Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think MPs are underpaid

105 replies

Donotpanicoknowpanic · 23/11/2024 19:40

Okay hear me out on this

If you want high quality people you need to pay them

If not the best most intelligent people will pursue career's in business and we will be left with people making second rate decisions which are incredibly important for the UK

The UK needs to make the right decisions on a whole host of important topics (not just the NHS and benefits)

But policy's on AI, transitions to green energy encouraging businesses to invest in the UK etc

These are serious topics that require a vast knowledge to understand

If you want to encourage people who have that knowledge to be an MP and help make those decisions

You need to pay them the rate they would get from businesses who also want them

(I am not an MP and will never run as one so no one please say I'm trying to get a pay rise)

OP posts:
wombat1a · 24/11/2024 10:33

I'm not sure that MPs make much of a difference, the quality people we need in Givn are the high-level civil servants, Those are the ones who make things happen and those are the people we should be paying so much too that they never feel it is worthwhile to take a bribe/bung/gift to risk their salary for.

ladygindiva · 24/11/2024 10:16

Willyoujustbequiet · 23/11/2024 20:30

God no. They're on roughly x 3 the average household income. Plus its supposed to be a vocation...public service....not what you can get.

Anyone who thinks they are underpaid needs to check their privilege. You don't want people who lack awareness about those they represent.

I know right! Sometimes Mumsnet is so far removed from the real world it's hilarious! 91k a low salary??? Fucking hell, check out what the average salary is !! And how many people actually live on 30k , a third of an mps salary, or less!

namechangeGOT · 24/11/2024 10:04

tobee · 23/11/2024 21:39

I would say the risks of being a member of the armed forces, and even a police officer, have always been there and. Part of the job for the military you could say @namechangeGOT . It isn't really for an MP.

The risks have always been there for politicians also? Assassinations of political leaders/politicians has been a 'thing' since the dawn of politics - it's a risk they take, the same as you do when entering the AF or Police Force. Why should a politician be paid more for his 'risk' than a soldier does when it is that very politician who will have a say on where that soldier goes?

MPs, like all of us prior to undertaking a new role are aware of what their pay will be prior to running for election, they are aware of the risks. If they don't think it's worth it, simply don't go for that job.

AffIt · 24/11/2024 09:58

KoalaCalledKevin · 23/11/2024 22:52

I'd pay them more, but I'd say no second jobs at all, and I'd probably strengthen the current restrictions on ministers going into lobbying after leaving parliament.

The only people I would allow to retain second jobs would be those who need to maintain a certain level of presence for professional standards, such as health care professionals or educators (and even then on a vastly reduced schedule).

Donotpanicoknowpanic · 23/11/2024 23:39

Perhaps pay is only one issue

Maybe a different system for electing members

At the moment we get a leaflet before the election that discusses the individual MPs achievements and why we should vote for them

But ultimately most people vote for the party...aka the leader

But then we would probably not have our own individual MPs if we could vote differently

OP posts:
CranfordScones · 23/11/2024 23:28

While I agree, I think the people attracted to politics are the ones who put themselves forward because the world will be "unquestionably better if I'm the one telling everyone else what to do". You see that a lot in work places - the thick-skinned, overconfident, clueless management class.

The people who would probably make much better MPs would never stand for other reasons, so low pay isn't a deterrent.

The best lack all ambition and the worst are full of passionate intensity etc...

Octopies · 23/11/2024 23:24

I don't think salary necessarily comes into it. The nature of politics focuses on presenting things in a very black or white way. If you're an expert in green energy for example, you might be of the opinion that a certain form of energy production has great potential. However, you're not an expert in economics, so you're not going to stake your reputation on suggesting on what timescale it will take to become a financially viable option, as there's too many variables. The higher up the political ladder you look, the more you'll find people who are simply power hungry, rather than genuinely wanting to improve the standard of living for the average citizen.

ScholesPanda · 23/11/2024 23:23

I think the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers and their opposite numbers should be paid more.

