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?

@Washingtonirving79

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).

Just seen this ... it's a very accurate observation.

That’s not sorted by paying MPs more - it’s sorted by improving education of the population.

My point was not that MPs should be paid more but rather that we need MPs of the sort who are capable of demanding large salaries in private life due to there experience, knowledge and expertise. We need better MPs. In reality nearly everyone with the skill set needed would either earn more in their current job or earn less as they are altruistically giving their skills and time.

My point about literacy was one of representation. It is not reasonable to suggest that current illiteracy should be represented amongst MPs even though a proportion of the voters are illiterate.

I don't mean illiteracy secondary to dyslexia etc I meant more broardly about use and comprehension of language. Though just as an example. Perhaps criminality would be a better example. A proportion of the electorate are convicted criminals who have served long sentences. They do not need to be represented in parliament even though MP's still represent these individuals and their families. (I know - some may say criminals and shysters are well represented!)

@Lovelyricepudding

That’s not sorted by paying MPs more - it’s sorted by improving education of the population.

My point was not that MPs should be paid more but rather that we need MPs of the sort who are capable of demanding large salaries in private life due to there experience, knowledge and expertise. We need better MPs. In reality nearly everyone with the skill set needed would either earn more in their current job or earn less as they are altruistically giving their skills and time.

My point about literacy was one of representation. It is not reasonable to suggest that current illiteracy should be represented amongst MPs even though a proportion of the voters are illiterate.

Again, I disagree.

There’s an inherent assumption in your statement that commanding a higher salary makes you better qualified but you haven’t really set out what those skills are exactly.

MPs are representing constituents - to do that they have to understand the issues that their population faces, and represent that to Parliament in order to enact change.

MPs have a lot of architecture around them to help them do their job in terms of legislation etc. They also have a lot around them when it comes to governing.

I would argue that the MPs greatest skill is to listen, empathise, and understand. But ultimately it’s a vocation, not a profession.

And that’s why equating it to the corporate world makes no sense to me.

There are plenty of people on average salaries with fantastic skills who would make fabulous MPs. They don’t command high salaries - because money is not the only way in which you measure worth.

I would argue that the MPs greatest skill is to listen, empathise, and understand. But ultimately it’s a vocation, not a profession.

This is true.

There are quite a few inaccuracies in this thread, however. MPs do not get paid more for sitting on a committee, only if they chair it. Most committee chairs have been senior or cabinet ministers.

This bizarre suggestion is based on two fundamental misunderstandings: first that we live in a meritocratic society where pay levels correlate with skills and competence, and second that being a good MP requires the same type of skills and competencies as being a corporate executive. Both completely false.

@lemmein - *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*

I absolutely have no serf mentality, especially to the Tories, I'd happily let them live on bread and water tbh but an MP unable to pay their rent or having to sort out childcare issues because they can't afford reliable childcare is not going to be any good to the people they're supposed to be serving, even if those are problems the rest of us have. That's why I'd pay generous expenses but very little besides - so they'd have childcare and bills sorted so they could get on with the job but no money for lavish holidays and all the other trimmings. If they want the luxuries they'll have to do an amazing job to get their bonus (if I was working out the bonuses for Boris's cronies I doubt any senior Tory would receive one so far).

We need the best people to run the country, and I'm sorry but £82,000 does not reflect their importance and responsibility. Country is a mess and we need the best people to sort it out. To get the best people we need to pay good salaries.

To put it in perspective, I earn just shy of £82,000. Early 30s and I work 4 days a week. Not in London. My jobs a piece of piss compared to being an MP.

Compare that to long hours, public exposure and tricky issues they have to deal with. Plus most MPs are significantly older than me.

I know £82,000 seems like a lot but a MPs salary has got to be compared to professional jobs based in London with a similar amount of responsibility.

I guess what I'm saying is paying more is a good investment if we get the right people for the job.

So you equate high salaries with attracting high calibre people.
I equate it with attracting greedy ones.

MPs are representing constituents - to do that they have to understand the issues that their population faces, and represent that to Parliament in order to enact change.
I would argue that the MPs greatest skill is to listen, empathise, and understand. But ultimately it’s a vocation, not a profession.

