AIBU to be surprised by MPs earning £98k plus expenses?

Farage is also one of the chief moaners about MPs salaries, hence the £5m personal donation to compensate him for his loss of salary when he agreed to stand again!

A few years ago, it was revealed that William Roche, who plays Ken Barlow in Corrie, earned more than the PM at the time . I think it was David Cameron, but I maybe wrong. That’s something to think about! It’s a good salary but not that high.

I don’t think it’s enough! Yes there are a few lazy MPs who are taking the piss - barely turn up to Parliament and not doing enough constituency work (I’m looking at you, Farage…) but for most, they do long hours, are always on call, travel a lot so sacrifice a lot of family life, are in the public eye at all times and their work and decisions are vital to the wellbeing and running of the country.

Personally I think the salary should be higher but that increase should be combined with a ban on any second jobs or payments for speaking engagements etc. £150k sounds about right for attracting clever, successful, high impact people wanting to do a public service job.

I agree. I get paid about the same and my job doesn’t really matter in the schème of things.

If anything I think they should probably be better paid - partly in order to attract talent from both the private sector and people in leadership roles in the public sector, but also because there is absolutely no job security - you could get kicked out at election time not because of any mistakes of your own but because of the actions of your leader and party. I do think that makes it a daunting career prospect for anyone who doesn’t already have substantial savings or family money behind them. So, I think the pay needs to be high enough to incentivise enough candidates from a diverse range of backgrounds to take that risk. It’s also a job with long hours, a lot of travelling, and a lot of responsibility.

I get paid more.

I wouldn’t be an MP double the salary

away from home 3-4 nights every week.

when in Westminster they can be working from 9am till past midnight

in the constituency (the other 3 days of the week) they will often work all days with evening events too

social media abuse, in your face abuse, threats of violence, actual violence and 1 or 2 are murdered very few years

nope. No thanks.

I often thought that remuneration for MPs should be linked to their previous earning before being an MP rather than a one size fits all. That way no one would need to take a pay cut to become an MP and no one would be able to become an MP driven by the motivation of the salary.

There’s a whole world of directorships, chairs of boards, consultancies, books, speaking gigs, etc etc for former PMs. Their salary in the job is by-the-by.

There's something wrong in the world when DJs and foot ballers (however talented) earn more than the PM who has way more responsibility and power

IMO they are massively overpaid.

Most MPs are useless. If you went back, say, 60 years you’d find more MPs who genuinely wanted to make positive change or who were motivated by a sense of public service.

Now many MPs are just party drones who climb the ladder through local councils, trade unions, pressure groups, charity administration and the like, and who aim for (very limited) political power, the (supposedly impressive) life of a national politician and a better salary than they could manage before. They’re terrified of being thrown out at elections because they’d have to go back to dreary, pointless ‘activism’ or some much lower-paid anonymous job.

Most MPs do not scrutinise legislation or sit on committees. They’re not good enough to do more than constituency work. What they particularly like is ganging up with other losers in their party and making a noise about some issue that will get on the news. The nakedly ambitious ones (who are always terrible) toady around the PM and cabinet ministers in the commons.

I’d pay the average MP much less, TBH. Ministers should get decent pay though.

@mumumental We don’t have enough with policies to improve the country. We have followers who spout the issues but don’t have workable solutions. They are frightened to make changes. Essentially most are lobby fodder. We need far more scientists and business people in parliament. Far too many have never had a career outside politics and don’t know about business or anything else. Far too many take sides and don’t with for everyone leaving the majority disenfranchised. It’s not democracy,

I don't think its enough, and that's why we have some (not all) not very good MPs. Why take all the risk for pay that you could get in a less stressful role?

I earn more than them in a much less stressful, less publicly available role with no management responsibilities. I work very hard, but I don't have any risk of me or my family being targeted by press or having security risks. If my child/husband/I get into some sort of bother, I'm not risking that being front page news and having to deal with stress of that nature. My colleagues haven't been targeted with death threats, unlike MPs. I have some job stability and work on a permanent contract (less these days given I work in tech and the industry likes to do lay-offs on the regular!) and could move into a different, similar paying role if needed.

Most of these MPs would likely earn more than this in other roles.

Im less interested in “the brightest and the best” than I am in the decent and democratic. The extra bright are unlikely to do any better in government. They have not, so far.

If you’ve actually listened to certain MP’s, they’re not generally the brains of Britain! It’s usually a temporary role unless you’re an exceptionally good local MP. People tend to vote for the party rather than MP but there are exceptions. I grew up in a working class very Labour area but the local MP was Tory and people kept voting him back in for over 20 years because he did a good job locally. But usually you’re lucky if you get voted back in so it’s a 5 year role. Stressful as shit, I’d hate it.

@mumumental It’s about job comparisons and salary reviews. The salary 6 years ago was clearly way too low. Even now it’s not affecting the brightest and the best.

I’m not against it but I do wonder how it got from the wails when it was £67k at the start of the pandemic to £98 so quietly. And quickly, for that matter. It’s a huge jump, in percentage terms.

I actually don't think it's that much for the high likelihood of abuse, the low job security, and being away from home a few nights a week.

Yes you are out of touch and obviously clueless about how this country is governed. We live in a democracy and MPs salaries are in the public domain.

@AlexandraCarrington You only get a salary for a job whilst you are doing it!!! So of course he gets the perks whilst doing the job - like everyone else. Blair and Cameron managed in No 10 or No 11. Burnham has plenty of money to buy a property as his salary is virtually all for his personal use. Does he have young dc?

The PM gets free housing. No 10 and Chequers.

Only as long as s/he's in office. And s/he still has to keep a home in his/her constituency.

And No.10 isn't suitable for a family; it only works for a single person or childless couple.

And when you lose an election, you have to be out of No.10 that day; you need to have somewhere to go.

If you go into politics, it's not just you but your entire family under scrutiny - spouse, parents, adult children. Who'd encourage a family member to take up a political career?

I've a couple of friends / partners of friends who are or were MPs, and they get paid less and work more than most people I know. And they could lose that job (and possibly their entire career, forever) every 5 years.

The PM gets free housing. No 10 and Chequers. And free food and transport. A massive pension and severance deal if they lose their seat. So the headline salary is personal expenses really. However it’s not that great.

We don’t pay enough for MPs. Many are not good enough and they are not coming up with solutions that work. Burnham is just sound bites so far. Too many talented people simply don’t want to be MPs and far too many MPs are just listening to a tiny minority of constituents. They don’t work for everyone. Some have little input into
legislation and aren’t active on committees or in the house. Some of course are very good but nowhere near enough of them.

I think the only way to pay MPs fairly is to look at what they were earning before becoming an MP. My BIL, who is a CEO and would make a first rate MP, wouldn’t dream of standing for Parliament, because it doesn’t pay enough, and there’s too much press scrutiny, not just of the MP, which is fair enough, but also of their family, which isn’t. IMO, the press is responsible for discouraging good candidates from standing - you have to be the dullest sort of person, with not a single blemish on your record or ill-advised post on social media, and woe betide your family if anyone steps out of line.

I agree