[TobyD]

Being a paid consultant ought to be banned for MPs,  although they should be allowed to work in fields that may inform their political work,  such as law or the health service. 

I'd probably bet money that Johnson won't turn up to the emergency debate this afternoon,  and he will suddenly have something important to do like rushing back up to COP. He has form having gone to Afghanistan to avoid a vote.

[Rocksteady]

More general question: MPs pay - increase it but ban second and third jobs?

Yes. Should have been done long ago. Obvious time was the expenses scandal in 2009.

I don't think they should get a payrise. They get £81k a year vs average UK salary around £30k. This for the amount of actual hard work you see them doing seems a decent deal for them.

They shouldn't be allowed to consult. I think there should be a clause that prevents them consulting within 5 years of finishing the role too.

It should be seen as a passion career, not an opportunity to cash in or earn big bucks. Should be people who want to serve their country; now it's people who feels the country should be serving them.

[ali k]

I don't think they should get a payrise. They get £81k a year vs average UK salary around £30k.
It should be seen as a passion career, not an opportunity to cash in or earn big bucks. Should be people who want to serve their country; now it's people who feels the country should be serving them.

I think the argument for increasing pay is to attract talent that is otherwise put off by the relatively low salary. Not saying it's a shit salary - far from it. But to attract experienced and talented people from across the spectrum then it has to be enough to be worthwhile giving up what they could demand elsewhere, which might be £100k+ (CEOs, senior managers, lawyers, accountants, consultants, IT bods...). If I was earning that sort of money there's no way I'd go into politics - especially if it meant a pay cut and living away from home Mon-Thurs.

They shouldn't be allowed to consult. I think there should be a clause that prevents them consulting within 5 years of finishing the role too.

I do agree with this, but then a higher salary would do away with any justification for having second jobs and rinsing expenses.

[TobyD]

I don't think they should get a payrise. They get £81k a year vs average UK salary around £30k. This for the amount of actual hard work you see them doing seems a decent deal for them.

It should be seen as a passion career, not an opportunity to cash in or earn big bucks. Should be people who want to serve their country; now it's people who feels the country should be serving them.

I am not sure a payrise is the answer either, but I do think that the vast majority of MPs actually work bloody hard and earn every penny of their salary. If you think about the amount of shit they have to put up with as well as the fact that there's a significant chance of losing the job entirely every few years, wierd working hours etc etc, it's not a job that you can describe as an easy living.

It's extremely unfortunate, however that I'd say one of the few MPs who has little interest in the job or any aspect of policy, and is mainly in it for the power trip happens to be prime minister.

[mrjonathanr]

It should be seen as a passion career, not an opportunity to cash in or earn big bucks. Should be people who want to serve their country; now it's people who feels the country should be serving them.

Perhaps, like nurses and teachers, the joy of serving should compensate for pay because it’s a ‘vocation’. Or perhaps not, and recruitment of talent becomes fraught.

Pay people well and expect - and get- 100% commitment in return.

[TobyD]

Pay people well and expect - and get- 100% commitment in return.

This sort of commitment?
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1457739590639439872?s=20
(Boris Johnson has apparently travelled over 26000 miles to avoid difficult situations in parliament)

Or this sort of commitment?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10179601/Former-attorney-general-Geoffrey-Cox-second-job-saw-vote-remotely-Caribbean.html

[mrjonathanr]

You are proving my point.

[Oldmanmatt]

You are proving my point.

I don’t think so.

For many MPs, that role is a second job and the remuneration almost irrelevant. The position is sought for influence and access to power. Paying more won’t change that, if anything it just makes it more attractive (because there are negatives to being in the public/media eye).
Strictly enforced and greatly strengthened regulation of working hours, attendance in the house, outside activities and financial dealings; would be the only way to change the current system.
It’s quite possible to achieve. As a Civil Servant with a security clearance, I lose huge swathes of what some would call “basic” privacy, so does everyone else in that category. You either accept it as part of your role or you “roll” off.

[TobyD]

You are proving my point.

I'm not sure about that; Geoffrey Cox earned over a million pounds last year for outside legal work.  There is no way that any feasible pay increases will compete with that! Boris Johnson gets eye watering amounts of money for Telegraph articles (over 100000 a piece I think). I agree more with Matt that some sort of required attendance and appearance at votes might be a better way to go.
Some MPs- probably the vast majority- work hard for their constituents and are valuable public servants. I fail to see how Cox is, with 140 hours legal work a month,  and half the time in the Caribbean.  The MPs in very safe seats occasionally seem to sit back and milk it. The ones in marginal areas are no doubt rather more concerned with their job security,  and want to keep their constituents happy. 

