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?

@Drivingish

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.

Why though? Why should MPs be so shielded from everyday expenses the rest of us have to suck up? Why do people think they deserve such high rewards for something that surely should be considered a vocational role that you'd do for the benefit of your community/country, rather than your own personal benefit? Lots of public services are staffed by people who do their jobs for minimal rewards, some even voluntary, why is it so incomprehensible that MPs could do the same?

Do you remember Cameron's 'Big Society'? The tories wholeheartedly supported the working classes helping out for the good of the community, why is it different for them?

Actually blows my mind how many people's solution to Tory corruption is pay them more - the UK has such an ingrained serf mentality.

Besides, Johnson's childcare bill alone could bankrupt the country

Lol, all you have to do is go out for a drink on the King's Road to see that salary is not necessarily a reflection of calibre. But after 10+ years of Tory-land I'm not surprised you think that

I know many highly qualified, highly intelligent people who could earn very high salaries if they had gone into fields where it would be possible.
They're all teachers.
It isn't about the money.

One thing to bear in mind is many MPs work really hard and are genuinely good public servants.

If you say 'they're all the same' a) you're a fool and b) you're exacerbating the problem by putting off good people.

You need a mix of society in the House of Commons, so you need 'difficult women' like Jess Phillips and Angela Raynor who've lived experience or work history and are not afraid to speak up/out for marginalised.

But you also need people capable of earning £1m. You have a few people like that in the current sitting. The important point is that they can but they don't. Integrity is vital.

@Wiredforsound Unless you're the Leader of the Opposition you don't receive any money for being in the Shadow Cabinet.

I think £82k isn't worth it for the job than MPs do. Even though BJ is a total tosspot, I'd want to be paid a lot more than £150k to be the effing Prime Minister.

I do believe that you should not have a second position when working as an MP, I think it's outrageous that many do.

@KangSaeByeok

You need a mix of society in the House of Commons, so you need 'difficult women' like Jess Phillips and Angela Raynor who've lived experience or work history and are not afraid to speak up/out for marginalised.

But you also need people capable of earning £1m. You have a few people like that in the current sitting. The important point is that they can but they don't. Integrity is vital.

There are good and 'difficult' women on all benches. Currently, it is mostly conservative women who are fighting the gender critical fight (with a couple of others who have been isolated by their own parties on this issue). It is great that we have women with young children and teens in the Commons. The one I know does not have a nanny or anything, but the family juggles childcare as many families do.

MPs' 'expenses' can be broken down as follows...

• acoomodation budget. My MP travels 300 miles from home to Westminster and is away from her young children for half of every week.
• staffing budget. Constituents are grateful for great support staff for an MP. The bulk of the work goes unseen except by the people who need that help.
• travel between constituency and Westminster.

Some MPs are earning extra but most are not, especially the 2019 elected MPs. They come from all walks of life. One was a hospital porter for 30 years before being elected. Some lawyers, doctors, vets. Some working mums.

I hate that these people are being villlified. We have just seen another MP murdered and they are seen as fair game.

We need to stop this narrative as most MPs are genuinely trying to do the best for their constituents and for society.

@Persephoned

Anyone who thinks £85k is not an adequate salary is too arrogant/out of touch to make a good MP.

Yes, I live in London. Yes, I have a professional salary. I don’t earn as much as an MP, I don’t begrudge them their current salary but honest to god don’t see how it can be argued it’s not a good one other than by someone from an incredibly privileged/blinkered situation.

I agree. It’s a very good wage for the job.

If they were actually competent and not cowards and used their brains to do the jobs, that should suffice.

I say cowards because we saw how the tories (apart from 13) recently voted in the Paterson issue although they must have known its wrong. Hence the U turn 24 hours later. Cowards, the lot of those Tories (apart from 13).

Besides, isn't the city/CEOs the job most likely to be populated by psychopaths? I saw that on psychopath night on channel 4. Next top job was surgeon apparently.
Maybe in fact people who only care about themselves is exactly what we DON'T want in parliament.
Oh...

Why any sensible person with an established career, in any walk of life, would go into politics is beyond me. You need an overwhelming desire to serve the public and/or a hide like a rhino to even contemplate it. I work with lots of talented and committed professionals who would make MPs; none of them would touch it with a barge pole.

*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

How's that boot taste, OP?

I agree OP

If we want the best who would perform like they were top of the ladder at big corps, without any sleaze they need to be paid competitively
So I do agree paying them a million pounds is fair

Had this conversation many a time

I think all civil servants are under paid and if we paid them more they would be better quality

@cultkid

I agree OP

If we want the best who would perform like they were top of the ladder at big corps, without any sleaze they need to be paid competitively
So I do agree paying them a million pounds is fair

Had this conversation many a time

I think all civil servants are under paid and if we paid them more they would be better quality

That’s precisely it though, you do not want people performing like that.

What makes you think CEOs do a good job? Shit rises as they say!

Being paid loads of money does not make you inherently better as an MP - why would it?

Set out what you think an MP actually does, how that correlates to being a CEO and why they need more money.

I don't care what MPs earn as long as they are doing their MP work first and foremost.

