If it would improve policymaking by 1%, we should gladly double MPs’ salaries.

[GeneralPeter]

1% of UK public spending is £14bn p.a.

Doubling MPs’ pay would cost £80m (about a one-hundred-and-seventieth of that).

If it would improve policy by 1% it’s money very well spent indeed.

Whilst I am in full agreement that people should receive fair remuneration for their work, in whatever trade or profession, becoming an MP requires no qualifications or skills other than the ability to persuade voters in a constituency that you will represent them.
Whether individuals "satisfy" the requirements of their constituents is only tested once every 5 years. I do not know any employment that follows the same timeline!
Sadly, in the past few decades, it would appear that there have been many career politicians. So, by all means increase the salary, but ensure that all MPs are qualified in an area that is relevant to public service and law making as well as demonstrating x years' competence/experience before seeking election.

Strangely, most MPs don’t have huge amounts of influence on policy, but ministers do and I agree that better informed scrutiny via committees etc would be good. I would not mind paying MPs and Ministers a bit more.

However, civil servants with specialisms and really good generalists have a really large influence on outcomes, and their salaries are no where near the private sector. They need to be able to attract the best, or at least to pay so things are not a barrier, in areas like AI, cyber etc.

I agree in principle with paying civil servants more (the impact of their decisions can be massive), but think in practice it’s a harder question than MPs (it’s a much larger group without much natural competition, and that will end up marking its own homework).

I’d definitely shift more of the remuneration to salary from pension though, and make pensions defined contribution. Current pension arrangements are an inefficient way to attract and motivate, and defined benefits removes the natural incentive to care about economic growth that having investments brings.

The brightest and best people that we really need to run our country can earn far far more elsewhere. If we want to attract the right people we need to pay more.

No. Paying them more is not working.

Paying them more than what?

MPs’ pay has been falling for a century.

Do you see a change in quality over that time? In which direction?

You should have used a vote in your thread. Then you would know how many people think that paying uninterested, unable, self invested people can achieve more at their work by being paid more. Which I suspect is a very tiny proportion of the electorate.

By the way, this is what the internet shows for MPs salaries. Which have clearly gone up over time.

The above table is from the IPSA Independant Parliamentary Standards Authority, which my phone is not allowing me to link for some reason.
So they are already been paid more than last year and the year before. Still, no where good enough for the job in so many cases.

Firstly, I did use a vote.

Secondly, that was not my AIBU.

AIBU was “if it would improve policy by 1% we should gladly double MP pay”.

Four-fifths disagree with me, though I guess some might have misunderstood the question.

Pretty flat in real terms in the past decade (this is your data, inflation adjusted).

Much lower as a multiple of national average wage over the past century, which is what the other chart shows.

Hi @GeneralPeter have you read Isabel Hardman’s book “why we get the wrong politicians”? It’s a good analysis of the challenge you’ve outlined - but also looks at selection process and the detail of how the way in which parliament operates impacts on this topic. I recommend it!

No but that sounds very interesting— thank you!

GeneralPeter

Here's a thought for you.

Instead of doubling their pay, or halving their pay, why don't we give them Performance Related Pay?

They can get asseed by an independant group of teachers who will assess how well they have done their jobs and pay them accordingly.

Interesting graph.

But so have millions of other workers. Where is the evidence that MPs have done worse than everyone else? Relative to average earnings, they're still paid much more that the average fulltime wage, and that's before we take into account of their defined benefit pensions and other benefits of the job.

IMO it skews the picture if we talk about "salary" without considering overall package.

We need to accept that being a politician is a job, and it needs to be treated like a job. That means, at the very least, a position description for each and every role (backbenchers, ministers, etc), and measurable KPIs. No second jobs, unless it is someone who has to put in so many hours per year to maintain a registration (e.g. health professionals). Even then, it would need to be limited to the mandatory number of hours required by the registration body.

Speaking of hours, there needs to be metrics measuring that people are actually putting in the time - including surgeries in their local constituencies. Failure to do so results first in docked wages, with escalating consequences for repeat offenders. Doesn't matter if you are a backbencher, whose party is not in government. Firstly, all non-ministers should submit a program of activities/research/projects to be undertaken (and to be approved as appropriate for their role). Then they have to actually deliver and report (like people do in "real" jobs). No free rides.

No employing family and friends (Australia bans this). In fact, staff in constituencies should be hired and overseen as part of the civil service. Definitely no donations, perks, etc.

No subsidised restaurants, and alcohol should be banned on the premises. Random drug and alcohol testing. Absolutely nil donations to political parties (including from themselves). Instead, a set re-election allowance for each seat being contested. Speaking of which, all people contesting a seat should have to undergo some form of security check before they can even stand for election.

Being banned for 10 years from taking up positions in industries related to portfolios/shadow portfolios held, while in office. Mandatory training in areas relating to any portfolios assumed, to ensure they are capable of making informed decisions.

And no more multiple holidays throughout the year. They get a set allocation of annual leave, and that is it. No extended parliamentary recesses. Mandatory attendance at a set percentage of Question Times, and parliamentary voting, unless they have verifiable reasons not to (e.g. sick leave, etc)

I am sure I can think of more, but that is a starting point. I am then happy to pay them a lot more, but only because they are then justifying their existence.

Same as the rest of us. We have all seen our real earnings going down. Much of it has to do with the government doing either nothing or a superficial short lived law to address the many many issues we have.
You did use a vote indeed. Sorry about that. It was not showing on my phone when I checked before posting.

We all understand your question.
But I think you do not understand that it is crystal clear to a few of us that we will never get any better politicians, and so policies, just by paying more.
We first need politicians to do real politics. So motivated, good leaders and passionate about what they do.
Your idea of getting high earners to join politics is called Technocracy. UK is not a technocracy.
A technocracy in these days could end up with people like Musk back in politics.

If MN voters all understood the question, then it seems for most people it’s irrelevant whether paying MPs more would improve policy. 80% would oppose it regardless.

That is because it would not improve anything. But even, if it did that 1% you mention, that is a shitty return. I canbe 1% more productive by accident! Higher than 60%, I would pause to consider it.

We understood your question, so there is no need to get snotty about it.

We just have a different view to the outcome.

MPs are overpaid, and most of them are useless.

How will doubling their salaries help? The problem with MPs these days is they are all careerists who will say and do anything just to get ahead. Most of them have zero values, integrity and ideas because what they care about are simply personal gains. Surely doubling their salaries will make that worse?

This is the trajectory of most people's salaries- it's due to the cost of living and wages haven't kept up. It's not because MPs are being relatively underpaid.

Your title is unclear and I'm not entirely sure of your point.

Civil servants draft the policies so paying an MP more would not improve policymaking.

You subsequent posts suggest that better pay = better MPs who propose policies that are fairer to the general electorate. I don't quite see the correlation between the two.

Neither you nor I know how everyone who voted interpreted the question in the vote.

The question is not about the outcome though.

(I wasn’t intending to be snotty at all by raising this point. But the PP who originally raised it said something like: “you should have done a poll button then you’d have seen how no one agrees with you that it would raise standards”, so at least one person didn’t understand it).