Parliamentary pay revisited
I am delighted that Matt Wardman and Garbo of the Poliblogs like my idea to set MPs pay once per Parliament and for it to be increased annually in line with an index. I favour the mean average of CPI and average wage increase, but I suspect the detail would be better left to a civil servant.
I do, however, have to take issue with both Matt and Garbo.
Matt is rather negative about MPs’ pay, arguing for it to be reduced to the level of the ninetieth percentile, around £46k. I think this underestimates what a rubbish job being an MP is. Quite aside from the long hours and media poking around your bins, it is something of a family wrecker. Given that job security is not good and that I don’t want people to be always looking over their shoulder for their next job, I think a generous pension and resettlement grant are not only justified but a necessary idea. I cast here no aspersions against any MP or anyone else, but it is not hard to see how a less than straight company with political interests could guarantee generous remuneration for a job on leaving Parliament in return for a supportive attitude during an MP’s period in the House.
As an aside, I was speaking to a former Labour MP (from way, way back) who said that your pay stopped the moment an election was called. When he lost re-election, he took a job he had held previously - assistant park warden. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is anything wrong with that job, but I am definitely suggesting that a lot of MPs would; that they wouldn’t want the pay cut; and that would cause them to look for, ahem, sinecures.
The principle of paid MPs is essential for people who are not independently wealthy to run for Parliament; in an era when MPs are increasingly middle class, it needs to be enough to stop them looking elsewhere for finances.
Garbo said:
The self voting pay rise system is not as open to manipulation as you might think.
I concur. The issue here is one of perception; the annual bunfight over pay reinforces the impression that MPs are on the make, cheapening debate and weakening Parliament. By making it a review once every five years with a process for increasing it in the meantime, the problem is reduced.
There are other issues around perception. I’m not sure it’s at all right that profits on investments made with government money go to the MP; I would rather that, as I suggested, the Parliamentary Estate buy some flats for the use of MPs. I would add that these should not all be right next to each other!
xD.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I think we are pretty much in agreement on this one. However you say that while you agree that MPs aren’t milking the system you believe that
“The issue here is one of perception; the annual bunfight over pay reinforces the impression that MPs are on the make, cheapening debate and weakening Parliament.”
I am not sure that this is the perception. Even if it is you, by your own admission, believe it is the wrong perception. Why advocate change on the basis of an incorrect perception?
Like you and Matt, the “benefits” side is where the poor perception and reality really lie in my opinion. I very much like you idea on housing.
The sleaze issue on expenses is highlighted by the outrageous calls by some MPs to be exempt from Freedom of Information which is clearly grounded in a fear of criticism when their expenses accounts are annually published. The issue, in my opinion, is not on the salary, but on the added extras.
January 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Because a perception, whether correct or not, is a reality to the perceiver and a slur against the perceived.
I maintain that people feel that MPs are overpaid and that they think that it is wrong for MPs to be able to vote themselves pay increases. This damaged the opinions people have of MPs and, as such, the parliamentary system. That is why a change is needed; both to address that and to give a message that it is being addressed.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
[...] is therefore only part of the answer; I have given some ideas about MP’s pay here. The salaries drawn by staff are pretty arbitrary and I would like to see greater regulation of the [...]