Dear MPs. This is a hairy, freckled, arse. Kiss it

My apologies for coming over all Chaucerian this morning but our elected Masters are rather pissing in the societal cornflakes again:

Seven in 10 MPs said they were underpaid on £65,738 a year, according to a survey by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). On average, MPs said they deserved salaries of £86,250 — a 32 per cent rise.

Ipsa, which said it was “time to move on” from the expenses scandal, said one in five MPs thought they deserved at least £95,000 a year. More than a third thought they should keep generous final salary pensions.

Pay is an incentive to persuade people to do things. We do not, for example, pay model railway builders to build model railways. For we don\’t need to do so, model railways get built without our paying people to build them. Thus no incentive in the form of pay need be offered to provide society with model railways.

At every General Election there is a superfluity of rancid cunts who would steal our money and our freedoms standing for election. Thus there is no need to provide further incentives in the form of higher pay to those who manage to get themselves elected.


At which point I am able to offer my hairy, freckled and very British arse for you to kiss the ringpiece of, you Honorable and Right Honourable Members of Parliament you.

Mr. Oaten you are excused as you might enjoy it and Ms. _, you are too for I might.



25 thoughts on “Dear MPs. This is a hairy, freckled, arse. Kiss it”

  1. Ahh, the redolence of tha fine British word “arse”. So much hairier than that cheap foreign one : ass !

    Alan Douglas

  2. And no chance of being confused with a donkey, either. Plus you can extend for effect – “arrrrrrrrrrse”.

    and Ms. _, you are too for I might.

    Come on Tim, don’t be coy…

  3. There’s a line in Yes Minister somewhere where im Hacker says MPs would still stand if they had to pay to do the job.

    I wonder how they’d react if given a straight up swap – increase the salary, but no expenses, no allowance for the constituency office, nothing except possibly some sort of per mile (not miles travelled, just a fixed annual figure) flat rate allowance based on distance from London to make it fair for regional reps. And a reasonably generous contribution based accumulation pension fund rather than defined benefit.

    I suspect they would shut up in about 10 seconds flat.

  4. I suspect the mystery lady is probably one from three:

    a) Esther McVey
    b) Gloria Del Piero
    c) Luciana Berger

    Or knowing our genial host, perhaps all three.. 😉

  5. We pay peanuts, we get monkeys. No surprise there. MPs are grossly underpaid, unless they go on the fiddle or achieve high office.

  6. MPs are grossly underpaid

    By what criteria? US Congressmen are paid $174,000 – a mere 60% more than MPs – while representing nearly 6 times as many people in a country with much higher wages for senior managers.

    As Tim pointed out – we have endless people wanting to do the job, therefore we can hardly say that poor pay is restricting supply. Some of these people are eminent barristers and other professionals so are clearly willing to take a pay cut for the honour of representing us (or the other perks, benefits and discounted future income.)

  7. Matthew L

    “How about Louise Mensch?”

    I would hope Timmy has far better taste than that!.. besides which, she’s no longer an MP of course..

  8. Aristotle had it right, in the Politics he argues that the appropriate people to rule a society are the wealthy. His reasons are (a) they are also likely to be the educated and (b) they are likely to have the time.

    Having a system where MPs are unpaid would probably result in us being ruled exclusively by the wealthy.

    Of course Aristotle wasn’t aware of economic rationalism and the notion that pretty much everyone pursues self interest. Letting the wealth rule would probablyu result in the whole system being used to make them even more wealthy.

    I think Douglas Adams had it right in Hitchikers Guide when he said anyone who is capable of getting themselves elected as president should on no account be permitted to do the job.

  9. Bracing for the rocks to come flying in here… but is it just possible that we ought to pay them more and stop all expenses?

    These people are not employees but office-holders and, effectively, one-person companies who, often, but not always, need two bases and support staff etc, etc, etc. Give ’em £200k to cover everything, including private pension provision, and tell them to get on with it. That might actually be cheaper than the £65k plus insane pension, plus money for this, that and the next thing, plus subsidised drinks and food blah de blah.

