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”
TM
1) Paying MPs a lot of money attracts the best people to serve the country
I think that myths well been busted somewhat. Best people? So that means that everyone else is second rate? What must all those working 40 hours week on minimum wage think about that? I can guess. It attracts good, bad and indifferent people like every other job does basically and a nice salary, and all the perks and bonuses, like heating expenses, and peppercorn rents and outside interests and subsidised food and drink and taxi fares just make everything that little bit sweeter when huge swathes of the population are struggling to pay necessities and are not even eating enough to stay healthy or have enough to heat their homes. Of course it has to be a reasonable salary, otherwise we’d have gentleman patrician types running the show again wouldn’t we, those wealthy, well connected, privately educated, elite types who know nothing about the real world and ordinary people, the people who couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery but somehow end up running the country. We really don’t want that do we?
2) It will put off working class people from becoming MPs
I think that it already has. How many people are there in parliament who actually come from poor, regular, ordinary Working class backgrounds from council estates anyway for that matter? It’s a handful basically. The fact is that the high salary just goes to those who are already privileged and affluent anyway, you know like it always does in every other sphere of British society. Somehow the rich and the Middle class get their noses well and truly in the trough one way or the other. There’s so little actual democracy in this country now that whoever gets in, it’s just a different colour of paint on the same house, or exactly the same sandwich with a slightly different salad dressing for choice.
3) They’d only be corrupt otherwise
Excuse me while I compose myself from laughing. So we are paying them more to be honest, even though they have all got second jobs, gold plated pensions and all the aforementioned perks and benefits. In short, it’s a gravy train. Perhaps if they didn’t get such inflation busting rises and heaped austerity on the rest of us, we would all be in it together. And nobody mentioned being paid by results. I think that’s for another day.
blarg1987
While I do partially agree with your point, I think the biggest angst with most people both public and private is that some MP’s keep telling us we are in an economic recession and that money is tight so we can not afford services or pay ises with people in the public sector.
If this is the case MP’s should lead by example, just as CEO’s of companies should lead by example and accept pay freezes or cuts during bad times to set the example.
Instead MP’s are being advised that there pay should increase by an independent panel, however when the public sector is shown to have an increase above 1% by an independent panel then it is voted down.
If things are bad as we are told they are then MP’s should set the example, if however Mp’s are advised they deserve better pay then someone is nt telling the truth about how bad the economy actually is.
Julian
Average salary is £26,500, which is £19,400 after tax. £65,000 after tax is £43,750, which is two and a quarter times as high, not three times. Also, the £26.5k average covers all workers including those just starting out. Most MPs don’t enter parliament as their first job. A fairer comparison would be with the average income of people of the same average age. This would have an MP earning less than twice the average wage.
I agree that we could decide that we only want MPs who are prepared to make a financial sacrifice. As there is no shortage of people wanting to do the job, I’m sure we’d find enough candidates. However, being an MP is a very responsible job, whatever you think of politicians. Do we want to establish the principle that job responsibility counts for nothing in pay if enough people want the job? What would that do to salaries in other sectors?
blarg1987
To be fair, private companies and even in the public sector that belief is being encouraged, nurses are currently going through regrading (mainly downwards), police starting salaries are being reduced. While in some parts of the private sector staff are being substitued with cheaper labour who will do the work for less.
MP’s should reap what they sow, if they believe in the above so much then they should also be affected by it.
I do agree with your point though that people should be paid well for their responsibility across the full spectrum of wages and job descriptions and not an elite few.
Chris Kitcher
It makes my blood boil when an MP boasts that he could earn more in the private sector. If money is their sole reason for working then they are not fit to be MP’s. Being an MP is a role that is given to few people and they should be satisfied that voters consider them the best person for that particular role. If all they want is financial reward they are in the wrong job, probably in most cases because they are unfit for any other role.
We do not want or benefit from career politicians and the fact that they are not well paid should be the determining factor that demonstrates their suitability for the role.