It's a slipper democratic slope calling for competent politicians though. Socrates was killed for that!

I think we need people who have life experience, and if that includes experience of what it’s like to live on a lower wage, or with health issues, that might help them understand how some of their constituents live.

I read that the composition of parliament has really altered, with far more MPs having legal or accounting backgrounds. Needn’t always be bad in itself, but add to that people who have gone the private school, oxbridge, political researcher route. So narrow.

Set out what you think an MP actually does, how that correlates to being a CEO and why they need more money.

Which pool of people do you think form the government?

Is this a joke?

@Lovelyricepudding

Set out what you think an MP actually does, how that correlates to being a CEO and why they need more money.

Which pool of people do you think form the government?

?

MPs form a collective representation of those who voted for them.

The government of the day are a particular collection of MPs and they have an army of civil servants to do the day to day running of the show.

MPs with additional responsibilities eg the Prime Minister, get paid on top of their MP salary to do their jobs. MPs with committee responsibilities also get more.

“Back bench” MPs ie those who are “just” MPs have no hand in running the government. They do get to vote on matters but they don’t even do that consistently.

So, what’s your question exactly? I don’t understand.

this is a joke right?

They need wiping out and starting again. Maybe with people who can actually tell you the price of a pint of milk before deciding how much the poor people need to sruvive on a basic wage.

They are completely out of touch to run a country and have no experience outside of extreme wealth, throwing more money at them will only make the situation worse.

Iggly the government are drawn from the pool of MPs so that pool of MPs need to be capable. At the moment there are 360 MPs in the governing party and 123 of them have ministerial responsibilities - 22 in the cabinet and 14 unpaid. Many other MPs have committee roles. Junior ministers and new backbench MPs will also represent the pool of individuals 'training up' for more senior roles. Fewer opposition MPs have these responsibility but if they had gained a majority or entered a coalition then they would have so they need to be capable too.

The remaining backbench MPs still have a duty to scrutinise legislation, bring forth amendments and ultimately vote for or against so they must be capable of understanding the implications and unintended consequences of that legislation.

A not insignificant proportion of the population are barely literate. I expect MPs to have an understanding of this, issue with education and problems faced by these individuals. But I also expect all MPs to be highly literate.

@Lovelyricepudding

Iggly the government are drawn from the pool of MPs so that pool of MPs need to be capable. At the moment there are 360 MPs in the governing party and 123 of them have ministerial responsibilities - 22 in the cabinet and 14 unpaid. Many other MPs have committee roles. Junior ministers and new backbench MPs will also represent the pool of individuals 'training up' for more senior roles. Fewer opposition MPs have these responsibility but if they had gained a majority or entered a coalition then they would have so they need to be capable too.

The remaining backbench MPs still have a duty to scrutinise legislation, bring forth amendments and ultimately vote for or against so they must be capable of understanding the implications and unintended consequences of that legislation.

A not insignificant proportion of the population are barely literate. I expect MPs to have an understanding of this, issue with education and problems faced by these individuals. But I also expect all MPs to be highly literate.

Capable of what exactly?

They don’t scrutinise legislation - they have committee support staff to do that for them. They also have constituency support staff as well. Who spend hours and hours pouring over this stuff for them. Otherwise we’d just want an army of MPs who were lawyers.

Why does giving them more money mean that they’ll be better at it? They get more money for additional responsibilities already

Sorry, hit post too soon. To carry on - you refer to a wide spread illiteracy problem. That’s not sorted by paying MPs more - it’s sorted by improving education of the population.

I don’t want MPs who are motivated by money. Just how greedy do they need to be, earning a salary which takes them well above the average wage plus all of the additional amounts that they can earn?

MPs are not employees and shouldn’t be treated as such. We should be looking at MPs who do a good job and wonder how that came to be. And, I bet you, it wasn’t the ones who felt the need to earn millions elsewhere because their MPs salary was “chicken feed”.

People don’t go into politics because it’s an absolutely impossible thing to do unless you wangle your way in via a main political party. Not because it doesn’t pay enough!

OP, do you understand that most/all of these particular individuals (Patterson, Duncan Smith, Grayling) would be unlikely to earn the basic MP's salary in the real-world, let alone the additional salaries they're drawing?

Cox is in trouble because he was getting paid by the BVI to effectively act as an informant and lobbyist on tax-evasion legislation, not as legal counsel.

I don't exaggerate when I say that IDS, Grayling et al would struggle to obtain and keep a middle-managers' job. They're life-long grifters, chancers and liars (look at IDS fabricating his CV for evidence).

@Voord

Why any sensible person with an established career, in any walk of life, would go into politics is beyond me. You need an overwhelming desire to serve the public and/or a hide like a rhino to even contemplate it. I work with lots of talented and committed professionals who would make MPs; none of them would touch it with a barge pole.

You need an overwhelming desire to serve the public

There are plenty of people that have this desire. What about teachers, doctors, nurses - the list must go on and on ...

None of these professions are highly paid. People work long hours and have to have thick skin. We don't offer them grander salaries do we?

The talented committed professionals you know who wouldn't touch MP work with a barge pole are perhaps after the money and more selfish rewards instead. So they wouldn't make good MPs would they?