How much do you think MPs and councillours should earn?

[Matt S]

BTW, it's worth saying that I've thought for quite a while that councillors should earn more than they do (generally) and MPs should earn significantly less. At the moment, being a councillor is disproportionately a rich persons club because it is a lot of work for very little money, whereas being an MP is a rich persons club because they all get paid loads....

Matt

 

[agricola]

I've seen your posts and I don't really believe you're seroius. You might as well have them up in the manor house plotting with all the other barons.

There's no such thing as 'independent means' surely, you either exploit labour or you have a benefactor to whom you're in hock.

No. MPs could still have jobs outside Parliament that they could - be it union rep, lawyer, doctor, writer or whatever - without being either indebted to someone or being an exploiter of labour. Ironically, paying MPs does not make them independent, it makes them dependent. We need independent MPs, who have experience beyond politics, and who are not afraid to oppose their own side because they would lose their jobs.

MPs first got a salary in 1911. Prior to that Parliament consisted entirely of moneyed property-owners with private unearned incomes. They might have been jolly good chaps, what ho, but they didn't represent any electorate - how could they, when they lived in such an utterly different world?

Nonsense. Parliament prior to 1911 did not "consist entirely of moneyed property-owners", as even a casual look at the 1906 election result would demonstrate. In addition, the intention of the 1911 Act was not to pay a salary for a job, but was according to Lloyd George:

"When we offer £400 a year as payment of Members of Parliament it is not a recognition of the magnitude of the service, it is not a remuneration, it is not a recompense, it is not even a salary. It is just an allowance, and I think the minimum allowance, to enable men to come here, men who would render incalculable service to the State, and whom it is an incalculable loss to the State not to have here, but who cannot be here because their means do not allow it.”

Ironically, one of those "moneyed property-owners" - Keir Hardie - voted against the 1911 Act because he recognized what the effect of it would be - you would get careerists, not socialists.

 

[_angel_]

Have to agree about cutting off second incomes or at least limiting them. It should very much be a full time job. Knowing how much some Headmasters earn i wouldnt like to see MPsb earn that much. Its too much for teachers and its too much for MPs.

To be fair, Head teachers do actually have to turn up for work (it's not voluntary more or less like MPs) and they are rated on their 'performance'.. Never mind they do actually have to have some training, qualifications and experience for the job - MPs don't!

I'd rather see Headteachers earn more than MPs!


I think some sort of average wage would be fair enough. Maybe start them off on the minimum wage, however.

If they're setting a minimum wage it's only fair enough they know what it's like to live on.

Although I think any reduction in salary would only be clawed back in expenses, as that's the way it seems to go at the moment.

Scrap the allowances for MPs to buy second homes in London, there should be some rent free temporary accommodation for them to use whilst they are in office. Don't see why being an MP should get you a free London house tbh.

 

[doddles]

No. MPs could still have jobs outside Parliament that they could - be it union rep, lawyer, doctor, writer or whatever - without being either indebted to someone or being an exploiter of labour. Ironically, paying MPs does not make them independent, it makes them dependent. We need independent MPs, who have experience beyond politics, and who are not afraid to oppose their own side because they would lose their jobs.

Problem with that is that there are plenty of people who simply wouldn't be able to afford it. Either time-wise or money-wise.
Also, well to do MPs with salaried positions as directors or consultants or whatever would see being an MP as an extremely effective way of bumping up their profiles, salaries and/or contract rates. They would be subject to enormous conflicts of interest in the form of preferred engagements and contracts.
The only way to get rid of the corruption is to ban second incomes for MPs and pay them a salary commensurate with their responsibilities fixed to a set proportion of the median wage. With allowances and pensions that are the same as anyone else in the public sector.

 

[isitme]

I don't think they should get as much as doctors

i mean, if no mps turned up what would really happen?

