Higher pay would tempt to parliament the low performers of high paying professions, thus pushing out high performers of lower paying professions
MPs caught plotting ‘under the radar’ lobbying (on behalf of clients) for cash, are quick to use their mischiefs as an excuse to lobby (on behalf of themselves) for even more cash.
They claim if MPs were paid more we would get better quality MPs, asserting that:
- Some high powered people don’t apply to be MPs because they don’t want to take the pay cut.
- If they didn’t have to take the pay cut, they could become high powered MPs.
Let’s put aside the copious evidence that the existing rewards of being an MP are sufficient to pull in a plentiful number of people who consider themselves ‘high powered’: Oxbridge graduates are just one per cent of the population but made up 27 per cent of all MPs, and over one in three of Tory MPs, in the 2010-15 parliament.
And let’s overlook that there are many high powered MPs in parliament who do the job for reasons of public service, regardless of the pay. Just as there are many high powered people with vocations to work in other relatively low paying professions.
Instead focus on that group of people who refuse to be an MP unless the money can match that of their alternative employment.
For those who measure a person’s merit by their pay:
1) merit is measured by how much they earn.
2) the amount earned is only a measure of their merit within their profession, and not across professions.
For example, if a banker earns more than a doctor that is not because the banker is ‘better’. It is because the banker is in a higher paid profession than the doctor. Just as the thousandth ranked UK banker earned more than a million euros, while the thousandth ranked tennis player earned just a few thousand.
Therefore using money as the measure, to get the ‘best’ we would want people paid in the top quarter (above the 75th percentile) of earnings for their profession.
A look at wage figures for different professions from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) illustrates that by paying MPs more we would actually get a worse quality of MPs. Higher pay would tempt to parliament the low performers of high paying professions (bankers; lawyers; lobbyists) thus pushing out high performers of lower paying professions (teachers; IT managers; nurses…).
The graphs below show the range of salaries for different professions. First we explain how the graph works:
- 25 per cent earn less than the first blue block, marked Q2 (the second quartile)
- 50 per cent earn less than the second blue block, the median.
- 25 per cent earn more than the third blue block, marked Q3 (the third quartile)
For a selection of professions, salary ranges (from the Office for National Statistics, table 14.7a) are:
Evident from this is the fact that the current MP’s salary, £66k, is already above the 75th percentile for postmen, nurses, teachers, IT managers and train drivers. So an MP’s pay is already enough to get the top 25 per cent talent from those professions.
On the other hand, £66k is well below the pay of a 75th percentile lawyer, doctor, or company director.
Even the MPs’ 10 per cent payrise in May 2015, to £74k, still wouldn’t be enough to bring in the best money driven candidates from these high pay professions.
To attract money-driven top 25 per cent (top quartile) lawyers, doctors, and company directors, the salary of an MP would need to rise to £100k. This is clearly ludicrous:
a) Based on market driven supply & demand, there has never been a shortage of people wanting to be an MP. Whether they are any good is a matter of opinion.
b) The statistics show the vast majority are sheep, voting according to the party line.
One possible solution:
1) Parliamentary candidates state in their election campaign literature how much money they need for it to be worth their while representing their constituents, signed off by the party leader.
2) The party leader is given a salary budget after the General Election of £67k times the number of MPs he gets. (ONS figures for 2013 show £67k p.a. is more than 94 per cent of income tax paying Britons’ pre-tax incomes). And it is left to the party leader to share this out.All done in full public view. Now that would be fun to watch!
34 Responses to “Would paying more attract a better calibre of MP? The evidence suggests not”
Guest
So you’ve worked to undermine the public sector for many years, and wonder why people are dismissive of you.
You then go on to 100% attack non-scam pensions, as you blame Brown for abuse of the corpse Thatcher made. As you spout the same old lies, wanting even lower wages in a sector where far more have lost their jobs than the private sector, again.
But facts, you can’t have that.
You’d rather fire “bad” people who won’t work 60 hours for 40 hours pay.
SonofBoudica
No. You misunderstand and twist everything that I have said.
remarx
It is my belief that the reason for becoming an MP should NOT be driven by money but a firm conviction to do the best for people who voted for you. The particular elected MP must remember that he or she is representative of the wishes of the electorate.
Of course a living wage – as with any job – should be awarded to the MP who must WORK for it.
Political practice in this country is archaic and corrupt, consisting mainly of privileged, already wealthy people looking after their own interests. The rest is just blather.
Many changes could be made to modernise parliamentary practice, but the people that would change it are the ones that do NOT WANT to change their cosseted positions. Unfortunately – unlike The French – us British are not willing to revolt, in case it rains that day or the cup finals on. What hope is there?
Vive le revolution!
J B London
This is such a politically skewed analysis it’s hard to know where to start. There are lots of people who for reasons of narcissism or principle want to be MPs. But only a small proportion of them are capable enough to cut it in the elite professions — as a partner in a well-regarded law firm, say, where the average salary will comfortably exceed £500k. Unfortunately, although it is a conclusion that those distant from the markets resist, the stark reality is that highly capable people are an extremely scarce resource. Getting into Oxbridge doesn’t qualify you for this test. It’s a small fraction of that 1% (along with a good number who didn’t go to a fancy university for whatever reason; this is about ability not intellectual snobbery) who make it to the top rungs, which takes drive, stamina and social skills, as well as brain power.
If we want highly capable people for our law makers, we should pay them properly. Until we do, we’ll get the narcissists and the zealots.