I would personally limit MP’s outside earnings substantially. Writing for newspapers would only be permitted under the restrictions given in #22. Those who had been involved in various roles in small businesses etc., where their sudden resignation might seriously hinder the firm, should be given a period to wind up their role. And as said above, those who need to maintain competence for a profession should be allowed to do so up to the minimum time, etc. needed. Other than that the amount earned by an MP above their Westminster salary should be limited to, for example, one tenth of that salary. The sanctions for breaking the rules should be severe: except for the occasional minor infringement, expulsion and banning from standing in an election should be the norm. Fat chance.

 

[deltic]

I would personally limit MP’s outside earnings substantially. Writing for newspapers would only be permitted under the restrictions given in #22. Those who had been involved in various roles in small businesses etc., where their sudden resignation might seriously hinder the firm, should be given a period to wind up their role. And as said above, those who need to maintain competence for a profession should be allowed to do so up to the minimum time, etc. needed. Other than that the amount earned by an MP above their Westminster salary should be limited to, for example, one tenth of that salary. The sanctions for breaking the rules should be severe: except for the occasional minor infringement, expulsion and banning from standing in an election should be the norm. Fat chance.

Why? If someone is prepared to pay you lots of money to write an article for a paper why shouldnt you write it and be paid for it?

 

[Gloster]

Why? If someone is prepared to pay you lots of money to write an article for a paper why shouldnt you write it and be paid for it?

If someone is paying an MP a lot of money to write a newspaper article he or she might find themselves in the situation where their parliamentary duties mean that they should take a certain line over an issue. This line may be contrary to the wishes of the proprietor or editor of the paper and it is an obvious, if unstated, possibility that if they go against their wishes, they won’t get any more well-paid work from them.

 

[Bald Rick]

The comments about second jobs are interesting. MPs. Particularly backbencher, are offered all sorts of work - non exec board positions, advisory roles, day rates to chair conferences, etc. These all help them to see some of the world outside the Westminster village or their constituency, and (importantly) also meet people who aren’t in the Westminster Village or their constituency. Personally I don’t begrudge them that opportunity to make some more money, so long as it is properly declared, they do not try to further their business interests through Parliament, and it’s doesn’t compromise their work as an MP.

There are also a number of MPs who have substantial financial interests and income without having to have a second job. Some of these are very significant (see Zac Goldsmith). I don’t see how you can ban MPs from having a second income from a second job, and not ban MPs from having a second income from *not* having a second job. In the latter case, you’d just have to ban them from being an MP for being rich, and that doesn’t feel right.

 

[telstarbox]

This discussion reminds me of a few councillors I know who make a big deal about not accepting their allowances - what they dont make such a deal about is that they used to be in high paid jobs, are now retired on good pensions and treat the role as a hobby. By not accepting their allowances it puts pressure on those who need the money and risks returning the role to the preserve of the wealthy and the retired

Is there a rough guide for how many hours a councillor should spend on their duties per week? For example if someone in a full time job was elected are they supposed to reduce their day job accordingly?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Regarding 2nd jobs, I would have thought the problem isn't how much MPs earn from them, but how many hours they devote to them. Other people have pointed out the various very good reasons why MPs might legitimately need/want to keep some outside employment. I would have thought the sensible solution would be to have a rule limiting any such work to a certain number of hours (say, 15) per month, with some procedure where MPs can ask for permission to exceed that occasionally if there is a very good reason (for example, related to a need to keep a professional accreditation). I see no reason to restrict the salary that MPs are paid for that work.

Regarding MPs pay, I would like to see all of them awarded a rate equivalent to the Universal Credit amount as an experiment for a minimum of one year, with no access to any savings or assets whether in the bank or hidden offshore, so as they have a greater understanding of how tough it can be for an ordinary person.

Wow, not at all vindictive, are we?! How many qualified people with the skills to be good MPs, the willingness to work the 70 or more hours a week MPs will often have to work, and the ability to scrutinize legislation, and to serve on select committees researching current issues, do you think would be willing to work for a year under those conditions? And for MPs with families, would you require those MPs' children to live under those conditions too?

Would you also require MPs to have their houses burgled, or to be beaten up, so they have a greater understanding of what it's like to be a victim of crime, or to be injected with some serious disease, so they have a greater understanding of what it's like to be on an NHS waiting list?

 

[deltic]

Is there a rough guide for how many hours a councillor should spend on their duties per week? For example if someone in a full time job was elected are they supposed to reduce their day job accordingly?

Councillors and others who fulfil public service duties eg magistrate, school governor etc are allowed reasonable time off work to undertake those duties but there is no requirement for the employer to pay them. How much time off you need depends on the size of council, when your council holds its meetings eg day time or evening and what role if any you have in the governing party. A committee chair or cabinet member in a large council is effectively a full time job in itself, an opposition member in a small district council may require virtually no time off work

If someone is paying an MP a lot of money to write a newspaper article he or she might find themselves in the situation where their parliamentary duties mean that they should take a certain line over an issue. This line may be contrary to the wishes of the proprietor or editor of the paper and it is an obvious, if unstated, possibility that if they go against their wishes, they won’t get any more well-paid work from them.

Most MPs writing articles in papers will be pushing their party line, in papers that are supportive of that party line and are answerable to their whips so this sort of situation is unlikely to occur.

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding 2nd jobs, I would have thought the problem isn't how much MPs earn from them, but how many hours they devote to them. Other people have pointed out the various very good reasons why MPs might legitimately need/want to keep some outside employment. I would have thought the sensible solution would be to have a rule limiting any such work to a certain number of hours (say, 15) per month, with some procedure where MPs can ask for permission to exceed that occasionally if there is a very good reason (for example, related to a need to keep a professional accreditation). I see no reason to restrict the salary that MPs are paid for that work.



Wow, not at all vindictive, are we?! How many qualified people with the skills to be good MPs, the willingness to work the 70 or more hours a week MPs will often have to work, and the ability to scrutinize legislation, and to serve on select committees researching current issues, do you think would be willing to work for a year under those conditions? And for MPs with families, would you require those MPs' children to live under those conditions too?

Would you also require MPs to have their houses burgled, or to be beaten up, so they have a greater understanding of what it's like to be a victim of crime, or to be injected with some serious disease, so they have a greater understanding of what it's like to be on an NHS waiting list?

I'm not vindictive at all.

Last time I looked, the population of the UK is far, far greater than the number of MPs elected to the commons.

I'm not sure if you heard in the news recently, but the extra £80 per calendar month uplift for Universal Credit is coming to an end in October 2020. For first time claimants during the pandemic who received the uplifted amount, it is a kick in the teeth for them especially as the pandemic has not ended yet, combined with the rise in energy costs and the cost of living. Also, Universal Credit (and the old Jobseekers Allowance) remained at the same rate when Gideon George Osbourne (a descendant of the Irish aristocracy) was Chancellor, meaning that it was a real terms cut.

MPs with families would also be eligible for the child element of UC, so that is a red herring.

In my former constituency of Glasgow North East, the former MP Paul Sweeney did sign up to Universal Credit for a short while after being unseated at the 2019 General Election (it is in the local rag Glasgow Evening Times). He found it was not easy at all living on the standard basic rate for a single person over the age of 25. Sweeney has since found some paid work somewhere (he is or was a qualified bus driver in the days before becoming an MP) which pushes over the threshold for receiving UC.

 

[DarloRich]

I think I would limit the number of MP's from Eton to the % of the population who attend Eton or 1 whichever may be greater.