What would you like to see MPs paid, and how reimbursed for their expenses, pension scheme, resettlement expenses?

Merci -perhaps not with regards the back benchers but it still has to be an Amount that will attract good candidates in the first place who are then fit and able to be on the cabinet or become prime minister.

I agree re the City - it was just an example but it could just as easily been a barrister/consultant/company executive etc.

I couldn't argue with you about health professionals or indeed scientists and research fellows being paid more than TV executives. Im very grateful these individuals are around!

personally I think people who save actual human lives should be paid more than tv executives as well but sadly that is not how we run our society. we still seem to find good candidates for life saving stuff despite them being able to earn more at the bbc. seems some people just like doing worthwhile jobs that benefit society even if they are paid crap in comparison

agreed, but as backbench mps don't represent the country on an international stage, or make any decisions as it is all party whip these days, they don't need to be paid that much

I would pay pm and cabinet more than mp. also allowances for committees.

can we please stop comparing them to people who work in the city. 99.99 percent of the population think people who work in the city are dicks and don't want them running the country any more than they want them ruining the economy.

Ttosca - I think many of us do understand how MPs get their jobs. However I see it as the job of the Parties to vet the applicants and get the best candidate (just like you would for a job anywhere else) and that means you have to attract the best candidates in the first place. I don't think we are attracting the best candidates and that is the problem. I think it is perfectly understandable that if you have the ability to work in the city for instance and make a lot of money that politics would not seem like such an attractive alternative. I also think that the person who is representing the country on an international stage and is instrumental in the decision making process on our behalf should be paid substantially more than TV executives or a banker in the City.

we should look at the way the whole system works
more video conferencing
normal working hours
re locate to central uk (or england if scots are leaving us)
performance related pay
pay based on qualifications and experience

*>>You mean sort of like how its done in the banking sector?

"it is far more likely that the top 10% earners have had a cushy life and all the advantages of growing up in an upper middle-class or upper-class household."

Maybe the top 1%... incomes well over £100k... are in that bracket but look around you. Those earning £50k-£100k PAYE are not Little Lord Fauntleroys from the Shires, they're middle managers, doctors, builders, senior teachers, IT guys.

niceguy-

And that's why talented artists and authors are paid so much, right? Because nobody else has their skills? How many people can write a book like JK Rowling or say Tom Clancy? I know I couldn't. How many people can sing like Adele or Susan Boyle even?

My point was precisely that, throughout history, now famous and talented artists and musicians have never been paid well. Many famous artists and musicians died penniless.

Supply and demand is an gross oversimplification. What matters even more is the ability of a particular talent to be commodified and profitably sold.

That's also why we have so many talentless idiots on TV and in the music industry. They are basically goons who are paid well because they fit in a particular role to sell a larger product, whether it's a boy band, a brainless sitcom, or similar.

Cogito-

90th percentile means that 10% of working population earn a salary in excess of an MP. That's about 3 million talented, capable, intelligent, 'ordinary' working people with real lives and real world experience ...

Its interesting that you make the leap that the top 10% earners are talented, capable and intelligent.

It's a fallacy that just because you're in the top 10% earners, that means you're talented, capable and intelligent. There are too many counter-examples to mention.

It is an even greater fallacy to think that the top 10% are more 'ordinary' people with 'real lives' and 'real world experience' than the other 90%.

If the top 10% of earners fulfill this criteria, then so do the other 90%, leaving 100% of earners being 'ordinary' working people with real lives and real world experience. Clearly this is wrong.

Seeing as how poor social mobility is in the UK, and the class system is rife, it is far more likely that the top 10% earners have had a cushy life and all the advantages of growing up in an upper middle-class or upper-class household. It is less likely that they will have experienced the hardship of the remaining 90&

the sort we all say we want running the country... but who will be put off because they don't want to take a pay-cut.

We don't want people running the country because they can earn a lot of money, at least I don't, and I think many other people don't either. We want people running the country who care about making the world a fairer, more prosperous, and better place to live.

I don't think you guys understand how the electoral system works. MPs aren't hired like an employee is at a company.

So long as he or she has enough money to run, and fulfills the criteria, anyone can run as an MP. MPs aren't elected based on how talented, capable and intelligent they are, for the most part. People vote for the MP who is in the party whom they think best represents their interests.

It's hardly a meritocracy. If it were, Ian Duncan Smith and Nigel Farage wouldn't be MPs, nor would Esther McVae or Louise Mensche.

You mean sort of like how its done in the banking sector?

90th percentile means that 10% of working population earn a salary in excess of an MP. That's about 3 million talented, capable, intelligent, 'ordinary' working people with real lives and real world experience ... the sort we all say we want running the country... but who will be put off because they don't want to take a pay-cut. Means the only ones that are going to put their name forward are either career politicians with no other experience, those on low salaries and resorting to bribes or sponsors... like the Labour MPs bankrolled by Coop Bank... or those with enough independent wealth that they can maintain their standard of living.

We already do. None of today's MPs went into it for the salary, I imagine. I expect, now that he's no longer a junior doctor, your DH earns significantly more than £66k. If he fancied running for office he'd have to think twice about it because he'd be taking a pay-cut. If that applies to a doctor, what chance we get other intelligent professionals taking up the position? The wider the gap gets between MPs' pay and other, comparative roles, the more we're inviting in those with independent wealth, financial sponsors and/or those who see it as an opportunity for backhanders.

I'm still trying to understand the rationalisation which is going on here. MPs are paid in the top 90%'ile of wages, and some right-wingers are arguing that it's not enough, and that it means only the independently wealthy will be able to afford such a wage.

