Parliamentary pay
The old chestnut that is MP’s pay has come around again. As I have said before, I find the Enoch Powell brand of politics somewhat distasteful, but there is at least one area where he may have been onto a good idea. Whenever a pay rise came round, he turned it down until he was re-elected, apparently on the basis that he had been elected to do a certain job at a certain price. I disagree with that strict, contract-based way of looking at jobs in general and elected office in particular, but it has certain advantages.
Firstly, it breaks the idea (I hope) in the public mind of MPs increasing their own pay, as raises are deferred until after their (presumptive) re-election). Secondly, people won’t focus on it as much if it’s going on when the elections are going ahead. Not, I hope you understand, that it should be kept out of sight, but so that the commentary on it is a little more sober. Thirdly, at the moment in particular, it would match the staging of increases being offered to the police.
The idea predates Enoch Powell; the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution provides that
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Before anyone jumps on me and points out that A27 came into effect in 1992, it was initially submitted in 1789.
Just for the record, I support the MP’s pay raise, largely because it was decided by the independent body, the SSRB, that was set up to do it. For pretty much the same reasons, I support the police in their quest for pay increases. While I recognise that there are inflationary pressures that need to be kept an eye on, it would make sense (perhaps) for a mechanism whereby the Chancellor, claiming force majeure, could impose an across-the-board staging of public sector pay deals.
xD.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I think that’s a great idea - the salaries should be fixed before the election and then index-linked until the next election year.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Thankyou.
I like the idea of linking them to an index; I’m not sure which one, though. I’d probably go for inflation plus a composite of private-sector pay (not public sector, as they’d have an incentive to raise it for less than honest reasons) and cost of living increases based on a basket of goods. I’m not sure about linking it to FTSE. I think that pay should not be able to fall, but if the calculation were made after a particularly good year just before some lean years, it might make MPs’ wages too high.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I think it should be linked to the CPI. If the salaries are reset before every election to a “reasonable” level, there’s no reason why they should increase any more than at the rate of inflation in the intervening years.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:17 am
I’m think that “we need to earn as much as them” games - when a large part of “them” are professions where the salaries are controlled by politicians - are silly.
I would prefer a link to a percentile of the national income range.
The basic MP salary is already (I reckon based on looking at the numbers) equivalent to the top 7 or 8% of household (not individual) incomes in the country, before the pension scheme and £20k per annum to buy a place in London (which they get to keep) and all the extra money for “responsibility” is factored in.
Personally I think that is rather high. In my opinion £50k basic would be more justifiable, which would put their basic salary in the top 15% or so of national incomes (estimated).
I like the idea of resetting only before elections - suggest that it should be a mandatory manifesto requirement.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Matt,
Thanks for the comment.
As I said, I support the pay increase as to do otherwise would make a mockery of the SSRB system. The entire point of the SSRB is to stop it being politicised.
Given the nature of the job, I don’t think being in the top ten percent or so of incomes is unreasonable. There are particular issues around the living allowances. An alternative might be for the Parliamentary Estate to buy a number of flats and provide them to MPs at zero rent for their time in office. The extra money for responsibilities I would like to see reduced and spread out over a wider range of jobs, including select committee chairs. The extra allowance has the perverse effect of making it harder for someone to make a ‘moral resignation’ because of the financial implications.
Do you think that the resetting before elections idea has legs? It might be interesting to run it up the flagpole and look for any salutes.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I’m dropping the pay before elections idea into “start of year” post I’m doing for ConHome as an aside, so I hope to find out.
If the allowances thing was cleared up a bit more, I’d accept the 90th percentile as a reasonable point. I think the government owned flats is a reasonable idea.
Select committee chairs received a supplement already (I think).
As I’m sure you are aware too - the idea of tax-free accommodation (never mind totally cost-free accommodation) would rankle with me somewhat as I am now (as a freelance PM) prevented from offsetting my own accommodation on business away from home against tax, after the tax proposals in the last budget -unless they changed. I used to work under an umbrella structure and business expenses are no longer tax deductable.
