And fails to even note the correct starting point, let alone a decent end result.
Talking about MPs\’ pay she ponders on their worth. The amount of work they do and the value of it, attempting, somehow, top come to some number that balances the various values she has in play.
Entirely missing the point that we have a method of determining what someone should be paid without having to go through such complex and subjective arguments.
It\’s called a market. There are some 3 or 4 thousand people who actually stand to be an MP each general election. There\’s at least a similar number who vie within the parties for nomination to a seat that could possibly be won.
There are, what 655 seats?
As to qualifications: we cannot actually set any qualification bar in a democracy, can we? We cannot even say that we want to attract intelligent people, people in high paid jobs, in fact we cannot even whisper that we would like more or less of any type, profession, gender or skin colour. For the entire point is that the general citizenry get to decide, not any who would manipulate the intake.
So, we have over application for the job: thus the first answer to our question of how much MPs should be paid is \”less\”.
In fact, back when MPs were not paid at all we still had a surplus of applications. Thus MPs should probably be paid nothing.
But the politicians most certainly do go around saying we want more of this gender, more of that skin colour. Don’t they?
I suspect PT thinks there should be more PTs in parliament but without having to go to all that dirty trouble of joining a party and campaigning. MPs are mere tradesmen after all.
I blame the labour lot, as it was them what forced the institution of MP’s salaries in 1911 at the grossly inflated wage of £400 (versus a median wage of about £106).
The rationale for this was that by not paying a salary they were effectively excluding potential Labour candidates from poor and working class backgrounds (fuck the middle class obviously).
So there you have it and so it remains.
Without salaries we got statesman such as William Pitt (two of them), Disraeli, etc.
With salaries we got such astounding characters as Neil Hamilton, ‘Gorgeous’ George Galloway, Tony Blair and miscellaneous other reprobates.
A return to no salaries and infrequent sittings of both Houses of Parliament might be a refreshing relief for all of us…and fuck Labour right in the arse.
In fact, back when MPs were not paid at all we still had a surplus of applications. Thus MPs should probably be paid nothing.
So they would just do it for the perks? The problem with that is we might want them to avoid some perk. Do we want people who are in it just for the money? Sometimes greed is the more honest answer. For the chicks? Actually that might be all right. For what we might call other Berlusconi-ish reasons? Hmmm. How about because they want to be corrupt?
I think the best first step would be to ban them from sitting more than a third of the year. Two months, tops, would be nice.
The esteemed Wandsworth One’s tweet on this last night was a classic of its kind:
“Richard Murphy ? @RichardJMurphy
What should we pay MPs? | @PollyToynbee | Guardian http://ht.ly/aGBpQ The only rational answer is more – with bigger research budgets too
Expand
Reply
Retweet
Favorite”
Now this would be the same R. Murphy Esq. who makes money from researching stuff for MPs and unions, yes?
Tim adds: And of course this is the man who denies that public choice theory can possibly exist….
“Now this would be the same R. Murphy Esq. who makes money from researching stuff for MPs and unions, yes?”
Adding daily to the store of human ignorance & stupidity.
Tim
The problem is more complex. While there is an excess of applicants for each position, there is also a dearth of ability (I think) at the higher levels.
The existing salary is high enough to encourage dorks, but given the odds of achieving high office not high enough to persuade more able people to throw their hats in the ring.
My strategy would be to
1) Raise average salaries
2) Dramatically lower salaries for the least capable (the lobby fodder)
So I’d pay the PM, LOTO, 300,000
I’d pay committee chairs and senior ministers 250K
I’d lower the wage for the 200 lobby fodder to 25K or less. I’d also ban second incomes.
I’d make committee positions open to vote, but only to non-members of official government and shadow government positions.
Becoming a successful backbencher unbeholden to party should be a worthwhile position. Being George Galloway should be worthless.
We want to decrease the attractiveness of being mindless lobby fodder, and increase the attractiveness of backbench scrutiny. We want to attract better people in. It would encourage up or out – so only the able would apply.
Tim adds: Essentially you’ve just described the pre 1911 set up.
Mps were not paid. Ministers were and very well.
Don’t pay them, but compensate them for lost salary while being an MP.
So they get paid what they earned before they were elected.
We let the mob elect them: we should let the mob determine their pay. Set up an referendum every five years. One option should be that the buggers should pay us if they are to be MPs: like the old joke about strip clubs.
Ken – “The existing salary is high enough to encourage dorks, but given the odds of achieving high office not high enough to persuade more able people to throw their hats in the ring.”
I don’t think the money is the problem. I know people who would be excellent politicians. It is just that they know they would not withstand the media scrutiny of their records. Who wants every dorky letter they have ever written to a former girlfriend on the front page? I have even felt mildly sorry for Obama this week. Most people with any talent or energy have some hidden issue in their past. The tabloids will be all over you. So we get the colourless non-entities by and large.
“I’d also ban second incomes.”
