Crosswords1 min ago
How much is an MP worth
18 Answers
There is lots of talk in below threads about thieving etc - but lets be honest, the MAJORITY of MPs are not thieves, but may be guilty of claiming what they are entitlted to - albeit showing dubious moral judgement.
The people who run our top companies (and a lot of the reporters who are reporting on this issue) all earn significant 6 figure (if not 7 figure) salaries.
But for some reason, the opinion of the majority seems to be that MPs are not worth paying a decent salary for.
Well, there is that old saying - you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Question - what is the maximum you would be happy to pay if you could get an MP to behave in the way that you wanted them to? (Not a debate on what that behaviour is)
The people who run our top companies (and a lot of the reporters who are reporting on this issue) all earn significant 6 figure (if not 7 figure) salaries.
But for some reason, the opinion of the majority seems to be that MPs are not worth paying a decent salary for.
Well, there is that old saying - you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Question - what is the maximum you would be happy to pay if you could get an MP to behave in the way that you wanted them to? (Not a debate on what that behaviour is)
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oneeyedvic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Depends on the MP.
A standard MP ususlally seems to have the intelligence of ny backside and should be paid as much. Especially since they have about the same infulence.
A cabinet member however is closer to running the country and has responsibility and answerabilty so should be paid in line with a reasonable business manager.
They should not be paid in line with private directors just as top civil servants should not be. They do not have the elelment of competitiion and if they scew up can screw the public for more money (some banks excepted here of course but then I dont agree with that either)
Shadow cabinet perhaps a bit more but there again they are not actually culpable so should be renumerated in line with this reduced culpability.
A standard MP ususlally seems to have the intelligence of ny backside and should be paid as much. Especially since they have about the same infulence.
A cabinet member however is closer to running the country and has responsibility and answerabilty so should be paid in line with a reasonable business manager.
They should not be paid in line with private directors just as top civil servants should not be. They do not have the elelment of competitiion and if they scew up can screw the public for more money (some banks excepted here of course but then I dont agree with that either)
Shadow cabinet perhaps a bit more but there again they are not actually culpable so should be renumerated in line with this reduced culpability.
Their reported salary is £64000 for your average backbencher, who in effect is a "supercouncillor" Dont forget though that under the existing systems of expenses and allowances, they can claim very much more - And also remember that all their office allowances are paid for, much of their personal expenses are, or have been until the Telegraph ran its story, unreceipted ( £400 per month food allowance, £250 a month travel allowance) that they can just submit a claim for. so thats another £7,200 a year tax free ( and how much would you have to be earn to get that amount net of tax? ).
Add to that the majority of these MPs "employ" their own family members as assistants, researchers, etc - no open interview process, no proper selection or vetting process - and the money these people get paid as a salary will feed back into the MPs pocket.
All the items they currently buy to furnish their second homes, where it is allegedly needed. All this stuff is paid for by the taxpayer, and it becomes the property of the MP.
So, taking all that into account - an equivalent salary to cover all of this would be much closer to £150K or more a year. I dont believe that any of them have shown any actions to justify this type of salary. And these peanuts they are being paid are M and S peanuts, not your bog standard off the shelf peanuts! :)
They should receive a salary of around £65 - 70K a year. Each MPs office should be run as a small business, given its yearly allocation, and they have to submit accounts to the HMIR live the rest of us. Their staff positions should be advertised and a proper selection process should be adapted.
Add to that the majority of these MPs "employ" their own family members as assistants, researchers, etc - no open interview process, no proper selection or vetting process - and the money these people get paid as a salary will feed back into the MPs pocket.
All the items they currently buy to furnish their second homes, where it is allegedly needed. All this stuff is paid for by the taxpayer, and it becomes the property of the MP.
So, taking all that into account - an equivalent salary to cover all of this would be much closer to £150K or more a year. I dont believe that any of them have shown any actions to justify this type of salary. And these peanuts they are being paid are M and S peanuts, not your bog standard off the shelf peanuts! :)
They should receive a salary of around £65 - 70K a year. Each MPs office should be run as a small business, given its yearly allocation, and they have to submit accounts to the HMIR live the rest of us. Their staff positions should be advertised and a proper selection process should be adapted.
I think there's an underestimation of the work that back bencers do and their influence.
Particularly in committe stage in examination of legislation.
That should be worked in so that those who spend more time working on committees behind the scenes are recompensed accordingly.
Also remember that civil servants and the private sector do not directly equate to MPs as these two do not basically have to stand for their jobs every 5 years - so they are somewhere of a cross between a contractor and employee and that should be reflected too
Particularly in committe stage in examination of legislation.
That should be worked in so that those who spend more time working on committees behind the scenes are recompensed accordingly.
