AIBU to think MPs should lose perks to set an example?

[Lemonthyme]

AIBU to think that politicians could do more to save costs in their own perks?

I think that in most areas of public spending, those claiming vast costs can be saved by reducing waste are being disingenuous.

This especially riles me with the NHS. The reason being if you look at per capita health care spending vs other large economies (eg France and Germany), it's not our "free at the point of use" model that's different, it's the fact we spend a lot less per person. Also I believe that when budgets are under pressure that can create waste. With people being pushed from department to department to avoid cost sitting on local budgets.

Same in councils. Those who have come in promising cuts are facing some very big challenges with adult social care and without fundamental funding or societal change, I don't see it happening.

So this AIBU is not about whether or not we should pay more tax but the fact is public services are creaking and we're paying over £100 billion a year to service government debt. Like it or not, government finances are the battle ground which will be fought on raising tax, reducing spending or both.

So there's one area I strongly believe should be cut not because it would save vast amounts of money but because of how it would signal leadership messaging on cost.

MPs perks

I'm not calling for cuts in pay but in two simple ancillary areas.

• Second homes
• Subsidies in Westminster

Second homes
Why do MPs need a second home? Instead for those with constituencies outside of London, they could establish or buy a block of 2 room aparthotels or flats.

Enough space for a bedroom and basic working / relaxation and cooking area with sofa bed for visitors. Comfortable without being extravagant. Better accommodation than you or I would get when travelling for work but not a "second home" because that's unnecessary. Economies of scale would vastly reduce cost. And items would then transfer to the next MP when one leaves. Nothing bought that's retained apart from normal wear and tear.

Pennies in the big scheme of things but an important leadership signal IMO.

Subsidies
MPs get subsidised food and drink in parliament. It would save little overall to remove it but remove it they should. Not just for the saving either. There has always been a strong correlation with politics in the UK and alcohol which isn't healthy but also isn't ethical and doesnt encourage people who don't fit into the boarish old man stereotype.

It won't save much but when you or I are seeing prices in the shops rocket from day to day, is it right they retain this perk?

Some MPs would fight all of the above but even if it doesn't go through wouldn't it be interesting to see who supports it and, perhaps more importantly, who doesn't?

Totally agree with you.

They’re hardly that well paid and most work bloody hard and get lots of abuse. Compared with the costs of funding the nhs their costs are a drop in the ocean. If you make being an mp too unappealing only the independently wealthy will do it. Can’t get worked up about this.

I get your point but removing perks without increasing salaries will ultimately mean that only the independently wealthy will be able to become MPs.

if you put all non-London MPs in a block of small apartments, aside from the massive security risk, you would instantly exclude anyone with a young family.

I actually agree they're not well paid. But if you got rid of some of the perks and built it into pay I think that would be more transparent tbh.

Then build into pay and be honest about it. Have slightly larger flats not 5 bed detached houses in London that's my point.

I'd also include minimum attendance requirements. Some work really hard, some are barely there.

Mp's are paid £93000, the national average wage is £32000. Almost 3 times the average wage seems fair to me.
In the 1970's a Principal in the civil service got the same pay as an mp, they start on £49000 now and they are not allowed perks.

Most mps earn about the same as a headteacher. Our one works hard and certainly isn’t living the high life. With the amount of abuse they get online especially women and what happened to Jo Cox and David Ames 😢 (as an mp you are an unprotected target for nutters) can’t imagine many will want to do it. Would be my worst nightmare.

Food subsidies in Westminster cost c £7 million per year.

When some people are having to use food banks, doesn't that strike you as poor leadership?

no outside of London MPs with children would serve if they couldn’t rent a suitable place so we would lose that if they lived in the block you suggest

the block would be a huge security risk and we would pay a lot to guard it, keep public away from the outside, x-ray all guests. Much easier to keep them save in unknown and diverse locations.

buying a central London block with 500+ flats would be an eye watering initial outlay and it would take decades and decades before it became cheaper than the rent allowances we allow them now. So a massive massive initial outlay when we can least afford it.