I disagree. For a start they are not simply representing their constituents - they have been elected because of their own political views so are representing those. They are elected to make decisions not just to defer to their constituents and to govern the whole country. Many decisions will negatively impact on constituents eg increasing taxes on the wealthy, not increasing benefits, increasing investment in a deprived area in a different constituency, not given a contract to a local manufacturer whose product is inferior.

A CEO/chair of a large organisation would be more familiar with cost-benefit analysis and considering the opportunity costs of actions. They will have experience of interacting on a global scale and the problems therein. They should have an understanding of supply chains, personnel issues, economics, operating at scale, the impact of legislation, of assessing large amounts of information and understanding new complex problems.

We don't elect MPs to be backbenchers - we elect them to be government ministers.

Also the civil service is there to implement the government's agenda. So in setting that agenda MPs must be able to understand all the issues involved - including the competing priorities of civil servants.

@montysma1

So you equate high salaries with attracting high calibre people. I equate it with attracting greedy ones.

Yes I do equate high salaries with high calibre candidates. If you pay more, better people are more likely to want to work for you.

You might not like it, but it's true.

And the country is in such a mess we need the best of the best.

Yes I do equate high salaries with high calibre candidates. If you pay more, better people are more likely to want to work for you.

Is there any evidence for this?

@Animood

I guess what I'm saying is paying more is a good investment if we get the right people for the job.

The word 'if' is doing a lot there. Paying more wouldn't ensure we got the right people. It would ensure we got different people, but those new people would potentially crowd out some of the very good people currently interested, and replace them with worse people.

It is myopic to see current/previous salary level as automatically indicative that someone has the qualities required to make a good MP.

What we need is a fair salary, coupled with very strong anti-corruption rules. Would profoundly affect who would apply if we had stronger rules on corruption, IMO for the better, but suspect Tory constituency chairs would find selection hustings changed.

If you pay more, better people are more likely to want to work for you Define 'better people'

I think we need MPs who see their job as a vocation rather than being in it for the money. I agree that the pay is hardly going to attract the high calibration people but surely that’s not what it’s about? Rishi has a high net worth but I get the impression he really sees his job as vocational. Paying MPs is still a relatively new thing.

*calibre. But we’re not looking for someone who can be Jeff Bezos. We’re looking for people who want to make a difference and make the country a better place.

I equate high salaries with overpaid dickheads tbh.

I’ve never met one person a high salary who l respect.They just have an over inflated sense of self importance. It’s that that gets them the high salary not their ability.

Personally I’m in favour of very high pay for MPs (more like £150k as standard) because you do have an insane amount of press/internet stuff to deal with. You probably need a nanny due to the hours and splitting between constituency and west minister.

BUT then have extremely extremely strict rules that stop second jobs and consultancy etc once you leave until at least 5 years after.

Are we part of a tory focus group by answering? If so goody because I'd like to say no, we need people who are 100% committed to being an mp and not lining their own pockets. We can't sleaze our way out of the country's current issues, we need people who are passionate about the UK and helping the people who live here attain the best possible life.

@RobertaFlack

Yes I do equate high salaries with high calibre candidates. If you pay more, better people are more likely to want to work for you.

Is there any evidence for this?

I think the evidence is there in professional jobs everywhere. If jobs are better paid then there is more competition for those jobs, meaning a wide range of people apply and the employer can choose the best person.

If a job is poorly paid, the employer kind of has to take who they can get, in the knowledge that the person may not be the best person they can get, but accepts they are the best they can afford.

I'm not really talking about nhs jobs or public sector jobs because that's different but in the private sector this is true.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

I equate high salaries with overpaid dickheads tbh.

I’ve never met one person a high salary who l respect.They just have an over inflated sense of self importance. It’s that that gets them the high salary not their ability.

Gosh there are some very bitter responses on here!

@Elwynne

Are we part of a tory focus group by answering? If so goody because I'd like to say no, we need people who are 100% committed to being an mp and not lining their own pockets. We can't sleaze our way out of the country's current issues, we need people who are passionate about the UK and helping the people who live here attain the best possible life.

Ideally yes you're right.

Back in the real world I think lots of people have great ideas about the country and think about being and MP. Would love to make a difference and make changes.

Then they look at the negatives: media scrutiny, travel to London, online threats and abuse, having to deal with Boris, the responsibility, long hours.

Then they look at the salary and think... fuck it. Not worth it!

It’s not bitter, it’s just true.