Matt W
January 9th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Oh, I don’t think they should be tax free. The MPs should have to pay rates and their own utilities (with the possible exception of internet, as there are security issues that might be best resolved by connecting them to the Parliamentary network).
Select committee chairs do receive a supplement, but not on the same terms as ministers. In any case, I think they should be on the same level as a minister of state rather than a minor governmental functionary.
On reflection, I dislike the idea of fixing pay to a percentile. I think linking it to inflation plus the mean of a basket of indices less inflation would be better for two reasons. Firstly, attaching it to a percentile - whatever the percentile - would lead to the impression that MPs considered themselves a priori better than (say) nine-tenths of the population. The second point is that a single index can be massaged to easily. Linking it to a batch makes this harder and removes the possible incentive of using policy to manipulate that figure. I recognise that it’s unlikely, but I think it’s important to give the right impression.
xD.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
[...] Dave Cole (and Winchester Whisperer in his comments) has a (to my mind) brilliant idea to dispense with the [...]
January 10th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I think the Select Committee supplement is around £14k - about 23% of basic salary.
>Firstly, attaching it to a percentile - whatever the percentile - would lead to the impression that MPs considered themselves a priori better than (say) nine-tenths of the population.
The uncomfortably accurate quip is that they probably do think themselves better than 90% of the population.
The underlying elephant in the corner is the assumption that the intrinsic value of people is related to their income. That is not true - except seemingly when setting salaries!
That one IS difficult to address. It may not have been on your radar, but about a decade ago the Southwell Diocese (CofE) put up a proposal to the General Synod that *all* stipendiary CofE ministers be paid the same allowance (from Vicar to Archbishop) with “circumstance” supplements for e.g., family, transport, heating etc. A revolutionary idea if implemented.
The Vicar on the “Snow and Snow” programme about salaries said that he didn’t see why the ABC greeting the Queen was more important than him greeting Mrs Jones from the Village. He is right.
On the manipulation of indices, I disagree. I think that using a basket of already abstract indices would make a “group average” far easier to manipulate. I don’t the that the average earnings index can easily be manipulated - at least without major collateral damage to policy.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I happen to think that while the system appears to not only be deeply unfair but verges on complete madness, it is not actually as bad as you might think. I think our MPs are worth at least £60k and the equivalent in role in the private sector in terms of intelligence, responsibility, work load and the scrutiny you get from being in the public eye would probably be similar if not more. An assumption granted, but I think a fair one all the same. In that case, the system does seem to be working.
Why meddle with it if it ain’t broke? If they do start to milk it, then they will be crucified by the media and ultimately the electorate. I just don’t buy the assumption that they are bunch of overpaid dimwits sitting on the backsides all day shouting at one another across the Commons. It is actually a very tough job and most of them earn their keep. If they are worth the pay and doing the job, why change the way in which they decide their pay? If it was left to the cynical masses they would probably be on £20k and we would have bunch of monkeys running the country.
The question of expenses and second homes, on the other hand, really does need to be look at far more closely. Ed Ball and Yvette Cooper being the perfect example - a married couple milking the system.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
[...] Pantomime” just after New Year on the Wardman Wire. I raised some questions, and - following Dave Cole - suggested a linkage with national average incomes between elections, with reviews at Election [...]
February 4th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
[...] Pantomime” just after New Year on the Wardman Wire. I raised some questions, and - following Dave Cole - suggested a linkage with national average incomes between elections, with reviews at Election [...]
February 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
[...] me, I think it is time that all the above was done by an Administrator. Cue Matt Wardman and David Cole to shout “U-Turn” and The ThunderDragon to suggest that all HR types are crap and that we are [...]
February 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
[...] me, I think it is time that all the above was done by an Administrator. Cue Matt Wardman and David Cole to shout “U-Turn” and The ThunderDragon to suggest that all HR types are crap and that we are [...]