Also remember that civil servants and the private sector do not directly equate to MPs as these two do not basically have to stand for their jobs every 5 years - so they are somewhere of a cross between a contractor and employee and that should be reflected too
-- answer removed --
Just like to say I haven't read the thread, but I take objection to the 'you pay peanuts, you get monkeys' argument (though it is an awesome saying).
I'm not sure that it applies to MPs in the same way it does in companies - pretty much the only argument for paying MPs at all is so that old, rich people who have vast amounts of cash to retire on aren't the only people who can run for election. Ideally, if you had a lower salary/entitelments then you could be sure that the people running for office weren't in it for the money/perks and were in it for the politics.
As an aside, just to make it clear - I'm undecided on the whole MPs' pay issue. I just think that's a lousy argument.
I'm not sure that it applies to MPs in the same way it does in companies - pretty much the only argument for paying MPs at all is so that old, rich people who have vast amounts of cash to retire on aren't the only people who can run for election. Ideally, if you had a lower salary/entitelments then you could be sure that the people running for office weren't in it for the money/perks and were in it for the politics.
As an aside, just to make it clear - I'm undecided on the whole MPs' pay issue. I just think that's a lousy argument.
Krom - I live in Norfolk and so our regional BBC News program also covers Suffolk. Last year there was a massive backlash against the head of the council in Ipswich as she was given a salary of £220,000.
The lady in question appeared a couple of days later for an interview and pointed out that she was in charge of x people, y vehicles, etc etc and that she was running the equivalent of a FTSE 500 business and so the amount she earned was commensurate for the role.
I also have had dealings with charities - and there is a big difference between having 10 volunteers collecting and 10 volunteers and one paid employee who can motivate, encourage and come up with new ideas for the volunteers to implement. In my experience, that employee can more than justify their salary by the extra that they can collect.
My question could therefore be - are we paying enough to politicians - or are we just getting what we deserve. £65k may be 3 times the national average wage, but if I ran a multi national company, I would pay more money than that to the people who made all the key decisions and implemented policy.
The lady in question appeared a couple of days later for an interview and pointed out that she was in charge of x people, y vehicles, etc etc and that she was running the equivalent of a FTSE 500 business and so the amount she earned was commensurate for the role.
I also have had dealings with charities - and there is a big difference between having 10 volunteers collecting and 10 volunteers and one paid employee who can motivate, encourage and come up with new ideas for the volunteers to implement. In my experience, that employee can more than justify their salary by the extra that they can collect.
My question could therefore be - are we paying enough to politicians - or are we just getting what we deserve. £65k may be 3 times the national average wage, but if I ran a multi national company, I would pay more money than that to the people who made all the key decisions and implemented policy.
But a company analogy doesn't work because you're not talking about a company. In a company, you understandably pay a high price to get people who are particularly specialised or skilled in whatever area your business operates in, because they could do better elsewhere. If your 'area' is politics - or more specifically, government - that doesn't apply, and it matters if your candidate is attracted to the position for career reasons (whereas it doesn't really in a company because there's not really any other reason they'd be doing it and it doesn't necessarily make them less suited)
I've also been involved with a fair few charities and agree that a paid employee is useful, but that's more due to the fact that being paid allows them permanence. I think it's also clear that they're very seldom doing it for the money (as it doesn't pay all that well) - they just need the money so they can continue doing it.
As I say - I'm undecided on MPs' pay, so I'm not saying they shouldn't be paid (I don't think anyone is), I just think the argument I highlighted in my last post is flawed.
I've also been involved with a fair few charities and agree that a paid employee is useful, but that's more due to the fact that being paid allows them permanence. I think it's also clear that they're very seldom doing it for the money (as it doesn't pay all that well) - they just need the money so they can continue doing it.
As I say - I'm undecided on MPs' pay, so I'm not saying they shouldn't be paid (I don't think anyone is), I just think the argument I highlighted in my last post is flawed.
I think the analogy that keeps being drawn between MPs and a company owner or MD is flawed. I wouldn't object if the owner of a small company hired their spouse and/or kids into the business - because its their business and the salaries are paid out of the turnover generated through sales and/or services, so it is their own profits and capital on the line.
With MPs, and the staff they hire, they are paying these spouses and family members from the <u>public></u > purse. And we, the public, do not even get the assurance that the successful candidate has been through a rigorous, open selection process and has been appointed on merit and value for money.
With MPs, and the staff they hire, they are paying these spouses and family members from the <u>public></u > purse. And we, the public, do not even get the assurance that the successful candidate has been through a rigorous, open selection process and has been appointed on merit and value for money.
1 to 18 of 18
