How much do you think MPs and councillours should earn?

[tbaldwin]

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?

I guess for me its the Old Queens Park question. The spiders used to be not only Scotlands top team but also won the English Fa cup. Then proffesionalism started Queens park stayed amateur. The twin forces of evil in Scotland Celtic and Rangers quickly overtook them and they are simply unable to compete at thye highest level anymore.

Expecting Cllrs to survive on expenses is ridiculous. They are responsible for Billions of pounds of public money. It needs to be a proper FULL TIME job with contracted hours. A lot of Cllrs are well meaning but have the wool pulled over the eyes again and again by well paid council officials who are corrupt.

Yes and private businesses can generate profits but very few private businesses have anything like the turnover of their local councils. Local and National govt are not only large employers they also have massive purchasing power.

 

[London_Calling]

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.

'best brains' is intended to imply 'proven by achievement'. The idea is that they aren't put off becoming MP's because the drop in pay would mean they'd have to entirely change the lifestyle and circumstances of their families in order to do the job.

People who have proven themselves by achievement tend to be earning considerably more than a basic of £63,000. After all, these people are often breaking off from mid-career to do a job they may get sacked from in 4-5 years.

They do have families, they do have financial obligations, and even at £63,000 they're earning less than, say, a 30-year old decent IT programmer in the City, or a junior lawyer 4 years out of Uni.

I don’t know how many of those people voting for the most popular choice of ‘less than £25,000’ live in London but the idea MP’s should earn less than the local minicab driver of MacDonalds manager is amusing if a little unrealistic.

And, fwiw, I’d do my very, very best if Capello chose me to play for England – I’d give it everything I had because I wanted to do the best for everyone, I really, really would – but I’d be crap.

 

[_float_]

Well, of you want to talk in terms of the private sector, what is the "market rate" for MPs?

Maybe the local voters could decide what they are "willing to pay" or how much they value their MP?

If someone prioritises their "lifestyle" over their political beliefs, or believes that they should be compensated way beyond the national average then I don't want them as my political representative.

I don't think there is a direct comparison to be made between normal employment and being a political representative in any case.

I might be sympathetic to someone having their mortgage covered while they took time out from a career, so that they didn't lose their home, but otherwise they should be prepared to either live off their own money or live like the average UK family - not vastly better off.

I'd maybe adjust the figure to be in line with the workload, responsibilities (although in truth some MPs get away with doing do fuck all), age and skill levels - ie reflecting the national average for a similar type of job/workload, & age etc. Maybe adjust it for the number of dependant they had. Definitely cover *standardised* and *itemised* costs (essential staff, accomodation, offices and travel) - but the idea that people should be motivated to stand as MPs via monetary incentives is definitely of my radar.

 

[bluestreak]

I'd also like MPs to have more performance monitoring done on them, with NIs and PIs and audit checks at regular intervals to ensure that they are doing the job that they are paid to do.

 

[Blagsta]

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.

You really are on the side of the privilged few aren't you.

 

[agricola]

You really are on the side of the privilged few aren't you.

He is on the same side as Keir Hardie was.

For all the talk of "If you didnt pay MPs anything poor people couldnt go", it does tend to miss the point that poor people are not going to Parliament in anything like proportionate numbers even with the riches on display currently.

 

[doddles]

He is on the same side as Keir Hardie was.

For all the talk of "If you didnt pay MPs anything poor people couldnt go", it does tend to miss the point that poor people are not going to Parliament in anything like proportionate numbers even with the riches on display currently.

So let's make the system even worse by making sure that *no* people lacking in money and/or lacking in time enter parliament?! While we're at it, maybe we should just scrap every system that isn't perfect. Democracy would be a starter I guess...

 

[_angel_]

So let's make the system even worse by making sure that *no* people lacking in money and/or lacking in time enter parliament?! While we're at it, maybe we should just scrap every system that isn't perfect. Democracy would be a starter I guess...

Yes - I don't quite get that logic. Do we want to be a country where you *have* to be really rich to stand for office?

 

[agricola]

So let's make the system even worse by making sure that *no* people lacking in money and/or lacking in time enter parliament?! While we're at it, maybe we should just scrap every system that isn't perfect. Democracy would be a starter I guess...

Are you being deliberately obtuse? No pay for MPs did not stop the LRC returning 29 (out of 50 contested) MPs in 1906. Relatively poorer pay for MPs did not stop the Labour Party returning 393 MPs in 1945. It is factually wrong to suggest that, as ymu did (and as you appear to), that the pre-1911 Parliament was entirely composed of toffs.

Both those Labour Parties were far, far more left-wing, and contained far more working-class members of parliament than the current one is/does, despite there being vastly more pay, more expenses, better conditions and more allowances now than existed in either 1906 or 1945. How is it that they managed to do that?

 

[ethel]

So they should go an be lawyers then.

Being an MP shouldn't be about the money. At the moment it is too much about that.

which means that if you limit the wages too much, it becomes a hobby for rich people who can afford to live on the wages. surely a politician should earn professional type wages?

 

[ethel]

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.

senior tax inspectors are not parasites!

 

[ymu]

senior tax inspectors are not parasites!

If they're earning more than twice the median, in my opinion they are. It's not their fault - it's not a moral judgement - but they are, de facto, parasites. IMO, obv.

 

[_float_]

which means that if you limit the wages too much, it becomes a hobby for rich people who can afford to live on the wages. surely a politician should earn professional type wages?

The vast majority of the population don't have 'professional type wages' yet they 'afford to live'.

MPs have decided that people can 'live' on £60 per week, plus housing benefit and child benefits etc.

Exactly what level of luxury does someone have to reach before they can be said to 'afford to live' in your opinion?

 

[ethel]

The vast majority of the population don't have 'professional type wages' yet they 'afford to live'.

MPs have decided that people can 'live' on £60 per week, plus housing benefit and child benefits etc.

Exactly what level of luxury does someone have to reach before they can be said to 'afford to live' in your opinion?

right then. not afford to live, but shouldn't a politician be something of a viable career for someone to choose?

i think that it is a profession of sorts, if done properly. of course, a professional type wage means that MPs should have to commit to turning up, voting, holding surgeries etc. i think there are plenty of MPs at the minute who more than earn their salary but there are equally many who do not.

i wonder if any studies have been done on this.

 

[ethel]

If they're earning more than twice the median, in my opinion they are. It's not their fault - it's not a moral judgement - but they are, de facto, parasites. IMO, obv.

even if they bring in 20 times their wages in tax? i'd be interested to see how you'd propose getting tax out of people without inspectors.

 

[_angel_]

right then. not afford to live, but shouldn't a politician be something of a viable career for someone to choose?

i think that it is a profession of sorts, if done properly. of course, a professional type wage means that MPs should have to commit to turning up, voting, holding surgeries etc. i think there are plenty of MPs at the minute who more than earn their salary but there are equally many who do not.

i wonder if any studies have been done on this.

The thing is, they get paid loads and don't have to turn up to vote, and as far as I know, there's no way of assessing how well they respond to their constituents, nor any sanction for them if they don't.

Tbh it's the expenses and additional earnings, I think that annoy most people, rather than their basic salary, although I see no reason why it should be higher than the average salary.

 

[ethel]

The thing is, they get paid loads and don't have to turn up to vote, and as far as I know, there's no way of assessing how well they respond to their constituents, nor any sanction for them if they don't.

Tbh it's the expenses and additional earnings, I think that annot most people, rather than their basic salary, although I see no reason why it should be higher than the average salary.

i've answered that above. surely there should be some sort of contract drawn up, and a by election if they don't adhere to it.

i velieve that the expenses are being looked at now. thank god.

 

[Fedayn]

The thing is, they get paid loads and don't have to turn up to vote, and as far as I know, there's no way of assessing how well they respond to their constituents, nor any sanction for them if they don't.

However, being seen in parliament is absolutely no measure of how hard they're fighting for their voters neither. The vast majority of an MP's work is outside the chamber. I'd even argue it was one of the least productive parts of an MP's work.

 

[ymu]

right then. not afford to live, but shouldn't a politician be something of a viable career for someone to choose?

i think that it is a profession of sorts, if done properly. of course, a professional type wage means that MPs should have to commit to turning up, voting, holding surgeries etc. i think there are plenty of MPs at the minute who more than earn their salary but there are equally many who do not.

i wonder if any studies have been done on this.

Should nursing be a viable career for someone to choose? Fireman? Teacher? Tell you what, MPs can get the same pay they do. So if they want to get paid more they'll have to find the money to pay them more too. That'd be fine with me.

even if they bring in 20 times their wages in tax? i'd be interested to see how you'd propose getting tax out of people without inspectors.

So the guy who does the actual inspecting is solely responsible for the tax take? It's got nothing to do with the support staff or the cleaners and everyone else who keeps the organisation going? They and they alone should receive additional financial reward because there is a definable financial bottom line for their productivity and screw everyone else?

If taxes are lowered, should the inspectors be paid less for collecting it?

 

[Fedayn]

right then. not afford to live, but shouldn't a politician be something of a viable career for someone to choose?