Then we would get even more professional politicians and even fewer real representatives. How about matching incomes? So they will be paid what they can persuade someone else to pay them?
“Becoming a successful backbencher unbeholden to party should be a worthwhile position.”
Ban party funding. Insist that every politician has to raise his own funding. No one is allowed to give money to any political party for any political purpose. Then MPs would not be so reliant on their parties. But it is a good idea to make committee positions available to the vote of the whole Parliament.
SMFS, it probably isnt just money but at the margin money is an issue. External previous wage? Would encourage the wealthy, but not the poor but able.
I agree banning second incoms would be an issue from the viewpoint of insularity, but it would also mean that MPs might do what we pay them to do – work hard at legislation/governing, so that they were trying to claw their way up either the government/opposition ladder or up the backbench select committee system.
Banning party funding would mean individual MPs would have little reason to toe the party line, it might be a recipe for really poor legislation. (Although making the legislative diarrhea dry up wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing). Politically difficult, but correct decisions might become more difficult.
OK how about – you get your pre-election salary for 2 years then move down to £25,000 over 5 years ( slowly) and much more for the top bods?
Ken – “External previous wage? Would encourage the wealthy, but not the poor but able.”
External present wages? As someone who thinks British democracy, indeed most non-dental aspects of British life, have been on the decline since the 18th century I am not sure that I think encouraging the wealthy is a bad thing. The disaster for Britain was when we moved from buying votes retail (ie as individuals) and moved to buying them wholesale (as classes and these days ethnic voting blocks).
“I agree banning second incoms would be an issue from the viewpoint of insularity, but it would also mean that MPs might do what we pay them to do – work hard at legislation/governing, so that they were trying to claw their way up either the government/opposition ladder or up the backbench select committee system.”
I am not sure I want them to work hard at legislation. We have too much of it as it is. Nor is encouraging people to climb the career ladder necessarily a good thing. I like a backbencher who votes as if they will never rise any further. It makes politics too bitter and hard fought. More time on their constituency work and less time making silly new laws to harass us would be ideal.
“Banning party funding would mean individual MPs would have little reason to toe the party line, it might be a recipe for really poor legislation.”
How so? Every piece of legislation would have to be voted on its own merits. It would be examined by people who had the courage to vote for what is right, not what the party whip tells them to do. I think it could only improve things. Besides, so much of our present legislation is poorly thought out, poorly written, and logically incoherent, how much worse could it be?
dearieme said: “We let the mob elect them: we should let the mob determine their pay. Set up an referendum every five years. One option should be that the buggers should pay us if they are to be MPs: like the old joke about strip clubs.”
Easier still just to insist candidates tell us what they will cost taxpayers at election time. Simple enough as part of your electioneering you give a figure for what your office will cost a year.(and imo have that money from from the local council budget rather than Westminster) If you want more money have a by-election and say why. Coupled with rigid financial transparency and a decent recall mechanism let each constituency take on the job of keeping their MP in line and cost effective.
Any debate about MPs pay is irrelevant and trivial.
If you can claim £200,000 tax free and eat and drink in subsidised restaurants and bars, what has your salary got to do with anything?
Not to mention the pension scheme, at which even a policeman might glance with wonder.
Good. They are supposed to represent their constituents, not their party.
(They would still toe the party line for promises they will become Ministers, though.)
If the aim is to get MPs to put more thought and effort into their job, then I would have thought that a system of high pay for most MPs (perhaps tied somehow to the proportion of the constituency vote they received) and low ministerial pay with a ban on secondary incomes for ministers would be effective. (There would obviously have to be a mechanism in place to prevent them getting delayed bribes after leaving office; maybe a cap on their annual income?) It would be inefficient to bribe large numbers of MPs, while low ministerial pay with minimal possibility for bribes would ensure that the people going for those jobs would be the people who really wanted them specifically for the jobs.
I favour the Locrian Code under Zaleucus.
Disagree on the last point. If the goal is that anyone can become an MP then eliminating a salary will disqualify the poorest candidates. A salary that guarantees basic food and living expenses should do it.
I think Richard#7 has got the right idea.
I propose a more elaborate scheme:
– establish a pay scale for MP linked to the civil service scale, starting at about two thirds of the current salary, but with an increase for each year of service. They would also be able to count each year spent working in politics as six months service.
– calculate also their maximum declared annual income in the three years before their election. Only income not linked to politics to count. Subtract from that half of any income in the current year from outside interests. Impose a cap of about three times the current MP salary.
– Pay each MP the higher of the two numbers
I would allow every MP a state-funded research assistant too, but they’d have to choose them from a pool of suitably qualified civil servants.
“Suitably qualified civil servants”
Say what ?
Yes, well. Better qualified that the MPs’ children.
MPs should be paid by their results, based on how much money they can save the country. Same as (some) civil servants. This would be easier if the country has a surplus.
Helpful information. Fortunate me I discovered your website accidentally, and I’m stunned why this twist of fate didn’t came about in advance! I bookmarked it.