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?

Some head teachers earn more than MP’s.
the security required for your barracks ‘lol’
are you suggesting that for 5 years the partners and children of an MP should have nowhere to stay if they want to visit their parent?

staff work in the HoC - are we allowed to eat subsidised food? There’s thousands of us (literally) and only one weird single aisle Tesco - or are we also not allowed a canteen?

i hate threads like this - they are really ignorant.

It doesn’t matter what lower paid people consider well paid.

What matters is whether the salary and perks are sufficient to attract persons with sufficient capability. Otherwise, they will just go elsewhere for an easier and likely safer job.

Salary and perks needs to be comparative with the private sector and actually it falls far below.

Paying them less and taking away perks will only result in lower calibre or independently wealthy.

Personally I'm more concerned about the side gigs some of them have got.

^the security required for your barracks ‘lol’
are you suggesting that for 5 years the partners and children of an MP should have nowhere to stay if they want to visit their parent^

No they work away in the week (perhaps limit attendance to 3 or 4 consecutive days) like many other people who's job isn't in commuting distance of their home. MPs live in their own home, paid for from their household income, which is in or close to their constituency.

I am a senior manager for a public body and my pay is similar to that of an MP. My job is generally 9-5 and based in one location. I have access to perks like private healthcare and subsidised food, I don't have to travel that much and most importantly I don't get unrelenting abuse and vile comment on social media for doing my job.

People are not becoming MPs for the pay and subsidised meals in the HOC.

look at what you’re saying - tosh.

for a not overly highly paid job, that requires living in one very expensive area, possibly 5 hours door to door. The abuse from the general public on and off line - you’re also suggesting limiting their family life.
fir a temporary contract?
lol - you seem lovely.

What a shocking suggestion! Don’t you know how hardworking and deserving they all are? They surely deserve a hefty pay rise, too!

They should definitely close the bars until after traditional work hours.

“Maybe if we underpaid politicians and overpaid teachers, there would be smarter people and less stupid laws”

Morgan Freeman

So are probation officers, we’ve had 3 stabbing in the last year and a fully qualified probation officer starts on £35k with a maximum salary of around £42k after 5 years.

are you terrorist targets?
do you live in your own home?
do you have a permanent contract?
do you live with your friends and family around you? Or do you live in 2 places? Being lambasted in both of them?

Should we not value police officers as much as MPs, who also do a very dangerous job, work brutal hours, can have their leave cancelled at any moment, and risk their lives to keep us safe? See also teachers, whose lives are made increasingly miserable by an handful of our hallowed MPs.

None of it makes though sense though does it? Football players earn more than heart surgeons.

But capitalism dictates you pay more if you want better candidates. Your argument that MPs get £35k or something how will that work? It’s in all our interests that the best make decisions that affect everyone. Unless you have a private income you need to pay well to attract those people.

@JuliettaCaeser Of course they do! It’s a world market for football players and, guess what, not many of them are that brilliant the world over. Rich people pay their wages and millions of people watch their skills every week. Here the state pays the doctors and it’s a completely different economic model. There are way more surgeons of all types than footballers in the Prem League.

People paid by the state are not subject to market forces and certainly have better pensions. If they choose to be MPs, have a go! However we clearly don’t have the brightest and the best wanting to be MPs now. Some are ok but we have too many who haven’t been great at their first job, some have never worked at anything except politics and others are followers with no ideas about how to achieve anything, let alone what the consequences are of their actions.

I agree the preponderance of MPs being those that have never run a business and always worked for the public sector is an issue and definitely shows…

Agree OP.

It would be far better to raise standards for everyone else than save a token amount of money on a few hundred MPs.

A race to the bottom culture of cutting back literally everything to the bare minimum and running everything on an austerity mindset is not going to make anything better for anyone.

I agree with only opening the bar when all house business is finished for the day, and providing more standardised, secure accommodation for MPs who don’t reside in commuting distance of Westminster.

I don’t remotely care about the bar! It’s a dude show. What matters is the ability of MPs and what they do for the country. What they currently do is look at popularity polls and only act on the doorstep idiots they meet. It’s utterly random and look at where they are taking us? It’s appalling.