Alan Duncan's comments about MP's pay
Discussion
Dick Fromage said:
I can understand why he said that it's like being on rations. I don't think MPs are paid enough based on their salary. £65k for top quality people is a pittance compared with business.
MPs in reality have a compensation package equivalent to £115,000 (not including a fair valuation of their pension package).Dick Fromage said:
I can understand why he said that it's like being on rations. I don't think MPs are paid enough based on their salary. £65k for top quality people is a pittance compared with business.
But when you look at the bulk of the back benchers (and most of the government/front benchers) then what makes you think they are worth even 65K?Their annual salary is £64,766. According to the IFS, a single person on this income is in the top 3% of earners. If he has a partner earning £30,000 a year, this couple is also in the top 3% of household incomes.
If a single MP claims £20,000 for waxing his drawbridge on top of this, he enters the top 1% of earners.
Even if an MP has a non-working partner and four children, his salary, plus £20,000 of second home allowance, puts him in the richest one-fifth of households.
Even if we concede that an MP works longer hours than average and look at hourly pay, MPs are still better off than most - in the top quartile for single persons.
However you cut it, then, MPs are unrepresentative of their constituents in terms of earnings.
What could justify this?
The Times argues that MPs should be paid £90,000 a year - similarly to GPs or head-teachers. This, I think, is mistaken. It takes years of experience and training to become a GP or head-teacher. No such qualifications are necessary for MPs. And GPs and head-teachers must exercise considerable judgment. MPs don’t. As Alice Miles writes:
With honourable exceptions — Labour’s Frank Field particularly stands out– MPs do little to apply any individual thought to the legislation before them...Watch an MP go off to vote: he will ask colleagues en route how they are supposed to be voting on this one.
So how should we pay MPs? Much of their time is spent dealing with constituents’ housing or immigration issues. Which suggests they should be paid like social workers. And the average social worker earns less than £30,000.
Yes, MPs should get more than this to reflect the fact that most of them must incur the expense of a second home. But the idea that they are under-paid now reflects, I suspect, the media’s “middle England” fallacy - the mistaken belief that high incomes are far more common than they in fact are.
source
If a single MP claims £20,000 for waxing his drawbridge on top of this, he enters the top 1% of earners.
Even if an MP has a non-working partner and four children, his salary, plus £20,000 of second home allowance, puts him in the richest one-fifth of households.
Even if we concede that an MP works longer hours than average and look at hourly pay, MPs are still better off than most - in the top quartile for single persons.
However you cut it, then, MPs are unrepresentative of their constituents in terms of earnings.
What could justify this?
The Times argues that MPs should be paid £90,000 a year - similarly to GPs or head-teachers. This, I think, is mistaken. It takes years of experience and training to become a GP or head-teacher. No such qualifications are necessary for MPs. And GPs and head-teachers must exercise considerable judgment. MPs don’t. As Alice Miles writes:
With honourable exceptions — Labour’s Frank Field particularly stands out– MPs do little to apply any individual thought to the legislation before them...Watch an MP go off to vote: he will ask colleagues en route how they are supposed to be voting on this one.
So how should we pay MPs? Much of their time is spent dealing with constituents’ housing or immigration issues. Which suggests they should be paid like social workers. And the average social worker earns less than £30,000.
Yes, MPs should get more than this to reflect the fact that most of them must incur the expense of a second home. But the idea that they are under-paid now reflects, I suspect, the media’s “middle England” fallacy - the mistaken belief that high incomes are far more common than they in fact are.
source
Timsta said:
Should MPs be doing the job for the money? Or do we want MPs who do the job because they care about the country?
Personally, I want a genuine democracy where everyone has the opportunity to vote on each individual issue (perfectly possible with modern technology), rather than voting for one of two or three parties once every 5 years and them assuming they have carte blanche to impose any laws or taxation they choose on me in between...Douglas Adams was spot on: anyone who actually wants to govern other people (particularly for very poor financial reward?) should under no circumstances be allowed to do so.
Sam_68 said:
Personally, I want a genuine democracy where everyone has the opportunity to vote on each individual issue (perfectly possible with modern technology)
The Swiss already have a hybrid system that allows the people to vote on major issues, it's these issues that tend to be the most contentious in the UK and offten the ones where the elected government refuse to follow public opinion Sam_68 said:
Timsta said:
Should MPs be doing the job for the money? Or do we want MPs who do the job because they care about the country?
Personally, I want a genuine democracy where everyone has the opportunity to vote on each individual issue (perfectly possible with modern technology), rather than voting for one of two or three parties once every 5 years and them assuming they have carte blanche to impose any laws or taxation they choose on me in between...Douglas Adams was spot on: anyone who actually wants to govern other people (particularly for very poor financial reward?) should under no circumstances be allowed to do so.
Dick Fromage said:
I can understand why he said that it's like being on rations. I don't think MPs are paid enough based on their salary. £65k for top quality people is a pittance compared with business.
When we get some top quality MP's, then i'll happily agree that they should have a pay rise.In any case, they choose to become MP's, no one asks them to be.
Sorry but I can't believe the OPs post. Have you ever watched Duncan? He's a joker. A not very funny joker. He can't help himself and I 100% believe he was just dropping yet another crap joke. Predictably this offended the less humour filled members of the population who've incidentally had what remained of their GSOHs sucked out by the daily mail brain vacuum.
Edited by Olf on Wednesday 12th August 21:49
While it is nice to think that some of our MPs are somewhere near living in the world that they have helped create, they still aren't. £65k is still far more than most Londoners earn, and they have expenses and accrue a pension that most in the private sector can only dream of.
I'm not crying into my vino for him.
I'm not crying into my vino for him.
Dick Fromage said:
I can understand why he said that it's like being on rations. I don't think MPs are paid enough based on their salary. £65k for top quality people is a pittance compared with business.
OK i'll bite (pretending this isn't a wind up).Who the f
k!!!!!!!! says they're top quality people?Where the f
king hell did that come from? They're not only nearly all completely dishonest and immoral, but they just can't stop putting their feet in it. And it's the last bit that bothers me most.f
k me.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff