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”
Lamia
The general public tends to evaluate the value of public institutions by their own experience of them.
Many people find them slow, incompetent and/or unhelpful. They don’t need ‘educating’ that they are wrong about that by you or anyone else, thanks. And bear in mind: if it wasn’t for the ‘ignorant’ public, many public ‘servants’ who can barely conceal their contempt for the public would be out of a job.
David_Boothroyd
Yah boo sucks to you with knobs on.
Now that we’ve got the insult out of the way, can I point out that the “none of my business” referred to MPs, not to the public. The House of Commons itself decided to hand over to an independent body the determination of the salary levels and allowances for its members. From that point on, the level of salary became no longer the responsibility of MPs, either individually or collectively.
It was practically inevitable that the next proper review would lead to a significant rise because there is a regular trend for governments to hold down pay increases for MPs, so the salaries for typical jobs used as comparisons are now significantly higher.
I understand courses in basic English comprehension are available for fairly modest fees.
Lamia
can I point out that the “none of my business” referred to MPs, not to the public.
I was aware of that. But it is the public’s business, because they are paying for it. It is also the business of MPs – who are alos members of the public – whether or not they find such a rise acceptable. Or do you not expect them to exercise any moral agency?
From that point on, the level of salary became no longer the responsibility of MPs, either individually or collectively.
They have a collective moral responsibility to reject it at a time when public finances are very tight.
It was practically inevitable that the next proper review would lead to a significant rise because there is a regular trend for governments to hold down pay increases for MPs, so the salaries for typical jobs used as comparisons are now significantly higher.
It was not inevitable. We arenot in a normal situation. It ought to have taken into account the straitened circumstances of public finances. It failed to do so.
TM
‘£65,000 is not an ‘eyewatering’ salary.’ To many people in the UK, it is something they can only dream about.
‘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.’ How very cosy for them. So they are incorruptible?! Are you so sure? The more people get it seems the more they want.
JR
It is good that you think it absurd not to pay MPs appropriately, but others do not follow your thinking on ‘pay cuts’ and ‘doing it for free’. I am sure that many people, on the surface at least, would think that the less MPs are paid (or bankers for that matter) the better.
Paying MPs appropriately is a hugely progressive issue. It allowed the development of the Labour movement and the birth of a truly representative democracy.
You say my ‘slippery slope’ point is absurd, but the role of an MP is not, and never should be, the same as a banker. To conflate the two speaks volumes about the level at which this debate is taking place.
Indeed, you fall into the wider trap here and fail to recognise the impact this pointless wage debate has in taking air-time away from more important arguments.
We should be talking about how MPs can more effectively represent the views of constituents, more professionally draft and debate new laws, and how or if these roles can be sacrosanct if they have second jobs.
Accountability is essential to improve the democratic process, but horse trading over how little we can possibly spend on government and democracy is a mugs game for the tea-party.