    Politically impossible I know, but would it better than this constant hue and cry about what crooks they are? Some are, most aren’t.

    Tim is right that plenty are no-hopers stand and therefore there is no need, on a supply and demand basis, to put up the rewards. But that argument rather falls down because most of them ARE no-hopers: the party system and the wisdom, such as it is, of them electorate, filter them out.

  10. Let us not forget that running a property development business, which seems to be the main occupation of our part-time MPs, has made many of the bastards millionaires.

    So, yes, even I, greedy piggy that I am, would be satisfied with £65k taxed, £200k untaxed expenses, an indexed linked pension of£45k and a multi-million pund property portfolio.

    Not bad for doing fuck all.

  11. By the same argument, we should abolish copyright restrictions on printed works, because there are plenty of people willing to write them for free. And the same for broadcast rights of sporting events.

    Some MPs are grossly overpaid at the current rate. More are badly underpaid. We should have a variable pay scale, tied to civil service rates, with grade based on experience as an MP and previously demonstrated earning power outside politics.

  12. @ John Price, get on with it? Getting with what exactly? Screwing up the country? And we have to pay them as well?

    I think a better solution would be for the electorate to decide: mister A wants to be MP, he offers his candidacy and propose a salary. We might end up with people actually paying for it which would be grand.

    Part of the solution would also be for the government power to be a nuisance to be greatly reduced.

  13. @ PaulB, I do not quite follow your argument?

    In those cases, there is something of value.

    Being an MP is not a job, or at least it should not be. They are supposed to represent their constituents, if the latter think it is worth anything then they would be free to pay for it. The biggest problem I can see are professional politicians who therefore think that their “job” is to do something when most of the time, it is the least thing they need to do.

  14. Variation on a previous suggestion of mein host:

    On the ballot paper, candidate’s name and, beside it, what they are willing to work for. Could be a straightforward number, could be something like “three times median wage”, or “X + pension + food + travel + family member employed”.

  15. Almost agree with PaulB (#15), but not experience as an MP as many of them seem to get worse.

    I’d say compensate them for lost earnings, so pay based on salary before becoming MP. That way no-one gains or loses financially by becoming an MP.

  16. I’d suggest going back to the Chartists here – one of their key demands was that MPs were paid well to let anyone become one. The danger of not paying your MPs more than professions is that you only get the rich and idle or the career politician (or perhaps the genuine working class guy – but that requires a suitable education system…). If it takes a hit on your pocket, why would most professionals feel able to try to be an MP (an expensive business anyway) – whereas it is simply a career stage for the career politicos of the Cameron and Milliband variety (the ones who value being a minister more than representing their constiuents or principles).

  17. Many years ago I recall people saying nurses weren’t paid much because it was a vocation or calling, not because of supply and demand. What a pity the same cannot be said of MPs – commenters are concerned the right sort of people won’t apply because the pay is so ‘low’ (low being nearly three times the median, not counting the extras, like subsidised food and rent etc).

  18. During the (high school) wrestling season of the 1950-51 academic year, my friend (now retired hand surgeon living in CA) pinned all his dual-meet opponents with an (at that time) unusual hold, properly a “near-side reverse cradle.” But we were able to get it in the sports pages of the newspapers as the “arse-press” throughout the season.

    It is “youth,” not Chaucer, that “is wasted on the young.”

  19. So Much for Subtlety

    I doubt Scarlett Johansson hires the people who give her a massage on any sort of lowest-cost bidder basis. Nor should we hire politicians on the same basis. It is not how many people want to do the job that matters, it is what sort of job they do. Which revolves around opportunity costs and all the other ways they have to make money. Paying them nothing is an invitation for corruption. It is also a guarantee we will get single issue fanatics who want to bully us all every minute of the day. We don’t pay politicians enough. I would be happy to see them get a million quid a year – if they did a better job. And were better people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *