How much for a politician?

Neil

I have no sympathy with MPs complaining they are unfairly remunerated. In a free labour market they should move on to earn what they feel they are worthy of in another vocation if it vexes them so. I have always been of the belief that sitting in the Commons should not be seen as a career but a duty to one's country. It should be out of interest to contribute and not financial gain that individual's seek selection. Yes, they need to be paid to live, but do any struggle in circumstances approaching poverty? I think not. The other argument for increasing pay is that it will attract a better class of MP. Actually it will be paying the existing Members more given they are notoriously difficult to shift, no matter how poorly thought of. I suppose a House of independently minded individuals with experience beyond Westminster seeking to serve their constituents is too much to ask for? Paul Keetch MP seems to think so.

John

An interesting chart, but I actually have some sympathy for MPs on this front. Whilst a salary of £60,675 is far more than the average wage, a fairer comparator might be what a lawyer of equivalent age and experience might recieve (given that many MPs have legal training). Currently a 23 or 24 year old who is a newly qualified solicitor in a mid-sized London firm of lawyers would recieve circa £65,000 basic salary, and a senior non-partner solicitor (say 7-8 years qualified) circa £100,000. That said, solicitors have to account for their expenses properly, and perhaps that would be an appropriate trade off for a more sensible salary.

CS

Facile argument by Conway. I think that my employer should pay me more but I don't assume that that entitles me to embezzle from my employer to top up my salary for the sort of lifestyle I should like to have. Anyway, if MPs were working as hard as they ought to, they wouldn't have time for an extravagant lifestyle.

Alex R

Given that most MPs are defacto social workers and so it seems self evident that it is against these workers that their salaries should be pegged. I accept that they work longer hours, so perhaps you could take an average social worker's hourly rate and times it by 48hrs.

Mitch

The average salary for a chef in London is £25k so Conway isn't even factually correct. There's no shortage of people wanting to be M.P.'s at the current salary. They're supposed to be representative of the population as a whole so we don't want 650 Managing Directors or corporate lawyers. Every candidate should be asked if they're standing for the money they will earn - they'll all deny it of course - so they can't ask for more after they're elected.

Tom

You haven't factored in the phenomenal benefits they receive. £40 per day for food - when there is a very good, sbsidised canteen. No need for receipts up to £250! Second home allowances, first class travel and on and on and on... Similarly, there are people queuing up to be MPs, hardly a lack of demand requiring higher wages.

Tiberius

Throughout the Conway affair, my thoughts have mused on how basic financial controls over MPs' expenses appear to be so lax. The present system appears to allow MPs to draw apparently large sums of golden drinking tokens from a pit without a bottom, otherwise known as the taxpayers' pocket, with very little prior scrutiny. In previous years, we have seen those eye-watering tabulations of MPs' expenses. Last week, Ken Clarke mentioned introducing audit procedures, but for heavens sake, why do not MPs simply submit expense claims every month, which would require approval from a responsible officer employed in the House? The more I learn about financial procedures in the public sector, the more I realize just how much the absence of having to fight for income cossets its employees from rigorous decision-making, and encourages a dreadful waste of resources. Of course, an expense-inclusive salary could be offered, allowing the MP to divest his income to whomever or wherever he wanted, any deductibles being an issue between him and HMRC.

Tiberius

Throughout the Conway affair, my thoughts have mused on how basic financial controls over MPs' expenses appear to be so lax. The present system appears to allow MPs to draw apparently large sums of golden drinking tokens from a pit without a bottom, otherwise known as the taxpayers' pocket, with very little prior scrutiny. In previous years, we have seen those eye-watering tabulations of MPs' expenses. Last week, Ken Clarke mentioned introducing audit procedures, but for heavens sake, why do not MPs simply submit expense claims every month, which would require approval from a responsible officer employed in the House? The more I learn about financial procedures in the public sector, the more I realize just how much the absence of having to fight for income cossets its employees from rigorous decision-making, and encourages a dreadful waste of resources. Of course, an expense-inclusive salary could be offered, allowing the MP to divest his income to whomever or wherever he wanted, any deductibles being an issue between him and HMRC.

David Lindsay

Their pay should be fixed by statute at the national median wage for full-time work in the public sector, which should in turn be fixed by statute at the national median wage for full-time work in the private sector.

Maggie

Sous chefs don't receive over-generous expenses, housing allowances, transport subsidies, opportunities for overseas fact-finding junkets and, what are euphemistically called "consultancy fees".

DB

Surely MPs should use the same argument on themselves as per other public sector workers - for thst is, in essance - what they are. Becomming an MP is a vocation - the same as becomming a doctor. It is not for MPs to willingly stand for election knowing the salary then bleat that it is too low and campaign for an increase. They should be subject to teh same rigourous rules as any other PS worker - declaring expenses, phased pay increses, the works. If you don't like the pay, don't do teh Job. To say that you will get a better class of MP by upping the salary from 60k to say 80 or more is facile. Many very talented peopople work for far less because they believe in the job and so would regard 60k as an increase worth persuing. Equally, those on more who want to become MPs can do so because they believe in what they are doing, not so that they can continue their earning power.

John Strafford

A UK MP represents approx70,000 electors, not the 94,000 you show. What you have not tabled is the expenses MPs claim. Let us have the whole picture

Gordon Scott

I think an MP's salary package is very generous. You do not require ANY qualifications to be an MP; Look at some of the Labour numpties we have in Parliament. Someone on this site compared an MP's salary to Lawyers; what an insult to the law profession. If a Lawyer wishes to be an MP, then he does so at the salary on offer; that's his choice. According to the chart, MP's are well paid --- for what they do!

Max Kaye

If they're not happy, then they could always get a proper job and work for a living.

Chuck Unsworth

This 'comparison' is a complete waste of space. No reference to costs or to other 'allowances'. What's the point? The true test is whether people still want to become MPs or would prefer to go and do other things. All this nonsense about being able to earn much more money elsewhere. They've shown themselves to be almost entirely driven by money - so what's holding these mediocrities back? Fear of failure?

Fergus Pickering

When you are an MP do you have to give up all other sources of paid employment? Surely not. William Hague earns lots and lots for public speaking and Edwina writes her terrible books. Do all those lawyers simply give up lawyering? Why not cut back on the NUMBER of MPs. What about 400 of them instead of 600 and whateveritis? Then there would be more room in the Commons and we could pay each member of the rump a bit more. Of course, though this is a serious suggestion, it has no hope whatever of going forward. But there could be a wholesale redrawing of constituency boundaries so that there are none (NONE) with lesS than, say 65,000 electors (if John Strafford's figures are correct) or 85,000 (if yours are). That would weed them out a bit. And mostly Labour I think. Goody.

David Boothroyd

The table fails entirely to note the fact that almost all the other countries have some form of regional or state elected bodies. In the UK (except in London) Parliament is the only directly elected body between the national government and the local government. In the USA, most matters affecting the criminal law (for example) are the responsibility of the State legislature rather than Congress. If this is factored in, British MPs pay starts to look very small indeed in international comparisons.