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.

I hope it’s not unclear. It’s an “if”
question.

”If the train ran twice as frequently, would you take it instead of driving”

Because these sorts of debate often end up discussing whether it would improve outcomes. That’s interesting, but I was interested in whether people would oppose even if it did improve outcomes. I think the reasons for or against that are as interesting.

That would be interesting but very very hard to implement. Gauging whether they had done a good job would be immensely political.

Even if you measured attendance: an MP who said “my party has a massive majority (or a tiny minority), my vote counts for very little, but time spent with my constituents lets me improve their lives in tangible ways, so I’m going to do that” should be able to offer themself to constituents on that basis without being docked pay.

On the policy point: MPs certainly affect policy in various ways. Passing laws, becoming ministers, scrutinizing ministers. If our countries policies are unaffected by our politicians then we are in deep trouble.

I see what youre saying and if that would work then sure it would be a great idea

Problem is, you could attract in a really competent experienced person, who's prepared to not take outside donations and devote lots of time to their constituency...and then they stand against farage and lose.

Sorry to be cynical, but I really dont think people are looking for competence in their politicians and it would be really hard to get elected if all you had to offer was 'I would make a great MP'. Even if you could get selected over the constituency party's mates.

I’d increase the salary if it meant improving the calibre of politicians generally. The reality is that most genuinely talented people can earn more (often much more) working in the private sector and the downsides of the job are very considerable. You therefore get a parliament made up of people who are so independently wealthy they can sustain themselves; who have a ton of second jobs; or who are just generally lower calibre. There are few, not many, who are genuinely interested in public service and therefore unconcerned about the pay. However, generally, the standard of politician has slumped in the last 20 years.

I find it interesting that there is a reflexive response of "fine but only if we cut their other sources of income"!

I personally don't think there's value in restricting second jobs. I see where people are coming from in terms of wanting to avoid undue influence, but as several PP have said, that doesn't necessarily come set up as a Second Job. Maybe it's influence later but no formal relationship today, or it's close friendships with a foreign country, etc. And there are so many cases like doctors needing to do hours to keep their licences, etc that it would just be riddled with exceptions. I think the current declaration system is fine.

I'd restrict dual citizens and ILR holders first to be honest!

I have no issue with an MP being measured by what they do in and for their constituants.

I do have issues with MPs that spend little time in parliament and no time in their consituancy

It's tricky though, as you'd only be able to come up with some metrics that were uncontroversial and applicable to all MPs, who have very different constituencies and constituents and made different campaign promises. I'm sure it could be done but it would be messy. You'd also encourage a lot of negative campaigning: "your MP turned up to less that half the votes". Yes, because they were a minister, or "SNP MPs do the least constituency surgeries of any major party". But that's because they have so far to travel. etc etc.

MPs should be paid x% of 40hours at NMW. Say 250%. Then if they want a pay rise, they have to give a payrise to the poorest working people as well.

So double their salaries and lower the bar for performance?

If your argument is that doubling salaries would attract better politicians, surely that would go hand in hand with a more robust system for measuring performance. It won't be perfect; nothing ever is. But it being too "messy" isn't much of an argument. Most senior roles have a high level of complexity and a wide range of responsibilities. Those roles still have some form of appraisal to measure performance against set targets and objectives.

The issue is that the 'boss' is ultimately the constituents, and getting them to agree on targets and objectives for their MP would be very tricky.

What metrics would you propose? And who should set and measure them? The government? The party? A quango? Each has different interests, which aren't necessarily the same as the electorate's.

Should they be penalised for breaking manifesto promises? So a rebel MP will lose pay? Or penalised for not speaking in the house? So we get more contributions from MPs who need to keep their stats up, regardless of content?

I'm sure some minimal set of things could probably be agreed. But if we complain (as some do) that MPs are careerist drones, that we don't have conviction politicians and big characters like we used to, introducing a balanced scorecard of KPIs isn't going to fix that.

(One other point... there aren't really performance KPIs for MPs at the moment, so I'm not proposing a lowering of something. I just think that sometimes trying to fit KPIs to things ends up being more trouble than the value it brings)

MPs have democratic appraisals, that's the only appropriate process.

It's politics, not work. They are representatives, not senior leaders in an organisation. They are making laws/policy, not managing organisations.

We must surely be able to come up with some type of metric against which they can be measured. Let me have a think.

Anybody receiving money from the public purse while representing local or national interests should be subject to some form of performance appraisal.

The government clearly considers councillors to be "working" even if they are not formal salaried employees. Why else would it pay those it applies to allowances, expenses and give them access to public sector pensions.

I don’t think pay is the motivating factor in a job like this. Lecturers and professors aren’t well paid, but the roles still highly competitive with lots of people applying.

I also think that excessively high pay would put them out of touch with the general public.

I agree with the out-of-touch worry.

Academia is even more of a monoculture than politics, though it’s highly competitive in one sense I agree.

For politics, it’s about getting a balance. Selecting only the people who have wanted it since childhood isn’t necessarily great either. We want some of that, sure, but that’s not undersupplied. It’s the engineers, business people, scientists, etc who I want to be able to attract in mid-career.