Listening to the House of Comments podcast this morning on the subject of MPs' pay, I was left thinking that there must be a better solution. In trying to set a pay rate for them, we are trapped between the rock of public opinion (which would prefer to see them in sack-cloth and ashes) and the hard place of attracting the right people.
The argument goes that if we set the level too low, then "only millionaires can afford to be an MP". That is palpably wrong; as Jennie Rigg pointed out, there are many for whom the current level of pay would be more than adequate, if only they could afford to campaign (which Mark rightly pointed out is a separate problem). Yet there are many for whom an MP salary would be a pay cut. Lucky as they are to be well-off, we must accept that, in practice, they will have settled into their current level of income and made arrangements based on that. They will have mortgages and, probably, children in fee-paying schools*. Dropping their income to £60k or so is not an option. We are (like it or not) ruling these people out of politics.
Above them are the real toffs, who can afford to "go without" an income for the time being or who have investment income that will continue regardless. They can afford politics. So politics becomes the preserve of toffs and of those on a low income but with a backer who can bankroll their campaign -i.e. union officials.
So it is the upper middle classes that we are (in effect) excluding. The professional classes**. The successful businesspeople. The people with experience of running organisations. The people who might actually make competent Ministers...
We therefore need to think laterally. It struck me, why not pay MPs what they earned before they were elected? After all, that was the last independent measure of what that MP was worth.
Needless to say, expenses should then be limited to those allowable under HMRC rules. If those rules are good enough for the Commoners, they are good enough for the Commons.
There could be some safeguards. For example, we could set an upper and a lower limit, such as the median salary and ten times the median salary, to avoid gross distortions. For longstanding MPs, their pay could trend towards a central figure of (say) 3 times the median salary - adjusting by 10-20% of the difference for each Parliamentary term. To avoid anomalous results, we could average their income over the previous Parliamentary term, or some other period.
Think about it; it would encourage people to get experience of life before entering politics. It would encourage them to make proper and true tax returns (assuming we use those to guage their past income). It would enable all sections of society to take part. It would remove the annual argument over pay; if you think you're not paid well enough, then leave, get a better job, and come back!
It would also be non-partisan; define income as earned income and the Conservative uber-toffs will be on the same bottom rung as some of the Labour shop stewards.
Discuss!
------------------------------------------------
*an odd euphemism. I can't find any schools that will pay me a fee for sending my children there...
**yes, I admit that includes patent attorneys. I, however, have no ambitions in that direction ;-)
Interesting suggestion. I wonder if what someone is paid is an indicator of what they are "worth" (ugly expression in my opinion).
ReplyDeleteSome people may be brilliant, but the field in which they work may not pay well. They may do that work because they enjoy it or feel called to do it. The latter in particular might make good MPs. Catholic priests for example (and I'm not a Catholic priest in case anyone wonders), earn between £2K and £8K p.a. Even when one takes into account benefits they receive on top, it's not an indication of what they are worth, and it certainly isn't an indication of how hard they work.
So someone on a low income might decide after all that for the increase in unpleasantness they will receive, it simply isn't worth it to become an MP on a pay unequal to others. Or they might end up waiting and waiting until they get a higher salary, in which case younger people will be under-represented.
On the other hand, those on high salaries might see becoming an MP as a financially viable way out of a career they no longer enjoy. It might therefore attract candidates who are frankly past it.
So I think there are problems. Of course, these problems have to be weighed against the problems of the alternatives.
Interesting post. First, quick thought (don't have much time)...
ReplyDeleteMY OPPOSITION CANDIDATE'S SALARY WOULD BE 4 TIMES HIGHER THAN MINE. VOTE FOR ME: SAVE TAXPAYERS' MONEY.
;-)
Two good points. Albert - I confused salary expectations with intrinsic worth, which is wrong and was not intended.
ReplyDeleteStu - would that be a bad thing? It might prompt a discussion of the value and cost of our politics. The other candidate would not take that lying down (if s/he was any good) and would explain why their experience was worth paying for.
Of course, these problems have to be weighed against the problems of the alternatives.
That, of course, if the problem. No system will be perfect... but that is not a valid argument for the status quo!
"It struck me, why not pay MPs what they earned before they were elected? After all, that was the last independent measure of what that MP was worth."