Possibly they should increase the extra money given for sitting on some scrutiny committees.

However, being a back bench MP is basically running a small office, turning up to vote (usually in-line with the whip) and maybe turn up at a village fete. I think £90k is sufficient for that.

As for them all living in the same apartment block, maybe think of the security implications of that and how much it would cost to mitigate them.

TempestTost · 23/11/2024 23:13

Also - it is an issue for many MPs that they are leaving a secure job for an insecure job. There isn't much to be done about that, but taking a pay cut in the meantime could certainly make that seem like an irresponsible choice.

TempestTost · 23/11/2024 23:10

I think that's probably true, OP.

I'd tend to increase the pay but tighe up expense claims - really just travel and accommodations for those who live far away.

I actually rather like the idea of having housing in London provided, actually, for those who need it. They could all live in an apartment block together.

Nikitaspearlearring · 23/11/2024 23:03

Yes. They rely on civil servants and experts who do the donkey work. Having said that, I do respect the ones who do actually keep themselves informed and they probably do deserve a decent salary but there are others who seem to work part-time.

I think, as in many jobs, you get the ones who work hard and are engaged with the job, and the ones who seem to milk the system and e.g. can't be bothered to turn up for a vote. The onus is on voters to pick the best candidate, which could be problematic depending on whether that person represents your party of choice. Certainly round here the best person didn't win in the previous election because she wasn't the Tory candidate, who was a joke. (That changed at the last election, thankfully.)

SummerFeverVenice · 23/11/2024 22:59

I think many are grossly overpaid if we were to look at pay for performance.

Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, and others should have been paid minimum wage.

KoalaCalledKevin · 23/11/2024 22:52

I'd pay them more, but I'd say no second jobs at all, and I'd probably strengthen the current restrictions on ministers going into lobbying after leaving parliament.

marmaladeandpeanutbutter · 23/11/2024 22:42

Give them the same percentage pay rises as they give everyone else. We are apparently facing a black hole in our finances.

marmaladeandpeanutbutter · 23/11/2024 22:40

They don't need 'vast' knowledge; certainly many of them don't have it, and anyway they rely on briefings.

StillCreatingAName · 23/11/2024 22:35

I think so @Donotpanicoknowpanic and not only that, we’re heading towards a time where very few people will step up to be an MP. Abuse on social media, entitlement rants in person at local surgeries and quite frankly a disregard for community and purpose from an entire generation who take more notice of influencers than anyone in their own neighbourhood, I think we’re going to be in trouble.

JohnTheRevelator · 23/11/2024 22:30

OK.

JohnTheRevelator · 23/11/2024 22:30

OK.

Cynic17 · 23/11/2024 22:26

Totally agree. And for Ministers /the PM, it's even worse - their salaries are woeful, considering the level of responsibility they have. If we want to attract the best people into politics, we have to pay them more.

PerditaLaChien · 23/11/2024 22:26

It isn't enough to attract anyone whos had a senior career in many other areas.

Eg tax & economics. People working in these fields are concentrated in london, for those with 15-20 years experience they will be earning £120-£150k minimum.

SummerFeverVenice · 23/11/2024 22:24

Thelnebriati · 23/11/2024 21:28

The pay isn't the problem, its the lack of entrance qualifications.

I agree.

SummerFeverVenice · 23/11/2024 22:23

They are more than fairly paid for having won a popularity contest.
Increasing pay to attract better qualified MPs isn’t going to work because it’s not like a job interview where the best candidate is selected.

Mebebecat · 23/11/2024 22:19

Yes, underpaid. Loads of NHS managers are paid more.

AffIt · 23/11/2024 22:18

Ah, this is my unpopular opinion!

I agree, OP: I earn more than an MP and my job isn't as important.

If we don't want to create a 'politician class' populated by wealthy, mostly unsuitable people, then we need to make the role attractive and sustainable.

SushiWrap · 23/11/2024 22:17

Totally agree, OP. They’re ridiculously underpaid. Basic salary should be £120k+.