"MPs can't live on £60K a year" says Sir Malcolm Rifkind

[CFSKate]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11429070/MPs-cant-live-on-60k-a-year-says-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind.html

Is he being unreasonable?

I attract a salary of about 40K - which is deeply average for graduate with professional qualification and several years work experience, working in London.

If I were minded to be an MP - I would expect my travel/working hours to increase - and hence also my expenses (e.g. I'd need to hire a nanny - ASC just wouldn't cut it any more). So being an MP would be an effective pay cut from a very average London white collar job.

I have dependants and no family wealth/property equity behind me. It would be reckless for me to pursue a career in politics - especially once I factored in the pre-election period - where you are expected to put in a lot of unpaid work for the local party - and the fact that it is not exactly a secure, longterm career.

And hence it is not surprising that wealthy landowning toffs are substantially over-represented in parliament.

Well, the main one is to be able to run a brilliant PR campaign to get you elected in the first place. If you can do that, the sky's the limit as far as your earning potential's concerned.

Clearly they can, they do.

But personally I think they should be paid more, both to improve the quality of people who do they job (lots people who would or did make great MPs are off doing other jobs, paid 100ks more, for a far less demanding life - even if the other job is as tough, far less public scrutiny, which is what you signed up for, yes, but very hard on your family).

And to ensure that anyone, from any background, could do it and still live their life (e.g. provide their children with a stable home). 60k is not a massive salary for central London (where living costs are v high and MPs must be based at least 4 days a week) and then they have to spend time in their constituency too.

Throw a family into the mix especially with young children, and its a job that it just unaffordable for many. And that's before you consider whether, on its own terms, its reasonable compensation for the crazy demands of the job (on call 24/7, your personal life and family life alwas open to public scrutiny).

This combines to mean lots of people who would be great MPs consider all of that and just think: 'no thanks'. And especially if they don't have money from some other source to make it possible. So this problem discriminates against those that don't come from money far more than those that do (e.g. David Cameron). And, it drives corruption.

As with everything in life, you get what you pay for. I think the quality of MPs we have now reflects their level of pay. So poor pay = poor MPs.

Globally they are massively underpaid. American Congressmen and Senators get 200k ish I think, plus other perks. MEPs get a package worth more AFAIK.

I think we should pay them a lot more (200k+), but then have a ban on them having other outside earnings while they are in office. There must be a way to manage investments etc as distinct from earnings for work carried out. They can work it out for other significant public sector appointments e.g. head of regulators etc. Although where their was a notable conflict they'd either have to declare or divest. And likewise a ban on working in related sectors for a while after they have stood down. If well paid all that is ok.

Also, we should get rid of the expenses for second place of residence issues. The State should provide them with somewhere to live in London while they are an MP (so like their office, you get the use, but don't own it). Then cost of living in their consituency is their own affair, no State money goes to it.

it would clean up a lot of these scandals and broaden the range and number of people who could / would be MPs.

i agree with chertsey and purplepixiedust. he was being unreasonable to say MPS CAN'T live on 60k but i also think people are wilfully misunderstanding what he was saying as well. an MP could earn much more money working in consulting, finance, business, medicine etc. some of them have given up these careers. now i dont think that justifies them topping it up with dodgy dealings, but people simultaneously want MPs to be quality people with skills but also want them not to be paid any money and that just doesnt work.

personally i think they should ban all mp lobbying and raise their salaries to at least 150k a year. but of course that won't happen due to cries of outrage so we keep going around and around doing the same thing again and again. basically people in this country just seem to like to be outraged

imo it's a job that should be done for the love of it not the high wages

Why?

Being an MP's a important job. I'd rather the people who did it were the best possible.

They don't earn 60k though do they, they earn 67k plus substantial expenses that probably means they never have to cover the cost of things like work travel and evening meals that most other people pay for out of their own pocket. And they have the subsidised house of commons canteen.

I didn't know MPs were self employed - are they?

Rifkind is a QC. I think we can safely say he would earn more than £200,000 had he stayed at the Bar.

