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.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
26 Responses to “3 arguments for paying MPs more money and why they’re wrong”
TM
‘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.’ That is the argument summed up in a neat little nutshell.
uglyfatbloke
Fact is, most of them really are n’t very good at being MPs. We can hardly argue that the country has been well-governed over the last several decades. Additionally, a great many of them (across the 3 main parties at least) have other income, often from directorships etc. that they only got because they are MPs
evanprice
I disagree with you.
No-one suggests that MPs should be paid at rates of their equivalents in Italy (for example). The current package is being reformed with pensions and other non-wage benefits being reformed at the same time by IPSA. The proposed increase in salary is not the whole picture. The proposed increase does not result in MPs being paid ‘exorbitantly’ … to appear to suggest so is absurd.
£65,000 is not an ‘eyewatering’ salary. It is very high in comparison with someone on average earnings – but for the responsibility to participate in the council of the country and in comparison with other jobs in the public sector where there are fewer than 1,000 individuals in that role, it is not a high salary. I agree that there is a problem with attracting people to become MPs – but I suspect that the problems of the professionalisation of politics and the prominence of people who appear to have experience of absolutely nothing before becoming involved in politics is more of a deterence. Combine that with the pressure on families, and the individual MP, from an unthinking and ill-educated commentariat that is more interested in its own prejudices than engaging with people who disagree with them, and there are very good reasons for people to walk away.
I don’t agree that our politics is very corrupt or that it is easy to corrupt. If this were a substantial problem, it is interesting to note that once the UK decided to pay Judges a very high salary (the equivalent of over £200,000 in today’s money) , it was a very short period of time before the Judges were considered incorruptable and our judicial system thought of as the envy of the world.
Lamia
How was it ‘an inevitable consequence’ that MPs would get an 11% pay rise?
Why should the public fund such a big rise in the pay of people already on over three times the national average when most have been enduring pay freezes or pay cuts.
Your contempt for the poorer members of society shines through. Some ‘socialist’ you are. Just another greedy Labour Party number.
Lamia
But saying that elected officials should have less, rather than more,
It is not being advocated that MPs have their pay cut but that it only rise in line with other public pay. Considering they are starting from a much higher wage than most, it should be much easier for them to manage than lower paid public (and private) sector workers.
Paying MPs a small amount
No one is suggesting ‘paying MPs a small amount’. The current wage is alredy three times the average national.
Your argument here is a slippery slope towards saying that the only worthy MP is one who will do it for free.
Absurd. You may as well claim that saying bankers shouldn’t get bonuses is “a slippery slope towards saying that the only good banker is one who will do it for free.”
there is a clear correlation between poorly paid public servants and corruption.
Irrelevant. MPs are not ‘poorly paid’.