Why Mps Should Be Paid More ......

[LuckyOne]

http://news.hereisthecity.com/news/business_news/10707.cntns

Now I know it's not a popular thought at a time when we're busy bashing MPs for living high on the hog at taxpayers expense, but I'd like to see the base pay for MPs actually increased to, say, £150,000-a-year (they currently get £64,766). I'd also give them proper allowances to manage their offices and run their constituencies.

Yes, increase salaries we must - especially if we are to attract the right kind of person into Parliament. The problem with the current compensation system is that it allows only two types of people to stand as MPs - those 'career' politicians who are subsidized by political groups or trade unions, or the privileged (those rich enough to be able to serve without worrying about paying the mortgage). Unfortunately it's very difficult for anyone else to seek a political career at Westminster (and by that I mean ordinary people who actually understand the real issues, and who could contribute to governing the country in a practical and commonsense manner).

But don't we deserve to have intelligent, ordinary people helping to run our country ? Shouldn't we open up our Parliament so that it becomes economically feasible for normal, bright people to serve and lead ? Well, I think we should - and that's why I'd pay our MPs significantly more. Because I'd like to see Parliament made up of people who have lived basically ordinary lives, and who know what it's like to struggle to put food on the table; people who understand that the more effort they put in, the more successful you become; and individuals who appreciate that you have to run the country like you run a small business, and that consistently spending more than you earn leads only to disaster.

Yes, unless we change the way we pay our MPs, we'll be stuck with the toffs and the boffs we've got now - and look at the mess that lot have got us into!

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

Yes, increase salaries we must - especially if we are to attract the right kind of person into Parliament

MPs administer theft and violence for a living.

the 'right kind of person' would not seek such a position in the first place.

[LuckyOne]

MPs administer theft and violence for a living.

the 'right kind of person' would not seek such a position in the first place.

Fair enough. I am still learning to be internally consistent with my ideals.

That said, perhaps the "less wrong kind of people" might seek the positions.

Progress will probably be continuous rather than binary.

[miko]

To open parliment up to more ordinary people you do not need to put the salary up .

£65k plus expenses and cost's to run offices is more than enough to attract the right people , what needs to be changed is the barriers that are in place stopping anyone not in the know from gaining access to parliment.

[plummet expert]

I suggest there is another view. MP's should start at a lower salary when first elected, but should be able to increase it with each election victory thereafter up to a maximum on 3 general election victories. So, you could have a start up of say £45k + exps, rising to £110k. If appointed to cabinet it would be another scale.

It is actually rediculous that the PM earns less than hundreds of public servants such as he head of the Ordinance survey maps on £225k.

[the coming storm]

http://news.hereisthecity.com/news/business_news/10707.cntns

If we had top salaries, then we might get more smart people into politics. People complain about their salaries from tax payers money - Think of someone who could be a chief executive , then might be come an MP if the salaries are large enough - then we would get good MPs rather than the collection of fools who rubberstamp goverment policy.

[domo]

I suggest there is another view. MP's should start at a lower salary when first elected, but should be able to increase it with each election victory thereafter up to a maximum on 3 general election victories. So, you could have a start up of say £45k + exps, rising to £110k. If appointed to cabinet it would be another scale.

It is actually rediculous that the PM earns less than hundreds of public servants such as he head of the Ordinance survey maps on £225k.

If he was worthy of a higher salary he could go elsewhere to get it. If he takes it he either has nothing better or is just a power hungry lunatic.

[scepticus]

being a good MP as with any job role depends on talent and experience.

at the start of an MP career, no amount of talent can substitute for lack of experience.

therefore MP salaries should rise in line with years on the job, and also be predicated on general prior experience.

Otherwise you get the silly situation in which a 30 year old newbie is paid the same as a long serving (and by implication many times re-elected) warhorse, who may also serve in variour other important roles such as whip or spokesman for a shadow department.

[puppee]

I suggest there is another view. MP's should start at a lower salary when first elected, but should be able to increase it with each election victory thereafter up to a maximum on 3 general election victories. So, you could have a start up of say £45k + exps, rising to £110k. If appointed to cabinet it would be another scale.

It is actually rediculous that the PM earns less than hundreds of public servants such as he head of the Ordinance survey maps on £225k.

this is a radical idea its not that m.p's are not payed enough it's that these so called public servants are being payed way to much so cut their pay if they don't like it tough they can f**K off somewhere else there are plenty of people who would do their jobs for halve their pay it is also a way to cut down on costs and save money for the taxpayer

[pandabear]

I'd like more money too.... Oh but hang on, i am only responsible for kids learning.... Bugger

[Tiger Woods?]

I suggest there is another view. MP's should start at a lower salary when first elected, but should be able to increase it with each election victory thereafter up to a maximum on 3 general election victories. So, you could have a start up of say £45k + exps, rising to £110k.

Do you really want 3 general elections over a 2 month period?

[Frank Hovis]

They are underpaid relative to top civil servants, but that is because top civil servants are overpaid.

IMO there should be less MPs but, yes, a pay increase should be given for what is a hard and insecure job.

[thod]

There are some people for whom enough is never enough. However most people are not like this. They own their house, they have decent furniture, a fat pension and money in the bank and they are happy. The hassle of working harder just to have a new Ferrari each year is less appealing than having more time with their family. Such people may turn to politics, they want to make the world a better place. Because they are set up for life, they are not subject to the bribery and expenses scandals we saw with labour. They are capable people because of what they have already achieved.

Far from paying MP's more the longer they are in office, I would place term limits on them. No more than two terms. This would prevent career politicians. The problem with career politicians is that they are loyal to the party not the country. We saw labour politicians voting with the government on every single issue, not once did they ever vote otherwise, hoping for promotions. It us unimaginable that they agreed with every single decision of the executive or that it was good for those they purport to represent.

[abharrisson]

http://news.hereisthecity.com/news/business_news/10707.cntns

I'd disagree actually... £65,000 is what twice /more than twice an average salary so should be easilly survivable. Holidays are massive, and pension very generous. I'd agree that all the "costs and expenses" should be covered so that the £65,000 would effectively exclude a lot of travle and subsistence while in westminster ( which makes it even more livable) and I'd agree that offices need to be fully funded.

What gives us rank bad MP's is actually the voting system which allows some MP's to hold safe seats.... in some instances knowing they have safe seats and can basically sit back for life doing the bare minimum they take on second jobs and don't do the local MP bit with any energy.

There are plenty of good people desperate to do the job for roughyl the sum available. I'd do two things... firstly I'd ban second jobs for the first term an MP is in office, secondly I would have some basic minimums they would have to adhere to ( eg monthly surgeries, response times etc etc ).... ideally I'd erradicate safe sets to keep them on their toes but thats not going to happen.

So all in all higher salaries in my view are not needed... I also by the by think the further you push the salary up, the more likely you will be to attract those who have had the benefits of a better education and who have higher ambitions etc, and the more likely you are to attract those who do it for the money rather than because they are particularly interessted in public service.

[Solitaire]

Far from paying MP's more the longer they are in office, I would place term limits on them. No more than two terms. This would prevent career politicians. The problem with career politicians is that they are loyal to the party not the country.

Yes, we need to take the politics out of government.

[BalancedBear]

I think the current salary for an MP is more than adequate. They earn over twice the average income, there are no entry qualifications, no tests, no nothing. All you have to do is find favour with the local political party. People should become MPs because they want to do a service for this country, not because of a big salary. Very capable people are never going to be attracted by any kind of salary, they will be running businesses.

[Alfie Moon]

It would be interesting to know what the average total income is for MP's taking into consideration that many (most?, all?) use their position of MP to generate other sources of income at the same time as being an MP. For many, as I understand it their basic MP's salary is just the beginning ......

[jareth]

There are *loads* of people who want to be MPs. 3 or 4 at least stand in every constituency and that's before you consider the shortlists each party had for each consituency. That says to me that the pay is just fine. MPs effectively have 5 year contracts and are almost impossible to remove even when they have plainly done wrong. It doesn't matter what the rules on expenses say some MPs will abuse them because they have been installed with a gross sense of entitlement, not least because it is all administered from within the Westminster bubble out of sight of the public. Why isn't pay and expenses a constituency matter?

One way of improving standards might be a grant system - the constituency pays their MP (say, via council tax) a set amount each year to cover all their costs. They get it paid annually and must manage that relatively small budget. They can decide what to spend it on but in return they must publish what they have spent it on. At an election we might see candidates competing on price as well as policy.

The electorate.needs to pick better people really. Parties will always seek to restrict their candidates to those whose face fits.

[Riedquat]

If we've got MPs who are selfish, greedy, cliqueish, unscruplous, and ignorant on most of what they talk about then we've already got MPs that are very representative of the general population.

[lets get it right]

this is a radical idea its not that m.p's are not payed enough it's that these so called public servants are being payed way to much so cut their pay if they don't like it tough they can f**K off somewhere else there are plenty of people who would do their jobs for halve their pay it is also a way to cut down on costs and save money for the taxpayer

This is a radical idea. It's not that MPs are not paid enough, it's that these so called public servants are being paid way too much. So, cut their pay. If they don't like it - tough! They can f**k off somewhere else. There are plenty of people who would do their jobs for half their pay. It is also a way to cut down on costs and save money for the taxpayer.

The British Society for the Protection of Punctuation.

[Jason]

I would up MPs Salaries, but only to take away their expenses. I would also buy/build a huge block of flats (or a few) near Westminster where MPs can stay for free - the 2nd home costs would be abolished. It would also be easier to police, so Jackie Smith need not have two policemen standing outside.

[Cogs]

65k + receipted expenses (cheapest possible travel, cheapest accommodation + £10 a day subsistence if away from work, for example attending international meetings) is more than sufficient. I also don't think bars and dining should be subsidised in the House of Commons but rather, as with other parts of the public sector, chains such as Starbucks and MacDonalds should be able to pay rent to set up concessions and obviously car parking should be charged for and so on as is now standard practice. Why that fatso Eric Pickles should need me to subsidise sausage and beans twice for him I don't know. Rather than provide generous subsidies what I do think should be the case is that they should not have to pay council tax on their second residence in recognition of the unusual circumstances in which they have had to take it on. This would be sufficient contribution in itself, they can make up the rest of their own pockets.

[Goat]

MPs administer theft and violence for a living.

the 'right kind of person' would not seek such a position in the first place.

Certainly it that's the attitude of the general public one can see why "the right sort of person" would not want the job.

[SMAC67]

The same trite empty headed thinking can apply to everyone on planet earth doing every kind of job. It is simply not true, we don't even need MP's never mind paid versions. An Outreach Coordinator for Diversity Thinking in a Green Media Friendly Synergistic Role is more relevant and useful than any MP.

[Si1]

there is evidence to suggest in scientific circles that a complex system doesn't change much if you tweak the individual components - I suspect trhe political dynamics within parliament would be much the same if you pay them 50k, 100k, or 1000k per year - it is the emergent behaviourt of the system that counts. Albeit you need 1 or 2 able people at the top, but I am not sure Blair, Brown, Thatcher, Cameron etc would have been any different if they had been paid more.