I don't think representing working people should be a career. It's a privilege not a career. Once it's seen as a career that's when 'the rot' sets in.

 

[ethel]

Should nursing be a viable career for someone to choose? Fireman? Teacher? Tell you what, MPs can get the same pay they do. So if they want to get paid more they'll have to find the money to pay them more too. That'd be fine with me.


So the guy who does the actual inspecting is solely responsible for the tax take? It's got nothing to do with the support staff or the cleaners and everyone else who keeps the organisation going? They and they alone should receive additional financial reward because there is a definable financial bottom line for their productivity and screw everyone else?

If taxes are lowered, should the inspectors be paid less for collecting it?

teachers have good wages! headteachers can get up to £100k now. senior nureses can also get paid in excess of £50k. are they parasites too?

i think you don't understand what an inspector does. they have to go through the records and find where the tax has been hidden. it's a highly technical job and requires years of training.

where did i say screw everyone esle? all civil servants and all workers have to be paid a decent living wage, but there also needs to be recognition of skill, and profession .

i know what, pay them less, watch them all go to the big 4 and watch the tax take plummet.

 

[Azrael]

You really are on the side of the privilged few aren't you.

Guess a salary for life would elevate poor people into the privileged few. Ditto the current arrangements.

How much would you pay MPs, and how would you ensure they're politically independent?

He is on the same side as Keir Hardie was.

For all the talk of "If you didnt pay MPs anything poor people couldnt go", it does tend to miss the point that poor people are not going to Parliament in anything like proportionate numbers even with the riches on display currently.

Very true, and also, once X MP of humble means arrives, he or she is beholden to the leadership for a livelihood, especially if they go in at a young age. End result in many cases is that votes are coerced, and are in fact the votes of the wealthy elite. This goes for MPs of all backgrounds. How does it help the poor to have "one of their own" in Parliament if that MP doesn't vote in their interests?

 

[8ball]

teachers have good wages!

Teachers seem to think they're massively underpaid.

Every one I've met seems to think they'd be on Fred Goodwin's wages if they were only in the private sector.

This includes the ones that I used to work with before they left the private sector for teaching and got better pay.

It's confusing.

 

[ymu]

teachers have good wages! headteachers can get up to £100k now. senior nureses can also get paid in excess of £50k. are they parasites too?

So you'd like to peg MPs wages to their experience and responsibilities? They can start on £15k, get a bit of a bonus if they make it to chair of a select committee, bit more for a ministerial post, bit more for the cabinet, top whack as PM?

Yeah, that could work. If they stay in the job as long as a typical teacher, nurse or fireman, they could be doing quite well for themselves.

i think you don't understand what an inspector does. they have to go through the records and find where the tax has been hidden. it's a highly technical job and requires years of training.

And exactly how is it unique in this respect? Nurses undergo years of training and CPD. So do teachers. In academia, you rarely see a professorial post advertised for much more than £50k. How do the years of training factor in there?

where did i say screw everyone esle? all civil servants and all workers have to be paid a decent living wage, but there also needs to be recognition of skill, and profession.

You effectively said it by saying that the people who actually bring in the money should be paid more because of it. Given fixed budgets within the organisation, this does actually mean screwing everyone else.

It's not about whether or not certain roles should receive greater financial reward, it's about how much greater that financial reward should be. In the UK, 90% earn less than £40k. In that context, you better have a fucking fantastic justification for thinking yourself worth £100k+.

i know what, pay them less, watch them all go to the big 4 and watch the tax take plummet.

Because noone does a good job on a low salary in the public sector, obv.

Do we really want tax inspectors who are motivated by extreme personal greed? Maybe the current levels of remuneration explain the utterly pathetic record on corporate tax fraud...

 

[doddles]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? No pay for MPs did not stop the LRC returning 29 (out of 50 contested) MPs in 1906. Relatively poorer pay for MPs did not stop the Labour Party returning 393 MPs in 1945. It is factually wrong to suggest that, as ymu did (and as you appear to), that the pre-1911 Parliament was entirely composed of toffs.

I haven't said a thing about the pre-1911 Parliament, nor have I made any comments about early 20th century Parliaments - please get your facts/quotes right.

Both those Labour Parties were far, far more left-wing, and contained far more working-class members of parliament than the current one is/does, despite there being vastly more pay, more expenses, better conditions and more allowances now than existed in either 1906 or 1945. How is it that they managed to do that?

The situation 60 years ago is largely irrelevant, which I why I've said nothing about it. In this day and age, with today's rates of pay and workload, it seems amazing to me that anyone would be suggesting that politicians shouldn't get paid. How could anyone, except the exceedingly rich, afford to be an MP under those circumstances?

