The Daily Telegraph understands that members of the House of Commons Commission, who have been considering the matter on behalf of MPs, will submit a suggested pay rise soon to Sir John of between £10,000 and £15,000.
…
A Commons source said: "All the experts the committee consulted agreed that MPs were underpaid by between £10,000 and £15,000, so that is the amount they will submit.
"They have come to accept that the public and media will never reconcile themselves to pay rises for MPs, so they have decided that they will just have to take the hit, soak up the criticism, and move on with a more sustainable pay scale in future that better reflects the professional status of being a Member of Parliament."
They\’ve swallowed the Kool-Aid there I think.
Lots of lovely comparisons about equal worth, the time the job entails, the qualifications desirable, the status even that is granted by a certain income. All done by a committee employing no doubt the latest spread sheet macros.
The thing is, we already have a system which calculates all of these things for us. Without being so subjective about it as well. Called a market, that interplay of supply and demand. As with the way that the pay for most other jobs in the economy are worked out. How much do we have to pay to get the properly qualified people we need?
Given that at each General Election there are some thousands of people, all of whom are by definition in a democracy qualified to do the job, chasing some 600 ish seats, the market is telling us that wages for MPs should fall, not rise.
Oh, one further point. This will almost undoubtedly be finessed by the claim that it\’s not so much a pay raise, rather a move of what wa previously one or other of the allowances to the pay packet. Hmm, but don\’t forget that that will mean that the higher sum will now count towards the pension, that scheme which is already the best in the country.
“”They have come to accept that the public and media will never reconcile themselves to pay rises for MPs, so they have decided that they will just have to take the hit, soak up the criticism, and move on with a more sustainable pay scale in future that better reflects the professional status of being a Member of Parliament.””
Or in other words, a giant ‘F**k you!!’ to the voters…
Just because they are equally qualified doesn’t necessarily mean they would be equally good – and c’mon, Tim, for most jobs there are about as many applicants as for most constituencies. Does that mean every salary should be cut until there is only one applicant per post?
There are several MPs who are just plain batshit crazy. Perhaps offering a higher salary would lead to a higher quality of candidates?
Do you not think that the market would factor in the risk of not being elected and would represent that in a premium on pay?
If we used your model of basic supply and demand, then the point at which equilibrium is reached, supply of candidates would equal demand. There would be one candidate for every seat in parliament, and they might take this job for free (or even negative money). Utterly ridiculous.
Tim adds: Well, there was a time when MPs were not paid….only Ministers were. It’s a tough argument to make that the average quality has gone up since then.