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?

MPs can spend hours in Westminster, late into the night. It’s not like a traditional work place.

And we have booze in my office for after hours.

They took away the WFA but can have their heating on day and night at the taxpayers expense

MPs are relatively poorly paid-and we don’t want a situation where you have to be independent wealthy to be one. I think their salaries should be increased but they should not be allowed to second jobs or sponsorships.

Some MPs are great and some are terrible but really, none of them do it for the money. Why would they when they could earn more doing a far less thankless job without the endless hassle and risking their own safety? If anything, they should be paid more to try and attract a higher calibre of person.

As for making them work minimum hours in Parliament- what do you mean? Sitting in the HoC is just a small part of their overall job and hardly worth their time when they could be doing something else, either in Westminster or their own constituencies.

Honestly think it would be better to stop MPs having second jobs/ consultancy posts rather than cutting their expenses. It should be a full time job with no time for any other employment.

Alcohol is never a necessity.

I think in order to attract the right people to the role, they need to provide the right perks.

Honestly, they are paid terribly for the high pressure, temporary, potentially dangerous job that it is.

Anybody with any real business acumen is put off the job as it is. Middle management in banking already far out earn them.

If I work away from home, I get £30 a night to spend on a meal. More if I am entertaining clients. That’s not unreasonable. MPs get 35. It’s low compared to other roles.

This is why the quality of those applying is not wonderful.

Over second homes. They get £30k a year to use on rent, a home they already own or hotels. Yea it feels high, but 2.5k a month isn’t buying a mansion in London, and frankly is the 2 bed flat. No, I don’t think it’s a great idea to put all of our MPs in the same place for safety reasons- it’s bad enough in parliament. I can only imagine the security costs.

As an aside, going back to the low salary - the above obviously adds to the salary and bumps it it to be remotely competitive with other roles.

It doesn’t matter what the average wage is.

What matters is how much you need to pay to be competitive with the rest of the labour market. Frankly middle management in a bank are on c£125k.

All the results in is lower calibre candidates, or only those that are independently wealthy. Neither of which are a good option.

Absolutely this. The only people to whom £93k would seem "not well paid" are wealthy people.

I would also introduce PR, a new parliament building where seats are in a semi-circle to abolish this performative confrontational nonsense in parliament and an elected upper chamber. Our democratic institutions are hundreds of years out of date.

A lot of them wouldn't get jobs as middle management in a bank though, they would probably be doing something average salary

Im saying they need to offer more to attract people that are actually capable managers with business acumen.

If anything the pay should be more so commensurate with what skilled professionals/ business people would get to attract that calibre of candidate.

Sorry, I thought you meant the lot that were there already

So it sounds like this is about changing the pay structure MPs get rather than reducing the package? There's arguments for that but I dunno how much it would set an example, or save money.

Completely agree with you, teachers have to buy pens and glue sticks, even breakfast at times for the children from their own money as there isn't enough budget to provide what's needed and yet they have cheap fancy meals. Yes the basics for travelling etc should still be covered, but just the basics that most working people would expect.

MPs are underpaid but many of them have reduced their role to being local minority spokespeople. They have no idea about the policies needed to improve the country and have student politics which is noisy but has no new ideas.

Altering expenses doesn’t attract the best people and ignores the two centre nature of the job and the very varied people who are MPs. They do work hard but not that many are effective legislators. We need higher quality people and reducing the package (and they have office expenses and travel) simply won’t help. Most developed countries pay more.

Also having a go at mp remuneration is very simplistic and is a tiny drop in the ocean in terms of expense. To have a better nhs we need brains and we might actually get people with better business acumen if we paid more. Instead we just get people who want to tax and spend and won’t take difficult decisions because they want their jobs more.

They missed the opportunity when they decided to spend millions/billions? on refurishment of the Houses of Parliament. It's apparently in very poor condition and outdated as a modern workplace.

They should have built a secure compound like a prison in a cheaper, more central location near transport links with accommodation, a canteen (nothing elaborate and alcohol only served in the evenings and at weekends) and a 'house of commons' for MPs. All paid for with no expenses to claim. Keep the HoP as a national monument that people can visit like the Tower of London etc.

To have a better nhs we need brains and we might actually get people with better business acumen if we paid more. Instead we just get people who want to tax and spend and won’t take difficult decisions because they want their jobs more

You can have all the business brains in the world, but it doesn't help when constrained by public sector rules on spending which compels people on the ground to follow tortuous procurement processes, forced to only use certain suppliers who are often more expensive than the wider market. It's the same in the civil service but ExCo level would have to effectively allow deviation from 'the rules' to change. The new government said that this sort of thing would end, but nearly 2 years in and no sign yet.

@Bjorkdidit The business acumen in the civil service isn’t great either - I agree! Rules can be changed but governments need to get on with it. Instead they just tax more and we don’t get productivity or competent services.

Wow!

Do you genuinely believe that "better calibre people" are the people in our society who earn the most money?

I have generally not found that to be the case.

My point being is that if they're putting ghis perk structure in as a back door sweetener, it's dishonest. If it's needed to attract decent people, be honest. If it's not, get rid.

And that's before you get onto their pension...

Right, but I think you're better off making this argument as it is rather than muddying it with cost savings that won't necessarily happen and would be a drop in the bucket if they did.

Catering at the HOC is not just for MPs. There is a while army of staff supporting the running of the HOC, there at all hours, many of whom are on a lot less than MPs.

The HOC catering is also used for formal and informal meetings and receptions. Get rid of that and you'd have to privately book outside venues, a greater cost and rediced security.

Honestly we have crisis in terms of a lack of decent and capable MPs and some people think the answer is to make the job (already difficult and shit) more difficult and shit.

It's about the principle even if it's peanuts. I think i did make that incredibly clear in my original post. Did you bother to read it?

I think you’ve got it all wrong. You seem to want to punish MPs for their failings and to save money in doing so. The money saved in their expenses is a drop in the ocean compared to the nhs costs and national debt. Being punitive to MPs generally is surely a long term negative as you will attract worse candidates and the whole economic situation declines further.

You think you having said something means it's a persuasive argument? That would be odd even if you'd done a better job of making your case.

Initially you claimed it could save something, even if that were 'peanuts'. You've neither quantified what that means nor shown us any working out. You then said you're not actually suggesting pay cuts, rather you just want more transparency, perks rolled into pay.