http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8209783.stm

Cameron must be considering sending some of the older party members off to Dignitas at this point...

leeches the lot of them …

What with their anti-NHS happenings this week from that MEP and the "Stalinist" comments in the Welsh press clicky they're working hard to screw things up at the moment. Good.

TBH I can see his point.

Pretty much any of them could walk away and earn that sort of money in the private sector, so why shouldn't an MPs salary be competitive?

Combined with sorting out the allowances mess, it would certainly make things a lot more transparent than a bunch of poorly paid MPs topping up their earnings by getting the taxpayer to fund their duck houses. I'd be interested to see what his proposals are.

If they can walk away and earn more elsewhere, I for one would hope they hurry up and do so.

Quite so. I'm reminded of the frankly whiney excuses from The City over their pay packets since the credit crunch hit. 'If we don't pay these people millions of pounds in guaranteed bonuses (surely the worst contradiction in terms ever) they will all go off and get more lucratively paid jobs elsewhere'.
What? These people? These people over here, who lent out trillion of pounds they didn't have, had no answer when it turned out the people they lent it to couldn't pay it back and just about brought the entire economy to it's knees, put thousands of people out of work and put thousands of families out of their homes in the process? These people? Let them go. No, really, I meant it, let them go. In fact, I tell you what, tell me which country they're all planning to move to and I'll personally drive them to the airport.

Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy to have a regime where we paid MPs somewhat more (not double, but say the national average wage more than they get now) at the cost of having absolutely no expenses whatsoever. I think we'd really know what they were about depending on how many of them went for the deal.

Jon

And who do you propose would replace them?

I'm not saying our current bunch are any good (they're not), but if you want to get decent people, you have to pay decent money. Fact of life. If you pay poorly *and* cut all their allowances, then you'll end up with a: single issue candidates who got into politics to try and force through their own agendas, and b: Part time politicians who try and juggle their political lives with whatever directors jobs they hold at the same time (while trying to pretend there's no conflict of interest).

If you want to cut costs in parliament, I can think of many other ways of doing it.

Call me cynical but I kind of believe we could pick one random person from each constituency and not actually do any worse.


Jon

Nice idea, and you know what? I think you're right.

I'd like to see the MP that puts that idea forward though.

*EDIT*

I've had a better idea. Base it all on bonuses (against actual, tangible targets that need work and talent to achieve, rather than city style guaranteed ones).
Keep the base salary the same, but:
Unemployment levels drop to below 20%? Good work, have £5k each.
GDP has increased? Well done, have a percentage of that.

And so on...

The thing is that MPs spend very little time at Westminster, then disappear off for the summer recess. In industry, you work a 37.5 hour week with 25 days holiday if you're lucky. They all knew what they were getting in to when they decided to enter politics, so there's no point crying about the pay and conditions now. Until the expenses scandal broke, they all had their noses in the trough.

However, the "poor" salary may be partly responsible for the low quality of MPs we have to put up with. Let's see - £200k with a private sector company or £65k a year as an MP....tricky decision. Maybe if the salary was increased more in line with the responsibilities of the job, you'd get a better standard of MP, but you'd need some form of accountability so the public can see they're getting value for money (which isn't happening at the moment).


There is one way they can get a pay rise - get rid of a load of the useless public sector jobs the current Government has created in order to keep the unemployment figures down.

Regarding getting what you pay for, I know quite a few civil service admin. assistants who are easily more organized and capable than their bosses who are on a lot more money - it's human nature to carry on doing what you've been getting away with and are used to

Give them a decent salary Ok. 60,000- 100,000 a year is not a small salary More than twice most people who also have to work hard get.
If they want a house let them do what the rest of the public have to do buy it themselves out of their earnings.
Expenses are only for cost incurred in carrying out their job, not for redecorating their homes and swimming pools.
If they need to travel in their duties then stay in hotels and submit the bills just I have to in my job, (I don't get a second home bought for me just because I have to work away a lot). At least then it would be possible to see what the expenses are being paid for.
In other words live like the people who they are supposed to work for (the tax payers) do.
If it decided that a second home is required then let the taxpayer buy it, but make sure the taxpayer owns it not the MP. Also make it available for other MP's to use when not in occupancy.

Um, the point of the second home allowance is because they have to maintain a residence in their constituency and in London. Any private sector job that required that you would also get pretty hansome remuneration.

I have a friend who basically splits her job - half the time she's up here, half the time she's in London. She's in the private sector. Does she get a second house? No. She does get expenses, but they aren't equivalent to what MP's were claiming. Probably enough to buy a small one bed flat in a fairly middling suburb, if she was bothered. Certainly not enough to be buying 3 and 4 bed residences in the more leafy parts like MPs have been.

Jon

My company in the private sector does provide housing for employees needing to reside away, but they do not give it to the employees it remains the property of the company.