I think it's reasonable to pay a back bench MP on a par with a GP or hospital consultant or a vice chancellor of a major university. MPs have incredible responsiblity and most of them work extremely hard. In a high profile job like a mp there is the risk of you or your family bring murdered.

I shall stick my neck out and say that MPs should be paid more, but not allowed to claim expenses.

Of course, no one is forcing Malky R to be an MP. He chooses to do it. He could stop, and fill his days with something more lucrative.

Asking MPs to work for the love of it (voluntarily) is the very worst idea ever. It would mean only the rich could even contemplate it. That's almost where we are now with all the old Etonians.

Hardly anyone with proper career potential, who actually needs to earn a living does it anymore.

MPs started to be paid back in the day to allow people of all social classes to be MPs rather than have it be a hobby for rich nobles and the landed. basically the pay has not kept pace with inflation etc. and now the whole thing has been warped by simplistic and short-termist tabloid hysteria

littlebearpad that's a nice idea but its hardly realistic

I need to become an MP... you'll all vote me in right...

Expenses are now far more closely scrutinised - rightly so.

I get dinner paid for me if I work late, I get mileage if I travel for work and my canteen is subsidised. That's not unusual. I don't make any money from it and at 10pm I would far rather be at home.

now they've set up a committee or something to investigate MPs pay and every year like clockwork it recommends the pay should go up and whoever is in government makes a big show out of rejecting the recommendations to show how 'in-touch' they are with ordinary people typical british bodge

Really tired. Everything you said about a mp's role applies to police officers. In fact I would say police have a hell of a lot more responsibility. Impact on police officers work/life balance much worse

Guess what? Mps voted to make police wages less! I think they are massively over paid, and the most corrupt organization in the uk

What that the best people possible become MPs - why?

Pay them properly and the quality would improve.

I agree with ReallyTired. When a Tesco store manager's salary is £53,000 at the upper limit I don't think £60K is too bad considering the hours, travel and pressure.

Exactly Kelly of course when you have £30 million like David Cameron its a bit easier to turn down the payrise.

MPs pay should be set by a completely independent organisation like the pay of judges imo

I think they could live off it if they wanted to. The trouble is I do have some sympathy with the argument that able people won't want to become MP's unless they have private means or inheritances as they won't be prepared to accept £60K salary as they could earn more elsewhere.

I actually wouldn't object to them being paid more than they are.

But I suppose what I do object to is the double standard - everyone else in life, particularly the lower paid public sector workers, are constantly told 'well, if it doesn't pay enough for you, find something else'. Which might be a fair point if you're admin staff, but not really much use for health and education staff, where by it's nature the vast majority of them are public servants. Therefore, I feel that the same applies at the top end of the spectrum - if it's not enough, then don't do it.

I wouldn't object to MPs getting £100K, as long as they were doing their jobs properly.
But throwing more money at them won't fix horrible working hours.

georgepigsdinosaur but maybe the way to have better MPs is to make the job more attractive to actually skilled people rather than incompetents, chancers and etonians? youre cutting off your nose to spite your face a bit.
cutting the pay of the police clearly makes them perform worse in your logic so you think giving the MPs a big pay cut will make them better??

I fully accept that £60k is a decent salary - but as other posters have mentioned, in London £60k is not a particularly high paid job.

I work in the legal sector and our 2nd year grads are on more than an MPs basic wage. (I realize this says a lot about the inflated salaries of city lawyers).

I do think this impacts on the type of person who is willing to become an MP. People with top degrees from top class universities (assuming we want these bright people to be MPs) from working/middle class backgrounds who want to support their family and "get on" are unlikely to be in a financial position to turn down very lucrative highly paid jobs in the City for a career in politics at £60k p/a . Yes there are some who sacrifice their salary for the greater good but I would rather we paid our MPs more and got better quality candidates who didn't feel the need to run an expense scam or other lobbying business on the side.

How do other country's parliaments compare when it comes to working hours etc? Is all that late night voting a peculiarly British thing? Or is that worldwide? I've never really thought much about it...