So what does this imply for the remaining 90% of the population? Their wages are not enough to live on?

Bottom line is that you pay what is necessary to attract the people you need. That's why footballers like Rooney get paid obscene amounts of money. Because very few people in the world have that skill.

And that's why talented artists and authors are paid so much, right? Because nobody else has their skills?

And that's why we should pay MP's more. To attract the best and the brightest. Or should we be trying to run the country and compete in the world by paying peanuts to monkeys?

You mean sort of like how its done in the banking sector?

No matter what we pay MP's (or any other profession), there will always be someone who will say that's too much money.

I bet if we reduced the salary to £35k, some people would claim it's far too much for MP's and they should do it for minimum wage etc etc.

Bottom line is that you pay what is necessary to attract the people you need. That's why footballers like Rooney get paid obscene amounts of money. Because very few people in the world have that skill.

That's why doctors get paid so much. because few people are intelligent enough or skilled enough to perform surgery on another human being.

And that's why we should pay MP's more. To attract the best and the brightest. Or should we be trying to run the country and compete in the world by paying peanuts to monkeys?

"why do we not look at politics in the same way?"

We already do. None of today's MPs went into it for the salary, I imagine. I expect, now that he's no longer a junior doctor, your DH earns significantly more than £66k. If he fancied running for office he'd have to think twice about it because he'd be taking a pay-cut. If that applies to a doctor, what chance we get other intelligent professionals taking up the position? The wider the gap gets between MPs' pay and other, comparative roles, the more we're inviting in those with independent wealth, financial sponsors and/or those who see it as an opportunity for backhanders.

A hall of residence is not a good idea. It could make too tempting a terrorist target.

SSFA is private accommodation rented by the MOD at market rate, the occupant pays a rent on a par with what they pay if they were in military quarters. The MOD pays all bills. MPs would require a1 bed flat within zone 1 or 2.

£60k + expenses, for a 60+ hour week hmm sounds good when you compare it to what my DH earnt as a junior dr.
Similar wage, no expenses, ridiculous hours (at times I was seriously worried about DH commuting home), abuse from patients, huge amounts of stress, on call rotas over nights, weekends, BHols, having to deal with telling people they or their family aren't gonna make it, having your place of employment shifted around every 6-12mths within a region (the regions btw are huge). No guarantee of a job in your area when you finish your training. MP doesn't sound so bad in comparison.
Why does DH do his job? Because it's something he likes (on good days), feels is morally right and hopes he can help people, it ain't for the money.
I do my piss poorly paid career because I love it (on good days) and I feel I do it well, again not for the money.
Loads of people do professional careers for similar reasons, for not amazing salaries - why do we not look at politics in the same way?
If we did then all MPs need is a decent wage which I believe they already get.

There are also 435 members of Congress in the US. They and Senators are paid $174,000. Representatives also get a Member's Representational Allowance - average $1.4 million.

That's a lot!

You might be in the 90th percentile, i'll take your word for that. But it doesn't make you 'rich'. I'd argue to be properly rich you need to be in the top 1%.

My analogy to teachers wasn't to point out their pay. It was because often on teacher bashing threads, everyone also says what a great salary they're on, the massive holidays etc. Then someone will inevitably say "Well if it's such a cushy number, why don't you go be a teacher!?!"

Same here. If being an MP is so easy and you get paid so much money for scratching your arse, why don't you go be an MP instead of just sitting there slagging them off behind your computer screen?

On your last point it is one of those rare occasions where I agree with you. Timing is everything and now is simply the wrong time to be getting a 'payrise' even if it really isn't one in reality. Perception is everything for politician's and right now what the public are hearing is "MP's get 11% rise. You get 0%"

niceguy-

Part of the problem is that many people think that a salary of £60-70k is rich. Unfortunately it's not. You are at best middle class. A GP earns far more. You'd expect a successful company director to earn more too. Top headteachers also earn more I think.

No, that's really not the problem. A salary of 60-70K is in the 90th percentile, as I pointed out earlier.

As often said on teacher threads, if it's so much money, such an easy job and easy path to riches, why don't you become an MP?

Except teachers are paid about 1/3 of that amount, on average, work longer hours, and are usually required to have a good education and a teaching qualification.

Not all teachers are intelligent or well qualified, but on the whole they are probably more intelligent and well-rounded people than MPs.

Look at Ian Duncan Smith. He's an utter waste of a human being. A psychopath, idiot, and serial liar. There are too many idiots in Parliament -- on that note, I agree with you. I don't think they deserve any more money than they already get, especially when many other skilled public sector workers are getting a pay cut.

I think halls of residence sounds practical and sensible etc but would completely put me off ever becoming an MP. It just sounds so grim. Become an MP - live like a student!

What was it they said in The Thick of It? "They want you to work for nothing and to sit on a spike whilst you are doing it"

I actually feel sorry for them being put in this situation, they do know how bad it sounds to the public. They are really in a no win situation with public opinion.

only a fraction of what they do.

Of course, but none of it is physical work and depends on communication and information exchange. Requiring them to actually be there is like making them travel on horseback.

track record on large scale IT projects.

That did cross my mind. I remembered that in fact our government is so incompetent that they wouldn't be able to make such a change even if they were all behind it 100%.

Not encouraging is it.

I'd rather have 100 highly paid but well educated, intelligent successful people representing us.

Me too, but the most we can realistically expect is well educated people representing themselves and lining up retirement plans.