MPs' Salaries - Poll Results

Intriguing results to the MPs' salaries poll don't you think?

The 44% opting for the civil service pay scale is higher than I thought it would be, along with the 12% who want our MPs to have a salary of more than £100,000.

Nearly 20% voted for 'none of the above' and it would be interesting if some of those voters could explain their reasons.

A few MPs do read this blog on occasion and 481 votes is around the size of a small village, so perhaps they will pass on the result to the powers that be. Of course it will be ignored, we know that, because MPs aren't interested in what the hoi polloi have to say. That's what is wrong with politics today. They can have all the think tanks they like but if the think tanks are not composed of a fair section of society then they have little meaning. I've never been invited to attend a think tank, have you?

My sincere thanks to all who took the trouble to vote.

Tweet

MPs' Salaries

This weekend I listened to Betty Boothroyd talking with Andrew Neil on Straight Talk. During her years as Speaker Ms Boothroyd continued the traditions of Speaker and maintained the standards with unbiased dignity.

Andrew Neil brought up the question of MPs' salaries. Ms Boothroyd, in her usual northern manner, was adamant MPs should earn more and suggested they should earn a similar salary to senior GPs.

Many of you will know I completely disagree with this type of comparison. MPs required no formal qualifications while GPs study for years then achieve high salaries through length of service and experience.

As we know the present basic salary for MPs is £64,766, for all ages and regardless of years of service/experience. My suggestion is that MPs should be placed on civil service salary scales but they have voted strongly against this (page 7). Thus, an MP who has served 15 years would receive more than a newly appointed one. This would ensure that longer serving MPs feel valued. I do not mean the senior civil servant pay scale where the majority earn between £57,000 and £100,000 and Permanent Secretaries (heads of departments) earn £140,000 and more. In previous posts on this subject I suggested the army officer pay scale as a suitable starting point.

Of course MPs will protest and say, "But our jobs aren't guaranteed". Nobody's job is guaranteed these days and MPs receive very handsome winding up allowances (£42,068) and pensions which most of us can only dream of when they leave office.

Since the expenses scandal early last summer has died down we can't allow MPs to think the electorate has forgotten their greed. One remark Betty Boothroyd did say was, "If salaries are increased then the number of MPs needs to be reduced to foot the bill."

Interesting she acknowledges there are too many MPs in Westminster but has she voiced her opinion within her influential circle?

As you'll see I've placed a poll on the blog asking your opinion. The results should be fascinating.

Tweet

The Lack of Decent Military Housing

Yesterday the Sunday Post reported the lack of decent homes for thousands of service personnel. It would appear many are being put up in hotels and rented properties because of the present housing situation and it's a costly business.

Meanwhile, the article continues, 11,000 MoD homes sit empty, many judged in too poor a condition to be habitable.

Until the 1980s military personnel had to live either in billets or messes (for the single people) or army quarters (for the married). The rules did not allow for anyone to use a privately purchased home and claim removal expenses. A few did buy homes if they knew they were to be leaving the services within a few years, but owing to the regular mobility of the services and the costs involved selling and buying another property in another area, this wasn't common.

In the 80s the rules changed and more personnel decided to buy their own property. These were usually married individuals who otherwise would have occupied a quarter and of course, the result was more and more quarters began to stand vacant. In 1996 the MoD offloaded 57,600 homes under a controversial sale-and-lease-back scheme. The private firm involved sold off houses it deemed surplus to requirement, since when the MoD has increasingly relied on private rentals.

This article states 'Taxpayers fork out £6 million a month on rented flats and houses for forces personnel and their families'. That gives the impression military housing is free to personnel and it certainly is not.

Any personnel who wish to live in quarters or billets pays rent and all the usual domestic household bills. The rents are set by the Mod and are slightly less than council house charges.

Say for example, a single Major in the army is posted 200 miles away from his small flat in Bristol for six months. His hours of work will be varied and he's aware, because he will not be able to travel back regularly to his own home, he will require accommodation which the MoD are contracted to provide if requested. The Major, as well as paying his monthly mortgage on his own property has to pay rent on his MoD provided property. Renting out his own home isn't much of an option for a six month period because of the costs involved, so his property stands vacant and he's well out of pocket. He doesn't complain because he knew, when he decided he wanted to buy his own property, that this type of situation may well arise. Of course married personnel with their own homes are in a similar situation - paying for their accommodation away from home, but they know the family home is occupied.

