We looked at three arguments being put forward as justification for the pay rise it is recommended MPs receive this week. Oh, and why they're wrong.
We seem to be doing everything in threes today. Earlier we looked at three questions Iain Duncan Smith should be asked when he appears before the Work and Pensions Committee of MPs later today, and now we’re going to look at three arguments that are being trotted out as justification for the pay rise it is recommended MPs receive later this week. Oh, and we’re going to tell you why those arguments are wrong.
1) Paying MPs a lot of money attracts the best people to serve the country
Does it? Or does it attract the greediest people? Surely paying MPs too much could also mean more people looking to enter politics for reasons of self-interest. On the other hand, if someone is willing to take a pay cut in order to represent their consituents then they’re probably exactly the sort of person we want as an MP.
MPs should certainly be paid well – which they already are; their salary is three times that of the average worker – but why should they be paid exorbitantly? Bankers get paid exorbitantly – does banking as a profession necessarily attract the most virtuous people?
2) It will put off working class people from becoming MPs
Which would obviously be a bad thing. It isn’t apparent how a salary of £65,000 is something the average working class kid would turn their nose up at, however. An MP also only receives this salary once elected. Working class youngsters are put off standing for Parliament long before the point at which they receive their parliamentary salary. Blaming the lack of working class MPs on the fact that politicians don’t get an eyewatering salary seems a rather strange argument to make – to a working class kid a salary of £65,000 a year is the equivalent of winning the lottery.
3) They’d only be corrupt otherwise
If we don’t pay MPs more, they will only file outrageous expenses claims and spend all their time doing lucrative second jobs, so the argument goes. Imagine for a second if this argument were made to justify giving other public sector workers a pay increase – that we had to give nurses more money in case they stole all the drugs, or we needed to pay the police more so they didn’t moonlight on the job and leave the criminals to run free. The person making such an argument would be laughed at. And yet we accept it when it refers to MPs. (In fact, whenever public sector workers do strike for more money – workers who in most instances receive a great deal less than £60k a year – they are accused of holding the country to ransom.)
MPs are public servants and should be subject to the same rules as anyone else in the public sector. They do an important job – an incredibly important job – but so do lots of other people, such as nurses and the police.
26 Responses to “3 arguments for paying MPs more money and why they’re wrong”
David_Boothroyd
It is to be regretted that very few MPs (Tom Harris being a shining exception) give an honest answer when asked about the proposed salary. The honest answer is “That is none of my business”.
If the public thinks it is appropriate for MPs to determine their own pay and allowances, then by all means put pressure on. But if not, then they can’t go complaining that they don’t like what has happened given that it was an inevitable consequence.
Peem Birrell
An *incredibly* important job? I don’t think so. Like most other workers including the police and nurses and private sector too, sometimes they do important things but most of the time they’re just fannying about.
Damo
I have a postgraduate degree and 5 years work experience, earn well below the minimum wage and do not find it easy to get by financially. Nevertheless I also know that £65k is NOT a lot of money for a job that requires the highest degrees of responsibility, accountability, knowledge, dedication, willingness to make a positive difference above and beyond their prescripted responsibilities, regardless of sector (headteacher, consultant surgeon, business / civil service leader, third sector executive).
While it may be popular to say politicians don’t deserve these levels of remuneration, presumably because a lot of people don’t believe they have the aforementioned qualities, surely a reasonable, progressive position recognises that most of them probably do?
JR
To be honest, your response just shows how ignorant most of the public remain about the role of Parliament and public sector institutions.
The answer to public concern and outrage over MP expenses should have been an education drive about what Parliament is for, and how people can engage.
Some of this has been done, but there is still a massive gap in understanding.
JR
James,
The issue of MP pay is hugely contentious, but should it be? Probably not. MPs shot themselves in the foot by politicising the issue back in the 80s, and the expenses system was set up to compensate MPs for stagnating salaries that were seen as politically too toxic to handle.
The most interesting aspect of this debate is the unholy alliance between ‘progressive’ voices, such as this blog, and libertarian small governmentists such as Douglas Carswell.
To me, the ‘progressive’ voices who tout the libertarian line here are clearly in the wrong. The points that you make remain cold comfort when wider issues about effective representation continue to be missed out whilst this pointless debate continues.
Best to tackle your points in order:
1) I suspect you would agree with me that it is impossible to measure ‘moral worth’ or community spirit, etc… in monetary terms. But saying that elected officials should have less, rather than more, is the other side of this same coin. Your argument here is a slippery slope towards saying that the only worthy MP is one who will do it for free. This means the only ones who can afford to do it are people who are already rich, and is the worst state of affairs. Labour argued successfully for MPs to be paid so that all people could be represented in parliament.
2) There is no shortage of people wanting to become MPs. However, as another post highlights, 65k is a small amount in the professional world. It is important to turn being an MP into an aspirational position, clear views on the salary that someone is entitled to are just as important as in any other role. Paying MPs a small amount because the Daily Mail thinks the job is ‘easy’ and for ‘shirkers’ just re-enforces this negative stereotype.
3) You might turn your nose up at it, but there is a clear correlation between poorly paid public servants and corruption. The way that MPs interact with stakeholders, or second jobs is a hugely important issue that deserves all of the effort that is being put into the pointless wage debate (and more).