Running the country on £170 a day.

[davywavy]

Before he became an MP, Michael Heseltine made himself a sizable fortune as a businessman. This was later to come in handy in Parliament. When facing off against his own political party over Westland, the party whips suggested that if he didn't toe the line he'd lose his ministerial post and, it was implied, the personal financial opportunities and higher pay that came with it. As he was already rich, he stuck to his guns as financial threats had no power over him and he became the last government minister until Claire Short* to quit over a matter of principle.
The implication here is twofold - people who have nothing to lose are more likely to act for what they see as the best without thought for personal gain, and party whips keep individual MPs in line with personal financial threats over their own consciences which isn't a very reassuring thing to know about how the country is run.

The leading piece on the news last night was about MP's expenses claims, and how they are granted for things like second homes (so they can live in London during parliamentary session). The undertone of this was that there was something underhand going on - even I was mildly surprised by some of the things they can claim for, like £10,000 for a new kitchen for said second home (Ten grand! For a kitchen! By Crikey!). What struck me the most, however, was the hypocrisy of the news reports and of a lot of people regarding MPs pay and expenses. It's been established that 'public opinion' (whose, exactly?) won't stand for MPs getting pay rises, and so increased expenses allowances have been used to effectively pay them more without a public 'pay rise'. There's been a lot in the media lately about this, and many people seem to think this is outrageous. So do I, for different reasons.
The annual salary for a Westminster MP is about £60,000. This is, to be blunt, fuck all. How anyone can expect highly talented and qualified people who can reasonably expect to earn many times that in business or even the civil service to stand for election is beyond me. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys so it's no surprise that the legislative body of this country is so heavily populated with shaven apes rather than talent, and it's no surprise that the people in Westminster delve so deeply into their expenses when given the opportunity.
My solution? Scrap the current expenses scheme and raise MP salaries - doubling them for starters would be about fair. This might sound odd coming from an anti-politician sort like myself, but it really is the only way to increase the chance of having decent talent in Westminster. The Prime Minister only pulls in £187,000 which is about the same as the chef executive of a decent-sized hospital, so it's not really surprising that we've got someone in the role who would be better suited to that sort of job.

If you want talent, you have to pay for it.
If you want talentless corrupt oafs, then put in place mechanisms that encourage it.
Sadly, it seems the general public and the media would prefer the latter.

^{*"Michael Heseltine and Claire Short". I'm tempted to put 'porn' at the end of that phrase and google it, but I don't dare. I'm sure some of you lot will now, though.}

Comments

[razornet.livejournal.com]

For once we're in agreement on something regarding politics. Of course my opinions are in part formed by my fathers. He spent the latter part of his career making recommendations to the Pay Review body. He, by the nature of his job, had to analyze politicians and services pay and never felt that any of them were paid sufficiently for the tasks they were asked to perform. He also mentioned that ever PM he had dealt with (Maggie onwards I believe) requested a pay freeze. Clearly this is a PR move and no doubt they were independently wealthy, however anyone running a country should be adequately compensated, whatever I think of their actions.

[vampyrefate.livejournal.com]

Grhm...

A lot of MPs aren't running the country - they are in opposition, or are back benchers. You also don't mention the gorgeous pension that MPs get - which is often cited as being so good, "because they could earn more in industry". Of course, in Industry, if a sales director starts to miss targets, he's soon an ex-sales director.

Dave Nellist an MP some years ago, often appeared on "Central Weekend", the fri night politics/question time stylee debating show that we brummies got. I didn't agree with a word that came out of his mouth. But - upon his election to parliament, he donated the difference between his former coal miner's salary and his new MP salary, to a mining charity. And I thought, "good on him".

I'd rather that MPs perhaps were paid a little more, but had the allowances removed, or that the allowances that they get are offered to the rest of us.

I think you do raise a good point about the independently wealthy being able to stick to their guns in the face of party whips. Kind of like the rich man who votes for road pricing - to get poor people off the roads so that he can drive his Bentley in less traffic.

Or we could pay MPs by results :-)

I don't have an answer - as I am malaised by the numpties we have as our leaders at the moment.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, we currently pay peanuts so it is unsurprising that we get monkeys. The hours and responsibilities that MPs shoulder, whether in government or opposition, are great and it behoves us as a democracy to try and attract the best possible people to accept those responsibilities. The system we currently have manifestly does not do so, so we plainly need a different system.

[vampyrefate.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I'm not sure that you have established a causal link between the renumeration of an MP and the willingness of people to want to stand to do the job. I think if someone is 'in it for the money', then they won't want all of the responsibilities you describe - they can make more money, more easily, by being a stockbroker.

I might postulate a counter argument, in that MPs should be paid an average wage - so that the people doing the job are not motivated by the money, but rather by the 'public good'.

I reckon if you pay a million a head you'll still get a lot of people that you don't agree with.
Mind you - a lot of MP and civil service thinking has been outsourced to large consulting firms - and they command large fees - so are we really paying peanuts?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

There isn't a direct causal link between pay and quality; there is a direct causal link between pay and a reduction in corruption (not the only factor, but demonstrably an important one), which given the recent outcry over expense fiddling is sufficiently important to merit consideration.

I might postulate a counter argument, in that MPs should be paid an average wage - so that the people doing the job are not motivated by the money, but rather by the 'public good'.

I'm uncertain where you're going with this at the moment; are you arguing that the current poorly paid crop we have aren't motived by the public good? Certainly the evidence would suggest that they aren't but that does beg the question of how much we should drop their current wages in order to attract the people you're after?
I agree low paid MPs would have the significant advantage of only really attracting the people who are independantly wealthy enough to support themselves whilst performing the public good - which in turn would probably have the advantages of things like long-term thinking and independant action away from financial vested interests, but I think the risks to popular involvement in democracy outwiegh the benefits on that one.

you'll still get a lot of people that you don't agree with

I'm not interested in paying people that I agree with, I'm interested in people who can do the job? When the two things overlap I'm delighted but that isn't a precondition.

[vampyrefate.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure you can argue the 'more money == less corruption' in absolute terms; I can see where you are coming from though - and I would agree that elimination of allowances does mean that all their money is 'clean' as it were.

The current numpties - I honestly cannot figure out what motivates them. I was never really a student politico, I can't imagine my life as an MP. I suspect that some MPs (thinking of the indy ones mostly), run for parliament because they want to fight for their neighbours rather than because they want to pursue a career in parliamentary politics. Perhaps the answer is not how MPs are paid, but rather the party system which stifles actual democracy into the distalled view that the parties want..?

I think in asking for purely average wages for MPs, it would give them some insight into the laws that they make and how they affect ordinary people. There's a lot of satire on how public transport would be cheap and efficient if ministers had to use it, and I share a lot of sympathy with that view. MPs are not Barons and we are not serfs. They are supposed to be our representatives aren't they?

Or maybe I am thinking that politics should be a calling, much in the same way as being a priest is.

I don't think we need to be ruled by "the independently wealthy" - sounds like a step back to feudalism to me :-)

I think all I am saying is that Money shouldn't be your reason for wanting to be an MP; that paying MPs more would not necesdsarily lead to better leadership; and that they're probably not motivated by the public good - rather - their 'own good'.

As regards your final point - would you be asking these sorts of questions if you were in agreement with the government?
And related to this, the only requirement to becoming an MP is winning an election - the ability to do the job is nowhere in the spec.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Or maybe I am thinking that politics should be a calling, much in the same way as being a priest is... I don't think we need to be ruled by "the independently wealthy" - sounds like a step back to feudalism to me.

This is rather off-topic, but it's interesting that there have actually been experiments in history which have taken the former idea to its logical extreme, for whatever reason, by refusing to pay representatives at all. (Which, of course, fairly consistently led to rule by the independently wealthy.)

[riksowden.livejournal.com]

I agree low paid MPs would have the significant advantage of only really attracting the people who are independantly wealthy enough to support themselves whilst performing the public good - which in turn would probably have the advantages of things like long-term thinking and independant action away from financial vested interests, but I think the risks to popular involvement in democracy outwiegh the benefits on that one.

...so, the House of Lords then?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'm a big fan.

[riksowden.livejournal.com]

Me too - they've been doing good things recently!

[vampyrefate.livejournal.com]

Hrm...

Paying a lot of money for something does not necessarily get you a better product.

This includes salaries.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Obviously not, but it increases the pool of availability meaing that by law of averages you reduce the probability of you getting inferior product.

My Trotskyist sentiments revealed ;-)

[applez.livejournal.com]

The implication here is twofold - people who have nothing to lose are more likely to act for what they see as the best without thought for personal gain, and party whips keep individual MPs in line with personal financial threats over their own consciences which isn't a very reassuring thing to know about how the country is run.

Well yes, but the flip-side of that coin is the independently wealthy George W. Bush sticking to his guns of complete erosion of the Constitution and the rule of law.

On a normal day, that wouldn't be so great a problem so long as the other branches of government had enough similiarly-independent minded forces to balance eachother out. Not so, as the past 8 years of gangsterism have shown.

£10,000 for a new kitchen for said second home

Public officially claiming that amount from public coffers? Fine, but then every taxpayer should demand their share of use of said kitchen. I, for one, who pays his 5p to Inland Revenue on his UK bank account, would like to snatch a peek of a 10-Grand kitchen. A higher-bracket taxpayer should have an apple, or a meal, from that kitchen. ;-)

[ddraiggwyrdd.livejournal.com]

Since MPs MEPs and AMs ect are public servants, I don't think they should be paid at all. I think that they should be given furnished accommodation and transport, childcare, ect. all provided for as long as they are in office. When they cease to be MPs ect then there should be a payoff, comensurate with the length of time they have done the job.The accommodation should be of exactly the same standard as the MOD provides for it's commanders.You do not get the best public servants by paying them more than other sectors because the ethos of government is totally different to that of money making corporations. The whole point of paying MPs (because they weren't always) was to remove the day to day trouble of living and to prevent them from becoming susceptible to bribery.Politicians should do the job because they feel the need to change life for the better - that's how they get us to vote for them.

[(Anonymous)]

*"Michael Heseltine and Claire Short". I'm tempted to put 'porn' at the end of that phrase and google it, but I don't dare. I'm sure some of you lot will now, though.

I did.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22michael+heseltine%22+%22claire+short%22+porn

This LJ entry was the second result.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I knew someone would.

[(Anonymous)]

In point of fact David, Home Office Minister John Denham resigned over the Iraq war two months before Clare Short did.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I stand corrected, but I'm not googling for Michael Heseltine/John Denham porn either.