Had I not been surrounded by crates and a messed up new desk yesterday I would've posted about MPs salaries. Personally, I don't agree with Iain that MPs should see their salaries rise to £75K. I also don't agree that MPs salaries have not risen comparably with others, such as senior civil servants.
For a start, why should they? Surely being an MP isn't supposed to be about the money and the career? It's about making a difference and changing things. 65,000 quid a year is a perfectly reasonable salary. It will get you a mortgage of around £260,000 which will buy you a place in London quite nice. Obviously you may not get the flat in Pimilico you want but you'll at least get the chance to live with the real people who's live you impact.
One commenter over at Iain Dale's suggested that if we didn't pay MPs enough they would top up their salary with "outside interests". The inference in that point is clear, pay MPs more to stop them being tempted to be dodgy. Whatever happened to resisting temptation? This is taxpayer we're talking about after all.
If MPs must get a pay rise then link it to the Government inflation rate. That's what business does for the vast majority of us ordinary folk. A pay rise to £75K (which I note is being painted very much as the compromise figure from the extreme of £100K) represents about 15%. That sort of rise simply doesn't happen in the private sector, so I don't see why it should happen in Parliament.
11 comments:
Spot on.
Bulls-eye, also patently obvious.
Firstly Phil, it is fact that MPs salaries have not kept up with other senior civil servants' pay. Or are you telling me you have stopped believing in fact?
I think the MPs salary fuss is a complete nonsense argument. If people were so interested in saving money and taxes, then they could do far better than to restrict the pay of our Members of Parliament. There are far more wasteful pieces of state bureaucracy that could be abolished with no adverse affect whatsoever. Therefore MPs are the scapegoats for the media and a focus for growing discontent that could (and should) be focused elsewhere.
What you are effectively saying is that MPs should be discriminated against, because they should be doing it for the love of the job rather than the money.
If I were to say that IT technicians shouldn't be paid higher rates comparable to other similar professions, because they are doing it as a service to the company or industry, and for the geekery love of it, you would be up in arms about discrimination.
Why should we be taking the market out of MPs pay? We should not.
I was not making a comparison between senior civil servants salary increases and MPs. I was making a comparison between senior civil servant and MPs in terms fo work. Basically the two are not comparable in my mind at all, as such their salaries have increased in line.
What you are effectively saying is that MPs should be discriminated against, because they should be doing it for the love of the job rather than the money.
Oh I'm sorry, there was me being all traditionalist and thinking it was about serving one's country and duty. Having said this, I don't have delsuions of grandeur about becoming Prime Minister. I can though why you'd be fighting the corner of it being a job rather than it being about something slightly more important than plain hard cash. How wonderfully Hobbesian.
If I were to say that IT technicians shouldn't be paid higher rates comparable to other similar professions, because they are doing it as a service to the company or industry, and for the geekery love of it, you would be up in arms about discrimination.
Nonsense, IT technicians aren't paid higher rates comparable to others. Technicians are the lowest of the low in the pyramid.
As for me, I'm not a technician so I am paid a high salary, and I get paid that money because I'm great at what I do, and guess what, their aren't many in the world that are. But I get the market rate, and it is the market which decides. The last I looked, MPs are in the public sector not the market. They get paid more than enough, and unlike us proles, regularly take stupid pay increases which, bizarrely, they have a say over.
Now, now Phil. No need to get too nasty and personal. There is nothing wrong with setting your sights high, is there? Delusions
sometimes become reality, but you'll never know unless you try. Also, in terms of being deluded about grandeur and being Prime
Minister - that is simply not the case. Being Prime Minister; it is a means to end. Who cares for the trappings of state or
the money, or indeed power for power's sake. It is the ability such a position would bring to make the changes conservatives feel
are neccessary to make this country a better place: to make Britain great again. The man behind the screen may be different to the one you imagine.
MPs may be in the pay of the public sector, but the market within the public sector (the internal market) is still very much
applicable. It is therefore discriminatory to keep the wages of one group down compared with another. The same case could be made for Doctors and Nurses and Consultants in the NHS.
I am sure you would agree with me that the state should be reduced and the vast, inexplicable (above market) salaries paid to many
public sector workers should be cut - but you, like others seem to be picking on one particular, very visible grouping of
individuals. Why not make the case for all rather than one?
Also, my apologies for being rude to you in my first posting. Sometimes we write things that we regret afterwards. I am sure you probably know this though. Thanks.
I never regrest what I write. I wouldn't have a blog if I did. Comparing nurses and MPs is just silly, it's misdirection at best, and disingenuous at worst.
More than the issue of money itself, what jars with the public is the perception that MPs get to set their own remuneration. Meanwhile, much like asking a barber if you need a haircut, asking someone if they would like a pay rise is only going to prompt one answer.
I doubt that many MPs are in it for the money - certainly not on our side - as the likes of Archie Norman, Howard Flight and any number of lawyers will have made substantial financial sacrifices by becoming MPs.
Even though there are perhaps 400 seats which are effectively sinecures for the incumbents, I very much doubt that a six figure salary would suddenly lead to a vast improvement in the quality of candidates for Bagthorpe North or Market Blandings. If a salary need to be set at a level to clear the market, it would appear that it is already at an appropriate level. Maybe a figure of £250,000 would be enough for City types to consider running for office, but this, by and large, would be unlikely to have much relavance to the other parties.
Well, clearly you do since you have changed/edited a number of your articles before after original submission.
Edited to correct grammar and horrendous typos. That's called fat fingers not actions due to regret. Nice try at trolling though.
Ah ok, Phil. Have it your own way. Clearly your vast superiority of intellect, wit and skill has clearly won this small argument.
Here's to your next dramatic and successful appearence on 18 Doughty Street...
I wouldn't necessarily call it intellect. Just pointing out that you're (a) derailing and (b) trolling. Having been online for well over 10 years, it all becomes terribly transparent.
When are you going on 18DS.. I think you should.
Post a Comment