Such a big difference between MPs isn't it? Taxpayers pay all the expenses of their accommodation away from home as well as much of the rent or mortgage on their family home.

A Major receives £20,000 (before annual increments) less than an MP as basic salary. He has no chance of employing his spouse, or any of his family, to increase the family income. His travel must always be second class, never first class. He pays for his dress uniform out of his own pocket and in many cases these days the cost of that alone can be a few thousand pounds.

Yet we have politicians and their supporting commentators saying MPs should be paid more. 'They work hard and have long hours'. A few weeks in the shadow of any serving military person would certainly show our politicians how privileged they are and how little they do - they're not worth another penny of our money.

Tweet

Wife Swap - Westminster Style

Mrs Sandra Howard

The wives of MPs who work for their husband's as parliamentary secretaries and office managers, are hatching plans to defy what they see as an unfair ban by swapping jobs with one another.

If Sir Christopher Kelly goes ahead next month with plans to ban MPs from employing relatives, the wives are preparing to apply for employment with each other's spouses. Sir Christopher's ban would affect about 200 MPs who employ wives, husbands, children and more distant relations on the parliamentary payroll.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry), a junior Treasury minister, employs her daughter, Victoria Davies, as office manager. Last night Ms Davies said, "This is a job I love doing and I have a passion for it. I work hard for her {my mother} and she appreciates it."

Now I'm sure many of you will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main reasons MPs say they employ their wives/family members that MPs' hours are so long they would never see each other unless working together? If the women intend to work for other MPs, surely they won't see their husbands much at all. Now we know it's nothing to do with working hours and much more to do with family income.

Then again, it's possibly already planned that couples meet for these quintessential English habits of morning coffee, lunch, afternoon tea - all heavily subsidised by us, but which few of us can afford these days.

Some wives are so upset that they have complained to the Equality and Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination while another has written to the head of the employment relations body ACAS.

Oh, nearly forgot to mention a little detail. The row over spouses' jobs comes as new figures obtained by the Sunday Times show that the total spent by MPs on their staff in 2008-09 went up more than 8% to £59.96m.

Tweet

The Great and the Good Are At It Again

They are at it again, those verbose MPs along with their pals in the House of Lords.

Patrick McCormack (pictured) says that MPs' salaries should be doubled - from £64,766 to more than £130,000- in return for scrapping their controversial second homes allowances.

Douglas Hogg, that bad mannered, arrogant Tory, also called for MPs to be given six figure salaries with "appropriate expenses." He said their pay had fallen so "in absolute and relative terms" that it was insufficient to support the lifestyle "to which most professional and business classes aspire."

These men are serious in their comments. They honestly consider themselves worth such sums of money. They go to the 'office' a maximum of 165 days a year, they are presently receiving salaries which take them into the top 10% in the country and they have one of the best pension schemes in the country too. Yet they consider they are presently underpaid.

They can't even agree a reasonable expenses system for themselves so what hope do we have of them taking sensible decisions concerning matters of national interest.

There is never a shortage of candidates for the job so I suggest, if they don't feel well paid, they move onto other work outside the Westminster bubble.

In the meantime why don't we insist that MPs salaries are in line with military officers. New MPs could start on OFT level 1 paying an annual sum of £31,188.36p which increases by annual increments. Now surely there's nothing fairer than that. After all, isn't it our MPs who set the salaries of the military? Iain Dale has results of a poll he undertook on MPs' pay. Surprising results it shows but I am sure it is not in line with general public opinion.

If we had a more sensible salary scale then we may attract more dedicated people into politics. The nonsense spoken about the present salary not being enough to attract people of 'quality' is just that - nonsense.

As for Scotland, we have 59 MPs and 129 MSPs plus our MEPs and hundreds of councillors. We must be the most over-represented country in Europe. Time to think how we would structure our political representation for an independent Scotland.

Tweet

MPs - Still Upset by 'People Power'

There is an article in yesterday's Observer which infuriated me. The subject is the number of MPs who are leaving parliament at the next election and it gives the reason for the mass exodus as the expenses scandal.

What angered me was the attitude of some of the MPs quoted. Here are a few of the moans:

'The 65-year-old, who has decided to stand down at the next election because of his age, says that it is hardest for wives and husbands, who have seen their partners fall in the public's esteem.'