[James Malloch]

You are proving my point.

I'm not sure about that; Geoffrey Cox earned over a million pounds last year for outside legal work.  There is no way that any feasible pay increases will compete with that! Boris Johnson gets eye watering amounts of money for Telegraph articles (over 100000 a piece I think). I agree more with Matt that some sort of required attendance and appearance at votes might be a better way to go.
Some MPs- probably the vast majority- work hard for their constituents and are valuable public servants. I fail to see how Cox is, with 140 hours legal work a month,  and half the time in the Caribbean.  The MPs in very safe seats occasionally seem to sit back and milk it. The ones in marginal areas are no doubt rather more concerned with their job security,  and want to keep their constituents happy.

I think you’re right that making people use their time to be places (e.g. debates/votes) would be a great way to focus on their roles more.

A friend often says that, for example, parking fines and speed tickets should require you to go to a specific place in person to pay. For someone with a huge salary, just parking anywhere and dealing with a £30 fine is no deterrent for them. Making them take some time out of their day to pay, for example, at the local council office would quickly stop them offending/re-offending.

The same goes for attendance of votes etc. It will start to separate out those who want the role purely for influence that it brings.

On Boris Johnson’s Telegraph articles, I’m had a long-standing bug bare about this kind of thing. To be fair, I’ve not read many of them, but they are often political in nature about things which are aiming to appeal to voters.

I think that as a public figure, these kind of article should be available to the everyone (i.e. not paywalled) and I also fee uneasy about the high remuneration for them. I feel like the leader of a country should be getting their message out there because it is an important message, not because someone is bunging you £100k…

I’ve had this with local MP’s too. What’s the point in having an MP who writes articles that I’ve got to pay to read.

[mrjonathanr]

I'm not sure about that; Geoffrey Cox earned over a million pounds last year for outside legal work.  There is no way that any feasible pay increases will compete with that! Boris Johnson gets eye watering amounts of money for Telegraph articles (over 100000 a piece I think).

If I had my way the pay would rise and taking pay or money from any source other than parliament would be a criminal offence.

If characters like Cox et al became fewer on the ground in the Commons as a result, so be it. They should be motivated by a public - rather than self- serving ethic. Where I disagree with Rocksteady is the implication that at some level virtue should be its own reward. Those views tend never to be applied to the speaker themselves I find.

Conditions of presence for votes etc I quite agree with. Let's have some thoughtful regulation there. It does exist to some degree- some Lords are notorious for briefly turning up to meet the minimum attendance and take their pay. it is also true that Covid has driven a coach and horses through previous norms of physical attendance and now may be an excellent time to consider these issues.

[seankenny]

It should be seen as a passion career, not an opportunity to cash in or earn big bucks. Should be people who want to serve their country; now it's people who feels the country should be serving them.

My view on "passion careers" that don't pay well is that they tend to be full of rich people who can afford to be fulfilled on the cheap, because someone else bought a house for them. I've worked for aid agencies, the sector is full of such people, and I'm sure TV, journalism, the arts, etc are too. This strikes me as a mostly negative trend in British life.

What surpised me about the MPs' consultancy jobs was not so much the money but the amount of time they were spending on them. The odd few days in the recess I could just about get, but some of them are spending a month or more working on second jobs. That's indefensible, they should be using that time to either work on constituency issues or developing specific subject matter expertise that enhances their worth to Parliament more generally. A month a year of obligatory personal development such as taking an undergrad or grad level course on climate science, biotechnology, macroeconomics - or even basic bloody statistics! - probably wouldn't hurt.

I'd also like to see a serious attempt to close the revolving door. If you serve as a minister or on a select committee then no working in that sector for a couple of years afterwards (tho I am aware that ex-MPs need to earn a living somehow).

The suggestions about manditory attendance etc strike me as unneccessary micro-management.

[Rocksteady]

It should be seen as a passion career, not an opportunity to cash in or earn big bucks. Should be people who want to serve their country; now it's people who feels the country should be serving them.

