AIBU to think we need MPs who can earn £1million a year

[Lovelyricepudding]

I don't know what the answer is but AIBU to think we need people who companies think it is worth paying £1million a year as MPs? The quality of most of our MPs is pretty rubbish and £82k a year is not a salary to attract big-hitters of the calibre we need. It sounds like Geoffrey Cox QC may have spent too little time focused on MP work and it is obviously wrong for MPs to benefit from external work gleaned due to their role as an MP. But how do we attract the most capable people into parliament when they can be so successful outside parliament?

@Iggly

How many people realise that the majority of MPs don’t actually have a hand in running the country in a day to day basis. They represent their constituents on a wage 3 times the average salary. Plus get help with expenses on top.

Those MPs which gain more responsibility also get paid additional on top of that. Eg the likes of Priti Patel etc. Or those who sit on committees.

So I’m not sure why people think they’re hard done by. They’re not.

My mp works incredibly hard for that money. He travels 450 miles to London for half the week then returns and works flat out the other half here at his surgery and community events. God knows when he sees his young family. He must work 70+ hours a week!

No… just no. They don’t need more money. What we need is a more diverse cabinet yes. We still won’t get that with a wage increase. It just means people like Johnson will close ranks and give more jobs to the boys.

Plus expenses, plus subsidised lunches and bars.

Not many jobs giving them those perks.

I think most established high earners would absolutely avoid politics.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

Actually l think we need mp’s who’ve been unemployed, lived on universal credit, fought in Afghanistan, than a load of self important millionaire tosspots. As in the current government.

So it a no from me .

This.

Politicians as a whole don't seem to do much that's not in their self interest, so let's pay them all LESS and give them performance bonuses based on what they actually manage to achieve for the good of the country. We might get a better class of people in politics that way.

I am not saying £85k is not a good salary to live on or saying they are hard done by. Certainly for a career politician it is good. But I am saying we don't want career politicians, we want politicians who are successful in the real world - sometimes (not always) reflected by the salary they command due to their expertise and experience.

If they re off earning a million, what makes you think they ll have much time to do a proper job as an mp, or to even give a shit about it...you should expect an mp to work really hard at their job, as most do.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

Actually l think we need mp’s who’ve been unemployed, lived on universal credit, fought in Afghanistan, than a load of self important millionaire tosspots. As in the current government.

So it a no from me .

This!

The fact the so many people have a poor opinion of politicians is because we have so many mediocre MPs who perform like middle managers at best - across all parties and political leanings. We need better. It isn't the pay per se but how do we attract better?

Honestly I think the country would be best served by having MPs from all walks of life. So yes, there probably should be a few high earners - because they understand the needs of and the issues faced by high earners.
BUT we also need MPs who earn 20/25k a year... and MPs who have worked with children, and MPs who have worked in the NHS, and volunteered with homeless people and other disenfranchised members of society. We need MPs who have worked with big business, and those who understand the perils of running a small business or being self ememployed. We need MPs who graduated from Uni and some who left school in their teens and went straight into work. And MPs from a much wider variety of backgrounds - racially, culturally, whatever.

The problem with our MPs isn't that they don't earn enough, it's that the vast majority of them are much of a muchness. So they neither represent, or seem to much care, about people unlike them. Which is shit for the majority of people.

@SickAndTiredAgain

I’d see MPs paid more but banned from contemporaneous employment.

I’d agree with this. Definitely no other employment, you’re elected to work full time for your constituents.

How about their expenses being subject to the same tax rules as anyone else too?

@daimbarsatemydogsbone I won’t pretend to know the tax rules around MPs expenses but yes, it sounds perfectly reasonable that they should be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

So yes, there probably should be a few high earners - because they understand the needs of and the issues faced by high earners.

That is not why I think it appropriate to have high earners. Though it is reasonable that they should be represented too. I was thinking more because they are likely to have experience managing large and complex organisations which need to consider both national and international factors, as well as complex financial matters. Or in the case of a QC to have an excellent understanding of the intricacies of law and how it is applied in the courts (because MPs govern through writing laws). Equally I think we need people with experience within the NHS, agriculture, manufacturing, science, armed forces...

One -
They get a lot more than that when you Chuck in the allowances and perks that they are legally entitled to.none of them are struggling.
Two- oh do fuck off dear. How about we give that, let’s face it - pretty fucking good salary to people who want to actually dedicate themselves to public life and to representing and serving the people as they’re supposed to.
Just like we have doctors who work in the NHS rather than trying to feck off and start a lucrative private practice. Or the lawyers who choose to work in public service or represent those who need them
Most, not who pay them most.
Or like our teachers - who have degrees, pGCEs, MAs and still choose to teach rather than get some marketing job paying them triple their teacher salary.
‘Calibre’ of people? How about getting some half decent, smart, hardworking WC and MC class people to represent us rather than old Etonian toffs who have no experience of the real world and seem to think that they should be allowed to lie and cheat and bribe their way to more money and power because they were born to it, and we should be happy to have them.

@Lovelyricepudding

So yes, there probably should be a few high earners - because they understand the needs of and the issues faced by high earners.

That is not why I think it appropriate to have high earners. Though it is reasonable that they should be represented too. I was thinking more because they are likely to have experience managing large and complex organisations which need to consider both national and international factors, as well as complex financial matters. Or in the case of a QC to have an excellent understanding of the intricacies of law and how it is applied in the courts (because MPs govern through writing laws). Equally I think we need people with experience within the NHS, agriculture, manufacturing, science, armed forces...

Isn't that covered by the civil service though? I mean, very few MP's - particularly in the cabinet - have a background that relates to their post? Lots of finance and journalism basically. Though Nadine Dorries was a nurse way back when...

MPs need to propose legislation and scrutinise legislation. Only MP’s who are diligent do that bit well. Second part of the job is to listen to constituents and interest groups and help solve problems. Diligent people hopefully.

Paying someone a million isn’t going to make them good at this sort of job. You need people who pay attention to detail and can look at the bigger picture.

There is no way we could specify certain professions need only apply. That isn’t going to make better laws. A former doctor can’t just look at health bills. They need to look at every bill.

The best way to get better calibre MP’s is to join your local party. Raise the standard at the local level. Campaign at a local level. Make sure people know when you have a good candidate. Also we shouldn’t vote on party lines for the sake of it. We need to vote for the best candidate locally and nationally.

If you pay a salary of a million you will get people motivated by money. You won’t get public servants.

I had 3 friends colleagues selected in 2010 ( 1 for each English party)

1 worked for me and so I know to the penny what she earned. The base salary was the same as our salary was matched against Mp, Minister and Prime Minister. They would have lost car allowance and private medical

1 was a neighbour. I guess that he took a 50% salary reduction plus a massive loss on share options

1 had a low paid/volunteer role. Dont know what they earned but this would have been a massive uplift.

Geoffrey Cox is considered a good MP by a lot of his constituents....next constituency to where I live.

I had to reread your OP a few times because I was thinking you can't be bloody serious

I could not agree more with this.
Rich people aren't (on the whole) rich because they are better than poor people. On the whole, they are generally rich because of the advantages they have enjoyed.
Exceptions do of course exist.

Yep, mostly from private educations and connections paid for by inherited wealth. If wealth died with you (100% inheritance tax) we wouldn't have even heard of the likes of Johnson and Mogg. None of these people get to where they are through sheer hard work and grit.

To quote the great Ted Hastings,

“You rose through the ranks alright, leaving a trail of blunders behind you, how some people can fail upwards beggars belief.”

It’s own thing to be paid for a skill, it’s another thing to be paid for access or influence.

Also, splitting time and focus between different roles does inspire confidence.

To avoid confusion or blurring the lines, no paid consultancies etc whilst a sitting MP would be sensible.

I am a little less worried about occasional paid work in an academic or training capacity, especially if related to a non-political field qnd is as-his rather than ongoing (e.g. if someone is a doctor or environmental scientist or historian or lawyer). But I would be happy to see this being impossible too for the sake of clear boundaries and avoiding the possibility of loopholes or abuse of the system.

It used to be that you got people in after they had had successful careers - now being an MP is a career in itself. In order to get in you often have to have networked/interned from an early age- which actually removes it from being accessible to most people.
Second jobs should be banned/jobs directly after being an MP should be heavily restricted/subsidised housing/expenses/employing families should all be banned - I don't know why MP's are given money to buy property in London.
It is difficult though - if you were working in the S/E- pretty successful - the MP salary might not match your salary and cover your living expenses- maybe match the salary to what you were earning before? but that doesn't seem fair

I'd pay extremely generous expenses for essentials, ie rent/mortgage, normal bills (not building a duck pond etc), childcare, private medical cover, clothing, travel etc, everything the average (generous) person would think was needed to live/do the job and a small wage besides that for luxuries and they'd have to manage on that, no extra work or taking on dubious gigs. Then every year there'd be good bonuses based on how well their constituency and party is doing (hard to work out off the top of my head but some clever economist could manage) - then they'd be welcome to get filthy rich but only by doing the job really well.

Too many of our MPs already are high earners or people who come from wealthy families. Many of them also have ‘consultancy’ or ‘advisory’ jobs on the side, and generally speaking, their parliamentary careers almost guarantee them a high paying job when they leave or get voted out. Members of parliament should be representatives of the people, all the people, not just rich people or high earners. The £82k is not an insignificant salary and is just the basic salary too - many earn a lot more for being chairs of committees or cabinet/shadow cabinet members. They also rack up significant sums in expenses so they’re out of pocket for nothing. I’d definitely not like to see a system of payment that encouraged more oiks. We already have more than enough of them.

No.