They still earn much more than the national average. I think they should have taken a 20% pay cut in 2020, like they forced most of us to, for the duration of lockdown restrictions: there would then have been more political will to end the extremely damaging lockdowns. And yes, minimum attendance requirements (Farage being one of the worst offenders).

The gap between politicians and and the people they represent grows wider and wider and wider; it practically broke its banks under Boris Johnson. And I haven't forgotten the expenses scandal from some years before, which confirmed everything I had ever suspected about politicians. They need to acknowledge that they have a much more privileged lifestyle than many people.

And while they whisper about "National Service", I say we need a requirement that all parliamentarians have worked in a minimum wage job at some point in their lives, preferably a customer-facing one, so they have at least once dipped a toe in the same world that many of their constituents live in, instead of being protected by wealth and privilege all their lives, as many of them have been.

So If mps get £32k pa and no benefits who will be an mp? Would you? I bloody wouldn’t. Only the independently wealthy would.

As a pp has said if you’re not careful you exclude people without private means or who have other jobs. Jo Cox lived on a narrow boat when in London. Do you know what hours a good MP works and are you aware of the time a lot of the voting is done? The system’s hardly changed since it was something done after work (votes in the evening etc).

also frankly that is a drop in the ocean costs wise in the overall scheme of things

I can't see any security concerns about our entire government all living in the same building

Wouldn't be a target at all

I don't get the arguments on a security risk. Right now we have MPs in addresses that aren't that hard to find, many with no security some which will have security but are much harder and more expensive to do so. If Westminster can be secured, so can accommodation and more easily than 100s of different addresses.

If you're complaining about the security risk then tiu really need to be aware of how appalling it is now.

Personally I think we should adopt the Singapore model and pay MPs considerably more. We would attract better calibre people then with fantastic business experience, instead of these fanatics or already wealthy no idea idiots like David Cameron

YABU for using AI to write your OP.

Oh FFS people please read my other messages.

I'm not suggesting pay cuts! If you want build any savings into pay but then at least be transparent!

But subsidising Westminster food and drink to the extent of £10,000 per MP. Is that right? When many MPs are proposing hard cuts (and these are the parties doing better in the polls)?

FFS I've never written a Mumsnet post using AI. Why is that the "go to" insult on here?

The subsidy is for all those who work in Parliament which is all MPs and members of the Lords and over 6000 members of staff - so calling it £10k per MP is hugely misleading. You are dividing a total by a tiny tiny subset of those who eat there. I am not saying there should be a subsidy but don’t misrepresent it and it’s not uncommon in the public sector, when I worked in a large hospital staff got slightly subsidised meals at the canteen.

The origins of a lot of the perks was precisely so their pay didn’t need to be too high which would rile the public.

We have a terrible bunch of MPs with very little real life experience. Most have come from charity and public sector where salaries are low.

We need to rethink this, offer a remuneration package to match the FTSE 100 companies. These people are our legislators for gods sake. Why is everyone so keen to see them earning peanuts?

You seem to really really hate mps. I would also pay them more. I don’t think the salary comparator for MPs should be low wage low skilled jobs but the professional jobs that people of that calibre would otherwise be doing.

But don’t think this op would be happy unless they are wearing sackcloth and ashes and paying us rather then getting paid themselves.

Did you bother to read my replies? Try it.

They can claim over £3k for heating costs but the energy price cap for average energy use is around £1700 so why is it so high for them

Was alcohol subsidised? Three course meal for £10? Those are the kinds of subsidies reported.

I agree food subsidies in the HoC should go, also I don’t agree with alcohol on sale there at all, it’s a work place.

increasing attendance (including MP surgeries)and limiting second jobs (basically down to public sector jobs, to maintain registration)is another factor that, while it won’t save money , might actually make certain people do some work.

Housing subsidies could be the equivalent of a 2 bed flat ( compromise between 1 bed student style and 5 bed family home) which would save money.

Longer term salaries can increase in line with public sector pay rises.