'Paul Goodman, the Conservative MP for Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, says summer is a normally a chance for MPs to "recharge their batteries" and their enthusiasm for Commons life. This year, the holiday could do the reverse. The atmosphere out there, he says, is "cooler than they [fellow MPs] expected".'

'Privately, MPs report that at social gatherings – the garden parties, fetes, and formal functions that make up much of an MP's summer – people shy away, where once they used to gather round. "I find some of my constituents can't look me in the eye," said one. "So part of me thinks why the hell should I take this any longer, for £64,000 a year."'

It's right that the MPs who didn't abuse the expenses system should feel angry at being tarred with the same brush as those who did, but you would think they were grown up enough to deal with it.

Paul Goodman and his 'recharge their batteries' comment is insulting to our troops who work 7 days a week for weeks on end without complaint. The anonymous MP who feels that £64,000 is not enough for him to handle upset constituents says far more about him than it does about his constituents.

The article claims that MPs know they have lived for too long off a system that paid them too small a salary and too much in expenses. Too small a salary? I think not. The taxpayer also pays for all their office expenses, travel and subsidises their high class Westminster restaurants, tea rooms and bars. What other job offers such to employees who don't even need any formal qualifications?

The Scottish Parliament MSPs are more or less content with the scrutiny of their expenses so why are MPs so different?

Some are predicting that, by October, more than 200 MPs will have decided to step down and are leaving their seats open to inexperienced 'professional' politicians. Politics has been a 'profession' for a number of years now, Isn't it time MPs were paid in the same way as all public servants and had a salary scale according to years of experience?

Here's a quote from one labour MP whose priorities differ from what people expect of their political representative:

"I'm off. You can't earn a decent living here any more. We are going to have the most inexperienced parliament ever after the election, with big decisions to take. It is not somewhere I want to be. I want to earn some money."

I wonder if the above anonymous person would class themselves as an experienced 'professional' politician. There will be few tears from the public at the departure of the aggrieved. Once they discover the realities of working outside the Westminster bubble they may realise just how fortunate they were being the Right Honorable Member for Yonder.

Tweet

MPs Pay - A Solution

Several times in the past days I have commented on blogs about MPs' pay.  After the expenses scandal dies down it seems the MPs will demand a pay review because they do not consider £64,000 is enough for the work they do.

I have a question.  What other job requires no formal qualifications, no business experience, no specified work experience and yet the starting salary is £64,000 plus expenses?  In the past days I've pondered this question and have yet to find even one area of employment where this is feasible.

Why aren't MPs on a graded salary scale like other public servants?  No officer joins the army   and starts at the salary of a Lt. Col. (£65,717).  They join as a 2nd Lt. on a salary of £24,133 and that is usually after spending a year training at Sandhurst earning £15,268.  Let us not forget messing costs come out of these military salaries and all must travel second class - no business class for our military.

The argument against this is MPs may only be in their jobs for a maximum of 5 years and therefore a good remuneration is required to attract 'the right type of person'.  What is this right type of person? Who evaluates the right person?  Most wannabe politicians come up through the party system and that is fine, but for the inexperienced and long-serving to be receiving the same salary is incomprehensible. It is this pay structure which has possibly encouraged many of the longer serving MPs to claim excessive allowances.

If they prove themselves to be good at their jobs surely there is no reason why they should not be re-elected therefore the 5 year reason does not stand up to scrutiny.  Most ex-MPs can find cushy little directorships to keep the wolf from the door or be elevated to that bastion of the 19th century the House of Lords. The average worker has a pittance of a state pension to look forward to at the age of 65 plus any private pension to which they will have made considerable contributions throughout their working lives. 

Muriel Gray states in the Sunday Herald that MPs salaries should be raised and allowances scrapped.  All well and good then raise the upper end of the grading.  Start a new MP on around £35,000 with yearly increments of £5,000.  Using such a system an MP who has been in post for 10 years would be receiving £85,000 which is a respectable income for someone who doesn't require any qualifications for the job.

It would be acceptable to the public that MPs claimed London accommodation when necessary but the purchase of property should be banned and also the claiming of council tax, food and utilities. 

Travel should be second class.  If our representatives wish to travel first class then they should personally pay the difference.  There will be squeals of 'I need to do work on the train' and other excuses but that is what they are - excuses.  

As for the House of Lords that's another matter.  It needs overhauled from top to bottom, a salary paid instead of the attendance allowance and members must be elected.  It will be difficult, but not impossible, to create a salary structure for the Lords because, like the Commons, it is not compulsory to attend each and every working day. It is time our top civil servants put their intellectual heads together and worked out remuneration packages suitable to all concerned and that includes you and me.

Tweet

What Type of MP would You Be? Another annoying meme

What Type of MP would You Be?

Daniel 1979 tagged me for this so he's responsible for wasting my time and yours!

So this is open to anyone who wants to be an MP in Parliament after the next General Election, as well as the bloggers tagged below, after they have finished, if they would kindly tag 5 more that would be super.

1. Has there ever been an occasion when you failed to notice that you have paid your mortgage off months, possibly years in advance, and just had not realised?

2. Does your property contain a moat?

3. Do you think you could in good conscience accept a salary and allowances whilst not actually attending your place of work or office?

4. If you were told that it was within the rules to go jump off a cliff, would you do it?

5. Are you able to tell the difference between a room in a house, and an actual house?

6. Are you able to commute a distance under 35 miles for work purposes without the need for an additional house being provided?

7. Do you know what an Iron is?

8. Is your TV or Stereo likely to need an upgrade in the next 5 years?

9. Do you have a warped sense of humour OR Do you have a helipad?

10. If you did need two houses to live and work, do you think it possible to designate one as a main home, and stick by that decision for the duration of that employment?

11. If you work in a different place to where you live – do you find yourself, or could you envision, eating twice as much food as you would if you lived more locally to work?

12. Do you know what a pergola is?

Anyone else who wants to is free to answer in the comments, but be warned and very careful, you may inadvertantly prove yourself suitable for a position in Government.

Answers

1. No

2. No, I prefer doors to drawbridges

3. No

4. No

5. Yes

6. Yes

7. Yes

8. Yes and I want one of these £8000 ones - if they're good enough for Gerald Kaufman...

9. Yes but No to the helipad, I'm not too keen on flying in helicopters.  Long story.

10. Certainly

If The universality of cheese, Advanced Media Watch, Brownlie, Holyrood Chronicles and Pseudepigrapha would like to have a go then we may have some interesting answers.

Tweet

THE BUBBLE MUST BE BURST

The past few days there has been much written and spoken about MPs salaries and expenses. One sentence I have heard repeatedly is 'being an MP is hard work.' That's from politicians of course, although I think a couple of BBC political journalists also mentioned it.  I won't accept that MPs work any harder than a great many people in the UK and I find this excuse insulting.

Bloggers the devil's kitchen, flyingwarpigs, and Key bored Warrior and others have posted on the latest revelations of MPs misuse of expenses and Gordon Brown has 'set up an enquiry' which means he hopes the matter will be pushed into the long grass.

Let's get this into some perspective.  An MP earns a basic salary of £63,291, their travelling expenses are paid (first class of course), they don't have to produce receipts for items less than £25 which allows another nice wee earner of up to £124.90 maximum a week, taken on the basis of buying one item of £24.99 five days a week and not forgetting the food allowance of up to £400 a month.  The list goes on.

Let's compare this with a major in the British army who is paid £45,548. Their travelling expenses are also paid for but they must travel second class.  They have to produce receipts for anything over the cost of £1 and the item must be completely relevant to their work.  They get no housing allowance and should they own a home but have to travel away during their working week, they are expected to stay in an officers mess and pay messing fees, which are poorly subsidised these days. When in theatres of war they are given a daily allowance, known as the operational welfare package, of £12.31 per day (taxable) for being deployed on operations.  They pay for all food, nothing is free.

So an MP receives a salary of nearly 50% more than an army major plus all the tax free perks. An army major may be responsible for the lives of hundreds of men but they receive no tax free perks.  Both have good pensions but an MP receives a pension as soon as they're sworn into Westminster, army personnel have to give service for at least 11 years before they qualify for a reasonable pension.

John Redwood has blogged on MPs pay and some solutions which he thinks are worth consideration.  Thankfully increasing their pay is not one of them.  One thing is certain, the Westminster expenses bubble must be burst and the present remuneration system for MPs totally overhauled. MPs should not set their own pay scales.

I suggest their salary is brought into line with a major in the army. That would be fair wouldn't it?

  

Note:  I consider myself most fortunate to have a competent MP who does not claim excessive expenses but shouldn't every member of the public be as fortunate. If they can't do the job they should be sacked - that's what happens in the real world.

Tweet