Naively, I believe that people should enter government to serve. Not as part of a get rich scheme. Ask any politician, and you will get this altruistic view. However scrape beneath the surface, and you get all kinds of things going on.

So, if you want to serve the country in such a way, then you do just that. In my more extreme mindsets, I feel that Westminster should be almost monastic in structure - with MPs swearing an oath of poverty, chastity and duty and permanently doing away with their worldly goods. If you really, really want to serve in this way, then doing so should be the reward. Like I said, this is extreme, and probably unworkable.

To be honest for the hours MPs put in and the amount of work they do, I don't think £65k is an enormous amount of money.

Yes but this is a redundancy payment. This is on top of their salary.

We'd moved on from there.

But no, as it happens, I don't think this payment is particularly out of order. It's certainly dwarfed by the golden goodbyes enjoyed by other professionals.

I think there are an awful lot of people who would suggest that policy has comprehensively failed so far, so there's little justification for continuing with it.

Jon

In that respect yes but it should not be given to MPs above the retirement age. It was originally to help MP's adjust to life outside parliament after getting the boot and enable them to get another job. Though why shouild that apply to retirees?

What's the legal minimum? One weeks pay for every year you've worked there?
I'm pretty sure they should be getting less that £65k.

I think you will find the words "up to" precede the £65k figure.