 

[agricola]

Problem with that is that there are plenty of people who simply wouldn't be able to afford it. Either time-wise or money-wise.
Also, well to do MPs with salaried positions as directors or consultants or whatever would see being an MP as an extremely effective way of bumping up their profiles, salaries and/or contract rates. They would be subject to enormous conflicts of interest in the form of preferred engagements and contracts.
The only way to get rid of the corruption is to ban second incomes for MPs and pay them a salary commensurate with their responsibilities fixed to a set proportion of the median wage. With allowances and pensions that are the same as anyone else in the public sector.

Perhaps, but the same people who couldnt afford to stand without an MP being paid are not getting into Parliament now either, despite a hefty wage and a whole slew of expenses, benefits, allowances and whatnot.

Moreover, there is very little actual corruption with regards to second incomes - all of which are declared and subject to examination. Expenses and allowances do not have anywhere near that level of scrutiny and so we have seen repeated examples of people taking the piss.

 

[tbaldwin]

BTW, it's worth saying that I've thought for quite a while that councillors should earn more than they do (generally) and MPs should earn significantly less. At the moment, being a councillor is disproportionately a rich persons club because it is a lot of work for very little money, whereas being an MP is a rich persons club because they all get paid loads....

Matt

Have to agree with that. The way local govt is run is a complete joke. Unelected managers earning loads of money, whilst elected people are supposed to be in charge and get by on expenses. Its outdated nonsense.

 

[doddles]

Perhaps, but the same people who couldnt afford to stand without an MP being paid are not getting into Parliament now either, despite a hefty wage and a whole slew of expenses, benefits, allowances and whatnot.

You'll note that I said couldn't afford the money *or time*. For example, there's no way at all that I could become an MP and retain my job - there's no time for it. Many others would be in the same boat. You'd be excluding a huge proportion of hard-working people from becoming MPs.

Moreover, there is very little actual corruption with regards to second incomes - all of which are declared and subject to examination.

There's a huge difference between what is legally provable as corruption and what is legally within the rules but corrupts MPs' ability to represent their constituents and not big business. The latter is rife.

 

[bluestreak]

Average wage.

And there should be an MPs' hostel in Westminster, for those who can't travel daily.

Yep.

 

[agricola]

You'll note that I said couldn't afford the money *or time*. For example, there's no way at all that I could become an MP and retain my job - there's no time for it. Many others would be in the same boat. You'd be excluding a huge proportion of hard-working people from becoming MPs.

You could get around that by doing what the TA does and ensuring that someones job be held for them for as long as the MP was serving in Parliament.

There's a huge difference between what is legally provable as corruption and what is legally within the rules but corrupts MPs' ability to represent their constituents and not big business. The latter is rife.

No it isnt. An MP having an outside income does not inevitably affect their ability to represent their constituents - indeed, it may actually improve their ability to represent their constituents.

 

[ymu]

You could get around that by doing what the TA does and ensuring that someones job be held for them for as long as the MP was serving in Parliament.

So, it could be for decades then? Who is paying their wage whilst this is happening? Does the company have to keep them on full pay indefinitely or do they have to be independently wealthy to afford it?

Or perhaps they could just be paid from public funds whilst they're in service. That is what we do with the TA isn't it?

 

[treelover]

People should note that over 2000 CEO's of charities, NGO's are bidding to get a peace of the draconian Workfare regime, many who hypocritically will be marching tomorrow.

 

[doddles]

No it isnt. An MP having an outside income does not inevitably affect their ability to represent their constituents - indeed, it may actually improve their ability to represent their constituents.

mmm
Lord Paul Myners and the Cayman Islands springs to mind. Lord Mandelson and so-called "blind trusts" too. Oh, and of course then there's what happens *after* ministers leave office, which is far far worse. There should be rules clamping down on this sort of thing too:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950433.ece

 

[lewislewis]

£40-50k. It's a highly demanding & skilled job but pay shouldn't be astronomical because it's also a very rewarding job if they're in it for the right reasons.

Councillors- maybe 12-16k depending on allowances and whether they're a cabinet member or backbencher.

 

[tbaldwin]

£40-50k. It's a highly demanding & skilled job but pay shouldn't be astronomical because it's also a very rewarding job if they're in it for the right reasons.

Councillors- maybe 12-16k depending on allowances and whether they're a cabinet member or backbencher.

Think cllrs should get more like 25 - 30k and Mps a bit more as well. from what ive witnessed they seem to be a hell of a lot more switched on and hard working than a lot of people earning fortunes working in the public,private and voluntary sector.

 

[dennisr]

Ahem.... http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8928762&postcount=15

There's always some lazy git who does not read the thread before posting

 

[dennisr]

People should note that over 2000 CEO's of charities, NGO's are bidding to get a peace of the draconian Workfare regime, many who hypocritically will be marching tomorrow.

You reckon the directors and managers of NGOs do 'marching'

 

[frogwoman]

I voted £100, 000+ to both of those, as a joke.

 

[lewislewis]

Think cllrs should get more like 25 - 30k and Mps a bit more as well. from what ive witnessed they seem to be a hell of a lot more switched on and hard working than a lot of people earning fortunes working in the public,private and voluntary sector.

Not sure I agree with your point on MPs but, it's true that there are many civil servants taking home 60k-120k.

 

[ymu]

Not sure I agree with your point on MPs but, it's true that there are many civil servants taking home 60k-120k.

My proposals for MPs pay would take place in the context of a maximum wage of £50k, so these parasites would take a similar pay cut also.

 

[Azrael]

Zilch. MPs should be financially independent. It's the only way I can see to ensure they're politically independent.

 

[Blagsta]

Financially independent in what way? Inherited money? That will ensure that only a privileged few could be MPs. From business interests? Again, that would ensure only a privileged few could do it and would leave the way open to corruption as they vote in favour of their business interests.

 

[tbaldwin]

Financially independent in what way? Inherited money? That will ensure that only a privileged few could be MPs. From business interests? Again, that would ensure only a privileged few could do it and would leave the way open to corruption as they vote in favour of their business interests.

100% agree with Blagsta.....Possibly a first.

 

[Azrael]

Financially independent in what way?

All the ways you list, and also sponsorship from unions, or members of the public.

Salaries are theoretically better, but in reality concentrate power in the hands of the party leadership, as MPs are dependent on their seat for their livelihood. My solution is far from perfect, but disperses power in a rough and ready way.

An alternative is a salary for life, regardless of re-election, or raising the minimum age to 35 or so, making it more likely that MPs are qualified for a proper job. Given the amount of money that's already wasted I suppose I could support the first option, unpleasant as it is.

 

[_float_]

All the recent nonsense over MPs pay has obviously attracted lots of comment. Much of it extremely hypocritical.
But how much do you think Mps should earn? and should they really be responsible for employing and paying their own parliamentary assistants? And why are councilours not paid a proper wage when so many people working for councils unelected earn so much money?

Median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK in the year to April 2008 was £479 source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

£479/week x 52 weeks = £24,908 per year

Therefore I voted "under £25,000".

My thinking is that if they want to get paid more then they will have to raise the median.

If they help everyone else then they will be better off. If everyone else suffers they they will suffer as well.

It is supposedly the principle bhind 'performance related pay' and 'alignment of interests' (eg when company directors are paid in company shares with a delayed period before they can be cashed in - this means that [in theory] if they screw up the company over the medium-to-long term they will also suffer, and vice-versa.)

Arguably you could also build other targets into their pay-scales as well - for example crime, homelessness, pollution rates etc.

 

[ymu]

Salaries are theoretically better, but in reality concentrate power in the hands of the party leadership, as MPs are dependent on their seat for their livelihood. My solution is far from perfect, but disperses power in a rough and ready way.

They are now, but it seems unlikely that we'd be making massive changes to MPs' salaries in isolation of any other action whatsoever. This issue is one of democracy, as is the abolition of the whip and the introduction of the right for constituents to recall their MP at any time during a parliament.

We don't have to have a sewn-up party system where our so-called representatives do exactly what the leadership tells them to. We don't have to allow private interests to disenfranchise the nominal electorate. And we don't have to put up with MPs who demand vast amounts of money just to do their job when they won't vote the same for nurses or firemen or teachers, but they will seek out corporate sponsors who will be able to keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed after they leave parliament.

We've been really fucking stupid. But we don't have to be.

 

[tbaldwin]

Median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK in the year to April 2008 was £479 source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

£479/week x 52 weeks = £24,908 per year

Therefore I voted "under £25,000".

My thinking is that if they want to get paid more then they will have to raise the median.

If they help everyone else then they will be better off. If everyone else suffers they they will suffer as well.

It is supposedly the principle bhind 'performance related pay' and 'alignment of interests' (eg when company directors are paid in company shares with a delayed period before they can be cashed in - this means that [in theory] if they screw up the company over the medium-to-long term they will also suffer, and vice-versa.)

Arguably you could also build other targets into their pay-scales as well - for example crime, homelessness, pollution rates etc.

MPs are not exactly your average worker though are they. They do a really important job. And i think they deserve more than the average but not loads more. But ithink its utterly ridiculous that so many peopke earn so much from the public purse than nthose supposedly elected to control it.

 

[_float_]

...And why are councilours not paid a proper wage when so many people working for councils unelected earn so much money?

How many hours a week do councillors actually work? Do they still have any/many decision-making powers? Is being a councillor as hard a job as being a council rubbish-collector? Maybe excessive council wages (eg +100k chief executives etc) should be levelled downwards, rather other jobs being levelled upwards?

There is also a wider point: if a business generates profits then these profits can go on the (high/excessive) wages for those staff that help generate these (high/excessive) profits. Do local or even national governments actually directly or indirectly generate any "profits" at all?

 

[_float_]

It would be a stupid false economy to not attract the better brains.

Arguably the "best brains" end up in academia due to their love of the subject not their love of money.

You wouldn't necessarily attract the "best brains" - you'd attract more people who liked the money (as well as the 'power' and 'status').

How many of the best politicians throughout history have been doing it because of the money?

Surely we want people who actually believe in what they are doing regardless of the pay? Let them live on an average wage. If someone wants to become a millionaire then they will have to do that either before or after their political career.

 

[_float_]

MPs are not exactly your average worker though are they. They do a really important job. And i think they deserve more than the average but not loads more. But ithink its utterly ridiculous that so many peopke earn so much from the public purse than nthose supposedly elected to control it.

Being a political representative is not just a 'job' - the voters are not 'employing' a contractor, they are selecting a representative - someone who has made a promise to represent their wishes and defend their interests.

When someone makes a set of promises in a manifesto they are not conditional on being paid enough - you don't get a 'vote for me' leaflet with a price tag at the botom, like you would for any other kind of 'job'.

This means that there is a different logic at work:

For all other "jobs" you have to pay enough to secure the employees you need/want, and then the relationship is a commercial contract of money in exchange for 'services rendered'.

This is different for political representatives. You would still get people volunteering to do the job even if you paid them nothing at all. They are not 'employees'. They (MPs at any rate) are ultimately responsible (more or less) for the collective fortunes of everyone else, so should share in these fortunes - hence the link to the 'average' (as you put it).

BTW I actually quoted the median (the point at which 50% of the population is below) which is different from the average: To quote the IFS: "In 2006–07, almost two-thirds of the UK population had incomes below the national average equivalised income of £463 per week. The income distribution was skewed by a relatively small number of people on relatively high incomes." source: Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2008 (Institute for Fiscal Studies)

...following on from the IFS study, I would argue that an MP's allowance (aka salary) should be calculated on how many children they have and similar factors, in the same way as the government (ie MPs) treat people on benefits.