David Laws' expenses

[longfingernailspaintedblue]

I really thought he was the very best of the Lib Dems.

Given his fortune he obviously doesn't need the expenses, but hiding his landlord/partner from the authorities is unacceptable, even if it was to hide his sexuality.

I'm completely shellshocked.

Claig - did you hear the rest of Democracy on Trial? In it Michael Portello argued that we are now less democratic because our elected MP's 'outsource' so much of their decision making to unelected officials. To some extent this is unavoidable as the world becomes increasingly complex but less intelligent MP's ain't going to help.

Personally, I would rather we had our brightest and most able people running the country. The top 2% of earners earn £100k or more. Dropping to £65k is a big reduction in earnings (or potential earnings). Fine if you're from a wealthy family, or have made your fortune and want to give back to society [ironic Laws emoticon].

From a democratic point of view - paying our MP's a competitive salary (with a minimal expense allowance) and then expecting the highest standard of conduct from them in return - would encourage more normal people into politics and might break up this whole 'political class' thing we have going on.

ilovemydogandMrObama - but if I shag my tenant then I am in a relationship but doesn't make my tenant my spouse?

I agree that Laws was probably fudging the issue in his head....I would have rather seen a calm fact based ruling on the issue and then appropriate action. I think Spelman has to resign now if Laws was forced out?

TDiddy
I just checked, the German MPs have had a pay rise, and now earn basic pay of €92 256.

To earn that in the private sector you would have to have a pretty decent job. In the public service, for instance a teacher in Berlin can earn up to €43 600 yearly. That is a teacher who has been in the job for many years.

LeninGrad- If you can stay in Sheffield to represent Sheffield then weight it accordingly. But if you have to be in London then 63k isn't going to get you that far and you would be way better off putting your skills elsewhere.

MPs should be motivated by making millions but we have to be reasonable about what we pay them compared to GPs, lawyers and scribblers.

I agree with jackstarbright at Mon 31-May-10 09:47:32

I feel that we have to pay MPs a decent salary as otherwise you will just not attract good, capable people into politics.

If they can earn 3x as much in the private sector then they will go there.

MmeLindt - interesting, London has manany many jobs that pay well above MPs salaries... it is obvious that we need to give them some sort of fixed expense allowance or increase their salaries....we could have a few less of them; we should demand more from them. Total spend could be the same or less and we could have better output from them. Let's look at the business case rather than following some of the vindictive/narrow coverage of some of the press.....I don't think that the press always serves our best interest on their analysis of many of these issues

Madame Lindt- many MPs should capable of earning 6* or more their salary, easily in London. Laws could probably earn even more than that. Not suggesting that we pay them anything like that but the petty bickering and nickle and diming is missing the big picture. WHen you are running a company you don't just look at the cost of wages, you look at the turnover/value being created. Think we should be looking at what we want from our MPs rather than whether we pay them GBP 150k or GBP 300k. It's a really really important job, or rather we should make it a really important job

They don't need more cash - just an open system on getting expenses back. They must have expense in doing their job - so lets see what they all claim for. They work for & are paid y the tax payer - why shouldn't the tax payer see where the money goes.

jackstarbright, thanks for reminding me about Portillo's excellent programme. I will listen to it. But I have never believed this farce that these honourable MPs are in charge. It has always been the Sir Humphreys who advise them what to do. The idea that the green behind the ears Danny Alexander, with no financial experience except possibly in the area of capital gains tax loopholes, is an Odysseus steering the economy from the rocks of disaster is laughable. His talent will be in carrying out what he is told to do. Most of these MPs have no qualifications for the positions that they hold, they are all on a Youth Opportunities Programme, but unlike the 16-18 year olds they are far better paid and all proclaim how talented they are. They have their supporters trumpeting that they should be paid even more money while they tell everyone else to tighten their belt and restrain their wage demands. They tell us they could earn much more elsewhere and we should be honoured that they have deigned to serve us. Let's call their bluff. If God is smiling on us, some of them may even leave and hike it back to their banking towers. Then we could get some truly honourable people in power and Sir Humphrey would advise them instead. I doubt we would be any worse off, on the contrary I think the public would raise a cheer to see the back of them.

Fine TD if they want to earn more money go off and do it, because if the bottom line is the pay cheque then I'd rather they didn't stand for parliament.....(actually I think thats what LeninGrad said - damn - she always get there first...)

Yes, I agree that in London £63k won't see you far but most MPs are not from London and that is a really decent wage in my hometown in Scotland.

Obviously they work some of the time in London so some kind of solution is necessary for the cost of housing. It would be cheaper for the government to buy a block of flats and let MPs rent them for a minimal cost.

It would suit them I guess, a return to student life. We could even give them a SU in the cellar.

TDiddy - I refer you again to the link I posted about Italian MPs. They earn a lot of money; but it hasn't made them less inclined to listen to lobbyists, etc. In and of itself, a high salary does not protect the public from corrupt politicians. If there is an endemic culture of entitlement, then people will seek to reward themselves as they feel fit.

However, I - personally - do believe that MPs should receive a much higher salary, but no expenses. But the golden handshakes, pension benefits, etc. should be controlled somewhat.

I don't think, however, that we should line up MPs' salaries with city salaries. Other public servants receive lower salaries to those that they might in the private sector. It's just a factor of working in the public sector.

But, I do think that there should be a swingeing review of council chiefs' salaries, etc. It is scandalous that city council leaders, for example, should earn more than Cabinet ministers. I can see why that would breed a culture of envy and resentment.

The salaries of our leading public servants need urgent review. They too should be fair and reflect the level of responsibility expected.

On a note closer to home, I also believe that it is a scandal that university vice-chancellors and their pocket-stuffing administrators see fit to reward themselves with salaries in excess of £150,000.

So now everybody earns too much. Guys, it's called inflation. 100k today is worth far less than 100k 10 years ago. Look at how much devaluation the pound has experienced in the last few years.

Let's start by looking at what output we want from MPs, how many we need and what structures we want, diverse representation and all of that. And then we could ork backwards to the pay. Not simply bickering over pay before we reform what the job is.

I vote LeninGrad for PM. Let's get some sense and honour in there.

Claig - are you saying that it's ok for MP's to be the puppets of the civil service/business/trade unions?

Blackduck, Penth, Lenin - but how do we get the right calibre of MP's into parliament? Do we just want the weathly and the those who see politics as a vocation or higher calling?

TDiddy thanks.

I trust that was wry irony, TDiddy, and that you were ventriloquising MPs, etc., there with the idea that £100k doesn't get you that far...

Agree that we need a clearer charter, so to speak, about what we want/expect from public servants, and that a "natural" salary should emerge from that picture.

jackstarbright: I don't know the answer to your question, although I do think that the FPTP system can distort the picture; perhaps if some kind of PR made the system more competitive across the country, prospective MPs would have to prove their mettle at local level, etc., in order to be elected, rather than rely on a safe seat.

However, while I do think that MPs should be paid more, we should not allow city salaries to artificially distort how we view MPs' salaries. We equally do not want people going into politics because of excessive salaries; people should not - and, for all the press tars them all, I don't think most MPs do - go into politics to get rich.