ReplyDeleteExcept it was what the person was worth as a non-MP. Their value as an MP may be quite different...
As long as the upper limit you suggest is there, investment income is discounted and the propective MP has a statutory obligation to disclose the income they will be claiming I can't see a problem.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, why not just let MP's set their own pay for the next term (up to a maximum) and declare their claim in on a public register before voting commences?
Why not make the pay means tested. Its good enought for most of the rest of us.ChrisM
ReplyDeleteUse a small sum(say, £1), multiplied by the people who voted for them, and weighed by a monthly opinion poll of people in their constituency who like their effort.
ReplyDeleteExample: 10k voters = 10k a month potential, with a current satisfaction rating of 30% = 3k per month (before tax and deductions)
3 excellent suggestions.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that Chris' suggestion is based on the principle of the same rules applying to MPs as apply to us, and Steven & Fat Hen apply that long-lost principle known as "democracy"...
Mmmm...it may be democracy, but it would be democracy after the fashion of the X-Factor.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that only "approved citizens" should be able to vote, Albert? ;-)
ReplyDeleteNo. What on earth makes you think I'm suggesting that?! :-)
ReplyDeleteComparing things to the X-Factor is not usually a compliment...!
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't meant as one. Let me explain. I think that if our politicians had to behave like celebrities in a popularity contest in order to get more and more money, that would be bad for our political life. It would mean for example, that they would never attend to the just needs of minorities or make principled but unpopular decisions - unless of course, they were people of private means, which is back where we started. In short, it would result in the commercialisation of political decision-making, through a kind of banker's bonus for dodgy short-term decisions.
ReplyDeleteThat assumes we chose politicians unable to persuade us of the rightness of their policies, or that the majority of voters are incapable of understanding. How pessimistic!
ReplyDeleteEven so, would it be worse than the last 12 years, where HMG has shamelesly pandered to its own preferred minority groups at the expense of the electorate as a whole?
That assumes we chose politicians unable to persuade us of the rightness of their policies, or that the majority of voters are incapable of understanding. How pessimistic!
ReplyDeleteYou might as well say that I am pessimistic not to believe in a dictatorship because I think sooner or later it will be corrupted by self-interest. If you build short-term financial self-interest into our political life, you shouldn't be surprised if it runs according to the short-term financial interests of the politicians. A commercised political system is a commercial political system.
Didn't they teach you the doctrine of Original Sin in your Catholic youth - or was it all political issues in those days? We pray "Lead us not into temptation" for a reason.
Even so, would it be worse than the last 12 years, where HMG has shamelesly pandered to its own preferred minority groups at the expense of the electorate as a whole?
I was hoping no one was going to spot that rather gaping hole in my argument. ;-)
We are all vulnerable to temptation, even elected politicians. Hence the need for re-election from time to time.
ReplyDeleteAdd in a range of Hannanite ideas, such as wider use of elections to select officials, re-call ballots, citizen initiatives, and no one person can be free to indulge that temptation in the manner that we have seen so clearly over recent months.
It could be the rallying cry of the democrats - "An End to Duck Houses!"
Add in a range of Hannanite ideas, such as wider use of elections to select officials, re-call ballots, citizen initiatives, and no one person can be free to indulge that temptation in the manner that we have seen so clearly over recent months.
ReplyDeleteMay be so, but I think that would also result not in political dictatorship but in the dictatorship of politics. Such aggrandizement of the political sphere would only suit that minority of people who have that level of interest, time and energy. Not sure that it would be more democratic in the event.
Long on words, short on argument Albert... ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd horribly, horribly pessimistic. You are assuming that only a minority are now interested because only a minority ever will be interested, that making the voting process relevant and effective will not motivate any greater level of interest than now, that we are (in short) doomed to the present system with no hope of improvement....
You are assuming that only a minority are now interested because only a minority ever will be interested
ReplyDeleteThat would be very poor logic, and I did not say or mean that.
that making the voting process relevant and effective
I think we are probably at crossed-purposes, because it was exactly that I thought what you were proposing would make the voting process less relevent and effective. I think on reflection, I misunderstood your previous comment. Perhaps you mispunctuated it. ;-)