 

[agricola]

I haven't said a thing about the pre-1911 Parliament, nor have I made any comments about early 20th century Parliaments - please get your facts/quotes right.

Forgive me, I thought that using an example which directly disproves your contention and which has already been mentioned on this thread might be a good tactic to use. After all, we did once have a situation whereby MPs were not paid and surely that must be relevant? Or do I seek to throw out democracy as a whole?

The situation 60 years ago is largely irrelevant, which I why I've said nothing about it. In this day and age, with today's rates of pay and workload, it seems amazing to me that anyone would be suggesting that politicians shouldn't get paid. How could anyone, except the exceedingly rich, afford to be an MP under those circumstances?

How is it largely irrelevant?

Sixty years ago MPs had to deal with an utterly devastated country, a far larger number of constituents who were poor (in a way that few people are now), had to deal with much longer times to get from A to B, had none of the labour-saving devices that modern MPs enjoy, had far poorer working areas within Parliament, had a much more politically aware (and politically invested - look at the numbers of party members then compared to now) electorate to deal with, and had - in the case of the 1945 Labour Government - one of the most wideranging Government programmes of all time to implement.

They were able to do their job then on far less than modern MPs do a far lesser job now (on far more, of course). They also did that job (arguably) far better than modern MPs do now. That is very relevant to the discussion - indeed one might almost say it is the point.

 

[Azrael]

The erosion of MPs' independence is said to have come with the emergence of mass parties after the 1867 Reform Act, but I wonder if the 1911 law had more effect. Definitely something for a historian to investigate further.

 

[ethel]

And exactly how is it unique in this respect? Nurses undergo years of training and CPD. So do teachers. In academia, you rarely see a professorial post advertised for much more than £50k. How do the years of training factor in there?

You effectively said it by saying that the people who actually bring in the money should be paid more because of it. Given fixed budgets within the organisation, this does actually mean screwing everyone else.

Because noone does a good job on a low salary in the public sector, obv.

Do we really want tax inspectors who are motivated by extreme personal greed? Maybe the current levels of remuneration explain the utterly pathetic record on corporate tax fraud...

i didn't saw that inspectors were unique, did i, i said that it was a highly skilled job. teachers and nurses can and do earn in excess of 50k. also, market forces are also a factor.

right, HMRC were looking for about 300 inspector trainees last year. they got about 150 applicants who made the grade. how do you expect them to recruit anything like the right number of people if they can't pay a salary with although not comparative to the private sector, at least acknowledges that the inspectors are highly sought after?

tax inspectors earn about half what they could earn in the private sector. i think you need to look elsewhere for the reasons for the low tax take. ie. government policy, budget cutbacks and a 25% forced cut in staff.

 

[ymu]

i didn't saw that inspectors were unique, did i, i said that it was a highly skilled job. teachers and nurses can and do earn in excess of 50k. also, market forces are also a factor.

right, HMRC were looking for about 300 inspector trainees last year. they got about 150 applicants who made the grade. how do you expect them to recruit anything like the right number of people if they can't pay a salary with although not comparative to the private sector, at least acknowledges that the inspectors are highly sought after?

tax inspectors earn about half what they could earn in the private sector. i think you need to look elsewhere for the reasons for the low tax take. ie. government policy, budget cutbacks and a 25% forced cut in staff.

I know it's difficult to recruit/retain people in the public sector - there's a massive shortage of people in my role also. Of course, I'm only in medical research (no identifiable financial bottom line) so they don't raise the salaries they just allow Big Pharma to get away with the lies that they don't have the manpower to detect. Capitalism, pfft.

As I tried to explain to someone else earlier in this thread, if we're talking about radically reducing MPs salaries (which I am), we're not realistically talking about doing this in isolation of other measures. I'd slap a 95% tax on all income over £50k, precisely to prevent this sort of runaway greed that has such a devastating effect on us all.

 

[doddles]

Forgive me, I thought that using an example which directly disproves your contention and which has already been mentioned on this thread might be a good tactic to use. After all, we did once have a situation whereby MPs were not paid and surely that must be relevant? Or do I seek to throw out democracy as a whole?

You said:

It is factually wrong to suggest that, as you did (and as you appear to), that the pre-1911 Parliament was entirely composed of toffs.

Thats a total lie. I said no such thing. You can spin spin spin just like the worst of our politicians (of all persuasions). But by totally - TOTALLY - misquoting me, you lose all credibility. I say again: get your facts right. I'm sick and tired of reading rants from people who think that they have the answers but can't even get the facts about a post that they're responding to correct.