Originally Posted by georgepopovic

The only idea I have not yet seen suggested is that they should have no salary at all. Instead, give them a worthwhile daily allowance for monitored attendance in the house, consituency surgeries, officially sanctioned trips, etc. Not without problems, I agree, but also not beyond the reach of management. Probably the only way to ensure performance related pay and transparency.

We've done this before. It leads to a situation where only the rich can be MPs. Crap idea been proved so as well!

I know that I'm going to be shouted down because apparently financial compensation is the only way to attract the best, but I think they should be paid the average wage of the country, we should purpose build living accomadation within walking distance of the house, then there'd be no need to provide second home or car allowances etc. Perhaps an exemption from council tax and travel expenses to and from constituency as well.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

I know that I'm going to be shouted down because apparently financial compensation is the only way to attract the best, but I think they should be paid the average wage of the country, we should purpose build living accomadation within walking distance of the house, then there'd be no need to provide second home or car allowances etc. Perhaps an exemption from council tax and travel expenses to and from constituency as well.

Well some back bench MPs that I know work about 17 hours a day - parliamentary debates go on ab it plus surgeries and running constituency and Westminster offices . Say they work about 300 days a year, and get paid about £65,000 p.a (they get a little less than this in fact). I work out they get about £12/ hour. Not a great wage really compared to working the same hours in the private sector with a similar degree of responsibility.

Expenses is a different story, but I really think we should care more about corporate fat cats in the private sector who earn many many more times this and avoid tax. Really MPs are not that well paid for what they do, this could be why they fiddle their expenses.

I would be happy for the basic pay of an MP to increase if i think they deserved it, but i don't. I think my dog could do a better job than some of those greedy self serving pigs. If i could see improvments and if i felt like things where changing then it would be different, but things only seem to get worse. They seem to be in it for financial gain a nice way to become a property tycoon, its a joke an utter disgrace in my opinion if it was possible to scrap the whole lot of them i would vote for that today. I know a lot of people feel the same anger as me and what makes it worse is the pure arrogance of some people like Mr Malik this week claiming they have done nothing wrong! It beggars belief that these people try to justify wasting tax payers money when people like my uncle Sergeant Ian Knowles are sent to war without proper equipment.
My local MP Andrew Miller was asked to reveal his expenses claims last week on the back of the Telegraph stories and he refused but said he has nothing to hide. So i guess ill have to wait and see about him.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

I know that I'm going to be shouted down because apparently financial compensation is the only way to attract the best, but I think they should be paid the average wage of the country, we should purpose build living accomadation within walking distance of the house, then there'd be no need to provide second home or car allowances etc. Perhaps an exemption from council tax and travel expenses to and from constituency as well.

Yes, I'm afraid you are and it is, especially if we want to attract people into politics who can get voted as prospective candidates based on knowledge and experience instead of how many friends they have in their local branch! OK, maybe a bit glib, but as I've said elsewhere, if we continue to pay MPs peanuts compared to what people at a similar level in industry can get, we'll continue to get monkeys representing us.

I'd qualify that statement by saying that commensurate with a commercial-equivalent salary and benefits package should come the same type of employment criteria though, and selection by independent HR consultants based on a job specification of what an MP should know and do.

Originally Posted by Midas

Yes, I'm afraid you are and it is, especially if we want to attract people into politics who can get voted as prospective candidates based on knowledge and experience instead of how many friends they have in their local branch! OK, maybe a bit glib, but as I've said elsewhere, if we continue to pay MPs peanuts compared to what people at a similar level in industry can get, we'll continue to get monkeys representing us.

I'd qualify that statement by saying that commensurate with a commercial-equivalent salary and benefits package should come the same type of employment criteria though, and selection by independent HR consultants based on a job specification of what an MP should know and do.

Do you really think that it is a good idea for MPs to receive a high salary? All that it would mean is many people enter the 'profession' motivated by money as opposed to doing good. If the salary is low-ish (with a second home in London provided for MPs outside of the M25 and a fleet of cars available to take MPs home who are working until late) then there are only two possible motivations which are A) power and B) helping others/working for a good cause. Compare this with the likelihood in your system of career polititians who are in it for the money, and I think that it is clear why paying MPs a large sum is a bad plan.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Do you really think that it is a good idea for MPs to receive a high salary? All that it would mean is many people enter the 'profession' motivated by money as opposed to doing good. If the salary is low-ish (with a second home in London provided for MPs outside of the M25 and a fleet of cars available to take MPs home who are working until late) then there are only two possible motivations which are A) power and B) helping others/working for a good cause. Compare this with the likelihood in your system of career polititians who are in it for the money, and I think that it is clear why paying MPs a large sum is a bad plan.

Yes, I seriously believe it's a good idea. I think we can remove the power element from the equation since it's applicable whatever the pay involved is and whatever type of person becomes an MP. That leaves us in the position of having to decide whether we want professional politicians, people who are likely to be far more knowledgeable about both political theory and the real commercial world (via expert selection procedures), or people who might mean well and want to 'do the right thing' but are far less able, more easily swayed by events and perhaps have far less insight into the implications of their actions (and perhaps find it more tempting to 'take a bit on the side' if the opportunity presents itself).

Remember it's the future of the whole of the country that's in the hands of these people, and certainly as far as I'm concerned, professional knowledge and experience win out over enthusiasm and good intent every time.

and no expenses.
This of course applies only to independent MPs. If an MP is voted in as a Labour or Conservative or Liberal or whatever MP, then the party should pay their salary and they can pay whatever they like, as it's not coming from tax.
Also, no one should be allowed to stand for MP until the age of 40, and must have been employed for at least 15 years (and not by a political party either).

Originally Posted by Midas

Yes, I'm afraid you are and it is, especially if we want to attract people into politics who can get voted as prospective candidates based on knowledge and experience instead of how many friends they have in their local branch! OK, maybe a bit glib, but as I've said elsewhere, if we continue to pay MPs peanuts compared to what people at a similar level in industry can get, we'll continue to get monkeys representing us.

I'd qualify that statement by saying that commensurate with a commercial-equivalent salary and benefits package should come the same type of employment criteria though, and selection by independent HR consultants based on a job specification of what an MP should know and do.

I would refute the idea that we should attempt to use private sector renumerative packages to 'tempt' people into the vocation. Politician, after all, isn't a private sector job.

I would consider the idea comparable to the clergy attempting to attract people to the cloth by offering high salaries. In a similar way, the primary motivator for politicians has always traditionally been their level of commitment to the 'cause'. I would be very concerned about the motivations of a cabinet comprised of hired guns just in it for the cash.

The counter-argument (I think I saw it glancing down the thread) I expect is that the more "capable" or "experienced" people we want to attract to the highest positions of state can only be attracted by offering large salaries. My counter-counter-argument is that the "capabilities" of these capable people will inevitably be directed to enhancing their own position and earnings within that position, not primarily towards improvement of the country. This approach is symptomatic of seeing the country as "Britain Plc", in which everything can be run as if it were a business.

My view is that we should pay them the UK average wage + any declared overtime (as MN hinted at, some of the hours worked, or at least claimed, are insane - but that's a seperate issue). I would also suggest that we should revoke the second homes allowance. We have the technology for MPs to participate in debates remotely - I don't agree that they need a london pad on grounds of attendance.