My view on "passion careers" that don't pay well is that they tend to be full of rich people who can afford to be fulfilled on the cheap, because someone else bought a house for them. I've worked for aid agencies, the sector is full of such people, and I'm sure TV, journalism, the arts, etc are too. This strikes me as a mostly negative trend in British life.

Yeah on reflection I'm wrong about the passion career because I do agree with the above. The only people I've met who were artists or work in TV or were full time writers or entrepreneurs in their 20s had a financial safety net.

I guess with MPs I don't see why they should earn as much as a doctor or lawyer or other skilled and qualified professional because they don't have to go through that crucible of professional training. The qualification to become an MP is persuading people to vote for you.

Maybe there should be professional training to be an MP, which you could partly waive if you already have had a career? Then at least the high pay would have the justification of having specialist skills to bring to the table.

The outside consulting/revolving door creates obvious conflicts of interest that clearly shouldn't be allowed at all. I'd support the criminal penalties. I think even the lucrative speaking opportunities should be closed off. You shouldn't be able to do a bad job running the country, cause division and chaos then earn millions afterwards (like Dave Cameron and George Osborne for example).

Having said that I remember in the Big Short the guy who bought 9bn of sub-prime bonds was fired but kept his $24m bonus for the year's work...

[TobyD]

Agree with the above that the unintended consequence of restricting any outside work would be MPs who are exclusively independently wealthy.

I do think that in professional careers which need a certain number of hours a year to stay qualified it's not a problem, and many of these people are valuable MPs, Rosanna Allan Khan for example, and a high degree of legal expertise must be valuable if drafting legislation.

[mrjonathanr]

Very disappointed the Guardian didn’t go with the title

It’s not an easy life any more, chum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/09/iain-duncan-smith-accused-of-brazen-conflict-of-interest-over-25000-job

[TobyD]

Very disappointed the Guardian didn’t go with the title

It’s not an easy life any more, chum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/09/iain-duncan-smith-accused-of-brazen-conflict-of-interest-over-25000-job

There is a great cartoon in The Times today,  of Geoffrey Cox limbo dancing under a very low bar, while juggling bank notes, titled "how low can you go Sir Geoffrey?"

[i.munro]

Yeah on reflection I'm wrong about the passion career because I do agree with the above. The only people I've met who were artists or work in TV or were full time writers or entrepreneurs in their 20s had a financial safety net.

Oh yeah nobody who isn't wealthy takes jobs paying less than 80 grand- that's why nursing, scientific research, social work & ,teaching  & hospitality are staffed entirely by the children of the rich.

[TobyD]

Yeah on reflection I'm wrong about the passion career because I do agree with the above. The only people I've met who were artists or work in TV or were full time writers or entrepreneurs in their 20s had a financial safety net.

Oh yeah nobody who isn't wealthy takes jobs paying less than 80 grand- that's why nursing, scientific research, social work & ,teaching  & hospitality are staffed entirely by the children of the rich.

But being an MP is extremely insecure,  you have to live in London a lot of the time,  put up with a lot of abuse,  work at very strange hours which aren't necessarily predictable and many other things.  There are clearly some benefits but I really don't think it's the easy ride that it often seems to be portrayed as. 
Saying that,  its absolutely not an excuse for anyone to piss off to the Caribbean to earn a million pounds while the rest of the country isn't allowed to go on holiday,  to a pub or a cinema. 

[Rocksteady]

Yeah on reflection I'm wrong about the passion career because I do agree with the above. The only people I've met who were artists or work in TV or were full time writers or entrepreneurs in their 20s had a financial safety net.

Oh yeah nobody who isn't wealthy takes jobs paying less than 80 grand- that's why nursing, scientific research, social work & ,teaching  & hospitality are staffed entirely by the children of the rich.

I can't win on this passion career thing because I was attacked for saying I thought that being an MP should be treated as a passion career and not as a high earning role and then for saying the above. I obviously haven't thought it out well enough.

I've had passion roles which paid very little and were fun and I've had boring soul destroying jobs which paid well. My wife works in a passion career and loves it but earns a lot less than an MP. I'm sure some roles in the sectors you've mentioned pay above £80k. It's nuanced isn't it.

Point I'm trying to make is that being an MP shouldn't be seen as a ticket to the gravy train. I don't think giving it a high salary will necessarily attract the right sort of people from the private sector. Edit: But yes there are obvious downsides that should be compensated for. Although I'd argue that £80k and the expenses that they can already legitimately claim back are some kind of compensation.
The idea of salary being proportionate to commitment I find odd - because eg. nursing etc.

[BrutusTheBear]

Am I missing something here or is this thread only frequented by people who earn in excess of £80k per year?
Average salary in the UK is 29k.
82k IS a high salary and the majority of people in the UK dream of earning that much. 

[mrjonathanr]

Average wage reflects a lot of lower skilled jobs though. For me Brutus it is the difference between maybe what 'should' be the case and realistically what is sensible to achieve the outcome you are after. ie MPs who are able and committed.

If we want high calibre candidates to perform with professionalism, in London, then the salaries should at least reflect (not compete with) professional London salaries. With no realistic grounds for complaint. Receipt of outside pay should be considered a criminal matter.

If wages are too low for the role - and as Toby points out the wage needs to reflect the insecurity and unsocial hours - good candidates will either be rich dilettantes or shy away.

[Andy W]

I've never heard working in the arts described as a 'passion career'. However as someone  who was/is an artist and worked in the South West I can say pretty confidently most artists are poor and don't even make an adequate wage. Unless you make highly commercial work, income will rely on grants and funding.

[dunnyg]

If it helps I don't earn 82 k. The salaries in  "the city" are I guess what are being used for comparison though. In the public ish sector profs get on average 82k.  Hospital consultants start on about 85k. Should MPs get paid about that much?
I'd say it isn't unreasonable, but I haven't thought about it too much.

Numbers just from the Google.

[James Malloch]

Am I missing something here or is this thread only frequented by people who earn in excess of £80k per year?
Average salary in the UK is 29k.
82k IS a high salary and the majority of people in the UK dream of earning that much. 

Caveat here that my way of thinking here may be a long way off the mark. I don’t agree that the low-paid jobs are just for people with wealthy parents, far from it, but I think that having a strong financial background (fall-net) would massively help becoming an MP.

My way of thinking about it, is that there is a lot of work that goes into becoming an MP.

Whilst not the rule, I imagine that prerequisites include a strong political knowledge, knowledge of past/current affairs, probably having worked for local government or been on advisory boards/school boards, time to campaign, time to raise  funding for said campaign (if you don’t have the spare cash), lots of time to visit local businesses etc.

Then to stand as an MP you need 10 people to support you, and if you want to stand as a non-Independent you need the backing of a political party (which I imagine is incredibly hard to get for most of the larger parties due to going with who they know etc and the fact they only put one person forward per constituency, and that’s once every 4 years). Then to top it off you need to pay a £500 deposit to secure your place.

So, to me, this hugely limits the pool of people who would realistically consider it and kind of boils them down into a few groups.

1) Those who have a real desire to become MPs - working their way through local government etc with the aim of ultimately being elected. These may be more of the “passion” career type.

2) Those who have the time/resources to have a go at becoming an MP - and want to do it because either they think they will be able to make a difference, or because they think it will personally benefit them.

In this latter group I suspect that the average salary etc is far above the national average. In my line of work (Banking - boo, hiss) it’s far from uncommon to see people on £80k+, especially when you consider bonus’ etc. In fact once you become a manager/senior manager (depending on how specialised the department is) that kind of becomes an expectation before too long.

I’m not quite sure where I’m going with this now, but I think that the current system is really set up for well connected, wealthy people to become MPs. I do think this is changing more now, but that it’s more of an exception than the norm. You only need to see the make up of cabinet to see how un-represented the average person is.

I think that an MP is very well paid, but I also wouldn’t begrudge a big rise for them either - it’s certainly a way more demanding job, and one that hugely effects your personal life, than I would ever want to do. But I think that until things change to allow more of the “passion career” people to come through then changing the pay wouldn’t make much difference. If you put it up, those in group 2 above will just be doing even better. If you put pay down, the draw of power will be enough to keep group 2 coming.

[petejh]

It's potentially a great service job, done really badly by some terrible people. As the saying kind of goes.. many of the people who have the desire to become an MP should be barred on the grounds of having the desire to become an MP.
It's a job that would be better foisted upon people who'd been identified by some all-knowing eye as skilled and public-minded enough to do the job well and fairly. Kind of pluck them out of society against their will and drag them screaming and kicking into the house of commons to serve their time. The really unfortunate ones become ministers.