2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge
Comments
-
These MPs are not grads. They are at the top of their game and they have massive responsibility, and, as we discuss at length, they have a huge impact on the country.
It is ludicrous that they are paid so little.
I get that they are already paid a lot compared to average joe, but I suspect half the posters on here earn substantially more and we are not at the top of any game, lets be honest.
In the world of actual leadership they're paid a pittance.
A lot of the pressure around expenses, gifts etc, would be removed if they just got paid properly.
0 -
PM's can make a lot of money afterwards, so they won't be poor, but I do think all MPs should be paid more. Nonetheless, Starmer is a lawyer and should know better than to accept so many gifts.
0 -
Meh, the issue isn't the PMs pay because they are set for life, its the pay of rank and file back benchers who are certainly not. But, they do get astronomical pensions, the private sector equivalent of which would equate to needing to earn a top 1-2% salary.
From what I can see, it doesn't seem to be deterring well qualified people from trying to be MPs. That said, there's a pretty good argument for paying them more (or having a much wider pay scale) and banning second jobs. The issue there becomes asking people to take a risky complete 5 year career break. I think you'd then end up with fewer good people.
Personally, I don't think it is broken or, at least, it isn't anywhere near the top of the list of things that are broken.
0 -
What money you may or may not make afterwards ought not to have a bearing on your pay for the actual role.
If I were king for a day I'd pay the PM £750k, Cabinet Ministers £500k, ratcheting down to lowly MPs on £250k.
No expenses with the exception of properties near Westminster for MPs in far-flung constituencies (tbh it would be better if each constituency just had a 3 bed somewhere within 20minutes of Westminster that came with the seat, but anyway) and reasonable travel up and down for constituency and Westminster work.
Exceptions made for reasonable gifts like journos buying you dinner etc,.
0 -
"No expenses". Assume you aren't talking about travel and subsistence and wotnot? Because if you exclude that, you might possibly be accused of biasing the system towards London. Some constituencies are on different islands you know.
0 -
Meh, I'd argue Galloway and Farage were/are stealing a living. At least when it came/comes to performing their role as an MP.
0 -
-
I guess paying £250k would attract better candidates long term but in the short term, the idea of 30p Lee earning that amount for being a useless gobsh!te would rankle.
0 -
All the more reason to vote them out.
There are plenty of useless gobshites earning that in the world, I can assure you.
0 -
It's more to ward off corruption tbh. It is remarkably cheap to buy influence with MPs in the UK, and a big reason for it is they're paid so little.
It's a f*cking disgrace to be honest. Leaders of a top G7 country, sitting in a world city with some of the highest pay in the world, earning almost half what a high end law graduate earns.
It's the usual crab bucket stuff. Just because Britain has lots of very low paid shitholes. There is a better solution to that.
0 -
I generally agree with you that they should be paid more and get rid of the expenses that seem so open to abuse. I
I would then expect a full time MP, actually working in their constituency/ and not spending half the the week in second job.
It still wouldn't sit right if Liz Truss was getting £750/year (grated only for a small fraction of a year) and the likes of Lee Anderson £250/year when he would probably struggle to run a small village greengrocer.
0 -
-
What's the opposite of crab bucket?
Slug elevator?
1 -
Which suggests that high pay is not a guarantee of good quality, and we therefore don't need to go and pay our PM more?
I'm not really sure I'm that bothered by much of this. I'd hoped Starmer would be better. The interesting/crucial part will be if/when the gifts are linked back to actions.
0 -
The concept that paying them more would reduce corruption is quite amusing.
0 -
Paying Labour MPs that much might mean a lot of defections to the Tories when they finally get a decent wedge.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I don't disagree that the pay is low and that is bad as it tends to limit the pool of people wanting to do the job. That said, can you imagine the reaction if the PM salary got increased to that of a CEO at the sort of companies you work with and the remainder of the MPs had theirs increased to an equivalent level corporate salary? Even when they get awarded a pay increase there is uproar and yet even if the PM salary was increased to 7 figures and all the others were bumped up accordingly it would be a drop in the ocean of the costs of running the country as there's only a few hundred of them. Personally I would like to see it along with a new, modern parliament built on a campus basis so there'd be no need for all the allowances. They would then also be stopped from any external second jobs, consultancies or non-exec roles.
However, notwithstanding the amount they are paid they shouldn't be allowed to top that up with gifts or cash from external sources. No-one is giving them this stuff without expecting something in return.
0 -
In fairness being an MP is a bit of a part time job.
0 -
-
Hsoow
0 -
Some jobs are not about being busy but about making good decisions.
Politicians requires a lot of informal time to build relationships, corral, persuade and hopefully research what the are expected to vote on.
It's the same logic that think that the degree difficulty is proportional to contact hours. It's just nonsense.
Just because some MPs take the piss doesn't mean the job doesn't need to leave a lot of room for this stuff to happen.
A CEO who's diary is always slammed is not a good CEO. You need time to think and consider and lead.
It's the equivalent logic of presenteeism - if you're seen to have lots of down time you're seen to be bad at your job, regardless of your output. The output is what matters!
0 -
I think BB was being sarcastic.
0 -
This makes me feel better about the fact that I run a business and rarely every have a busy diary, hence why I post on here in the middle of a work day!
0 -
I wasn't. One I know has a full time proper job, so his £91k is pocket money.
0 -
Probably not a great MP though?
0 -
It's the problem when people are voting on Party grounds and you only have the candidate they put forward. I think most work longer than standard hours though and those based a long way from London must do a huge amount of travelling (assuming they are doing their job properly). Those based close to London have it quite cushy in comparison as the parliamentary and constituency elements are more compatible.
0 -
It is a full time job. Whether or not MPs turn up to do it is another matter.
For the MPs who only visited their constituency on election day, I'm not sure an additional £100k or so will induce them to relinquish the lucrative side gigs.
0 -
Regarding second jobs, if you actually look at declared earnings from MP's with a second job, the majority are receiving less than £10k (most of those less than £5k in reality). There are a few outliers like Geoffrey Cox and Suella Braverman, but most make their real income as an MP.
0 -
I actually quite like the fact that MPs have other jobs. Adds expertise and relevant experience.
0 -
How many hours is okay?
I agree by the way, just not tonthe extent that the MP part of it is a second job.
0
