Page 6 | "MPs can't live on £60K a year" says Sir Malcolm Rifkind

TooSpotty · 23/02/2015 18:14

Luckily, Sir Malcolm is earning rather a lot more than £67,000 plus expenses.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/150106/rifkind_malcolm.htm

Phew.

growingbytheday · 23/02/2015 18:16

Increasing salaries to avoid them getting into 'such a mess with expenses' ? So, should we pay more to the people who embezzle their employers to stop them getting into difficulties? Some MP's actually submitted fraudulent expenses, others claimed for petty amounts (toilet roll?) which the majority of us would consider normal living expenses.
Why can't sleeping quarters be provided so they don't need two homes?
Why can't they live on £60k? They are happy to support zero hour contracts, minimum wages, austerity for everyone but them it seems and that also includes the right to smoke inside whilst quaffing their subsidised drinks. Millions in this country would think that £60k was a lottery win. MP's are elected to run the country not a national business they are MP's not MD's and we are not staff.
If they can't compete for the best life style on £60k then go where they can earn a 'good' living; methinks some of our illustrious elected members may discover the reality of 'Benefit Britain'.

FyreFly · 23/02/2015 18:19

I think a lot of MPs actually DO go into it for the love of it, because they truly believe they can change the world and make life better for everyone.

Then they get there, and find that no-one listens to them, they can't get anything into the debate, the whips ride roughshod over their objections and they're bullied into the party line, they're insulted by the opposition and the media (because no matter what you do in politics, you will ALWAYS be wrong), they're working 17 hour days and not seeing their family, back home their constituents are up in arms because they're not realising their promises quickly enough and after all of this, nothing actually changes.

Being an MP sounds like an incredibly depressing and stressful prospect to be honest. I'd want the money too. And I'd want a hell of a lot more than £60k to put up with that.

LollieLoves · 23/02/2015 18:20

They can't live on £60k, yet they expect disabled and sick people to survive on tuppence ha'penny and a boiled sweet. I have no sympathy, I'm afraid.

grovel · 23/02/2015 18:21

minifingers, I generally agree with you. My only caveat is that some excellent people discover their "political vocation" when the are in their late thirties/early forties and already have a lifestyle/mortgage etc which cannot be supported by a £67,000 salary. They may be happy to downscale but wouldn't want to inflict that on their families. So we lose them, their expertise (in whatever field) and their passion.

Melawen · 23/02/2015 18:21

I quite understand that an MPs salary is not (broadly speaking) comparable to that of a senior managers in big business, but it's the language that I object to - by saying that MPs can't live on £60k a year simply shows how out of touch they are.

turningvioletviolet · 23/02/2015 18:29

I had a very close relation who was an MP. I don't care what anyone on here says. It is a hard, difficult job - had all sorts of repercussions on his and his family's life that were never reconciled. He worked damn hard, long hours, weekends, functions in the evening. Much of day to day ground root politics is beyond tedious. He could have (and did) earn way more in the profession he was in prior to politics. And he did not come from a privileged background. After what i saw, you could not pay me enough to do that job.

carrie74 · 23/02/2015 18:36

I have a certain sympathy. I am friends with two people in their 40s, both of whom have had lifelong ambitions of becoming MPs (and who IMO would be excellent voices for their constituents). One has completely given up the dream: he can't afford to take the paycut and continue to support his family in the SE (he is sole earner). I've not yet heard on the second as to whether she will put herself forward in May (she stood at the last election but in a seat she had no chance of winning), but she too is concerned about the pay cut (although has a partner who theoretically should earn enough to support the paycut).

If we want people who excel in their fields (as both my friends do), then the salary does need to be competitive.

However, I don't know how to reconcile this with those who excel in their fields in the public sector and do not feel sufficiently recompensed.

minifingers · 23/02/2015 18:39

Even in the SE a family can live on 65K

AskBasil · 23/02/2015 18:40

Compare his ideas of what the poor can live on.

They really don't think we're the same bloody species as them.

grovel · 23/02/2015 18:41

Yes they can, minifingers. But if you earn more than £65k and then cut back your standard of living you are inflicting the cuts on your family. Not many people can bring themselves to do that.

DisappointedOne · 23/02/2015 18:46

Not read the thread but I worked closely with MPs for many years not so long back and I wouldn't do it for £60k a year. £160k, maybe.

I think you should experience what's involved (not what the media portrays) before judging.

Melawen · 23/02/2015 18:46

turningvioletviolet I get your point about not wanting to do the job on that salary! and I would say the same myself! but I think that is very different to saying that it is unreasonable to be expected to live on such a salary. Particularly when low wage earners ARE expected to live on much less.

There is something here about paying people what their job is worth, but that can be separated out from being expected to live on it.

georgepigsdinosaur · 23/02/2015 18:47

"he worked damn hard, long hours, weekends..."
So does every other fucker I know
None of us are on 60k plus expenses, plus subsided food and drink, plus second home, plus long summer breaks etc
They work no fucking harder than the rest of us in full time employment

NK5BM3 · 23/02/2015 19:06

But isn't the issue to do with the responsibility and accountability that they have to have (whether they do is a separate issue). So for example the senior manager in a business will be responsible for budgets, staff development, product development, strategy etc.

The mp has that too with his constituents, as well as the committees that he is on (security, migration etc). So it would appear that he has both operational level issues to deal with (constituent complaints, issues, letters to write...) but also decisions at a strategic level that will affect the gov.

Add to that political skill, good listening ear, lots of pr activity meeting the constituents, community work etc. it's a lot to do for £67k. Like a few other posters have said, of course we can live on that but it would be frugally particularly if the partner can't work due to the mp's unsociable hours.

minifingers · 23/02/2015 19:13

"you are inflicting the cuts on your family. Not many people can bring themselves to do that."

Yes - your children may even have to go to state schools and use the NHS, you may not be able to go skiing, and you may feel a bit pinched over housing costs.....

For goodness sake, you're not talking about MP's having to send their partners out on the game.....

AnneElliott · 23/02/2015 19:20

I don't think they should be paid more. I don't think bring an MP should be an actual career- it should be something you go into after a successful career so you take your experience with you.

I have met a significant number of MPs and a high proportion would not get a job in the real world.

DisappointedOne · 23/02/2015 19:25

"It should be something you go into after a successful career so you take your experience with you."

So just rich pensioners should be MPs then....? Hardly representative of their constiuents!

ArcheryAnnie · 23/02/2015 19:27

I want MPs to earn well, and I want them to have access to reasonable expenses. I don't want to go back to the days when the only people who could afford to be MPs were landed gentry, who did it as a kind of hobby.

And the good MPs do work ridiculous long, long hours under what for me would be totally unacceptable personal scrutiny. It's a horrible job, and I don't understand why people want to do it - but they do.

But still, with adequate expenses and all the other advantages, £67k a year (with more on top if you get a cabinet position) is enough for people who truly wish to go into it for public service reasons.

And the "high earners wouldn't be able to afford a cut in salary" thing doesn't wash with me. People who were high earners before will already have many of the things (education, car, home, etc) that people on smaller incomes struggle to afford at any age. People may want a house with a mortgage that can't be paid by someone earning £67k a year, but nobody needs such a house. And normal families make much bigger sacrifices all the time to help family members eg, retrain or whatever - I also don't buy the "high earners don't want to make their families suffer by living on only £67 a year".

Being an MP isn't some mystical profession that only a few can hope to do well. If some high earners drop out of the running, we aren't going to be left with a dreadful dearth of people who are willing to stand.

OTheHugeManatee · 23/02/2015 19:30

By London standards £60k is fuck all. Sorry, it is.

People on here are always moaning about how MPs are all millionaires. Well, newsflash: the majority of ambitious people who are willing to be paid fuck all to work thanklessly long weeks in the public eye are the ones who are rich enough that they aren't working for the money.

99.9% of people from poor backgrounds who realise they are capable of pulling in big bucks won't want to waste the highest earning years of their lives and the chance to give their kids better opportunities than they had. Not for sixty grand a year.

If we want a socially diverse Parliament we need to pay MPs on a par with what people with an MP's typical abilities and level of responsibility might expect in other jobs. If we don't, we will either get people with their noses in the trough or we'll only recruit from among the millionaires who can afford to swan about doing public service and being paid fuck all.

You can't have it both ways. Want self-righteous millionaires Ed Miliband and expenses fiddling? Bow to the politics of envy, pay crap wages and soften the blow with over generous expenses perks. Want a mix of backgrounds? Pay properly.

minifingers · 23/02/2015 19:30

"I don't want to go back to the days when the only people who could afford to be MPs were landed gentry, who did it as a kind of hobby."

In the bad old days, people didn't get paid AT ALL for being an MP.

Nobody is suggesting a return to unpaid public service or a cut in mp's salary.

AskBasil · 23/02/2015 19:32

"By London standards £60k is fuck all. Sorry, it is. "

And yet millions of Londoners live on less than half of that

How is it that so many people manage to live on fuck all?

AskBasil · 23/02/2015 19:33

Is it Denis Skinner who draws the average wage and donates the rest to charities or unions or whatever?

Keeps him in touch with how the majority live.

DisappointedOne · 23/02/2015 19:42

DH and I earned more than £67k each when we worked in London and life was fairly sweet.

Now we bring in the equivalent of about 2/3rds of that, live in Wales, only 1 child, don't go wild splashing cash but we couldn't afford to earn less than that.

Ubik1 · 23/02/2015 19:45

Mumsnet really is a parallel universe sometimes.
£60,000 is a hell of a lot of money. Especially as they have expenses too.

Politicians in years gone by managed on far less and were perhaps more in touch and gave less contempt fir they people they serve.