« Labour opens a YouTube channel | Main | Happy Easter everyone »


This is sorry news. I see being a member as an honour, but not too 'taxing' and one that also allows you to take on extra work as suits, to see us topping the "give me more" poll is dissapointing, very.

MPs are commonly delinquent when it comes to acessing their worth. Who says, apart from them all too often, that they deserve hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax payers money each for being elected to represent their constituency and turn up at votes. For Tory Mps to top that poll is awfull

It's not just MPs who think in this way.

I'm quite sure that, if asked, most people would say they are paid too little and hardly anyone would say they are paid too much.

I completely disagree. It is a disgrace that MPs are paid less, sometimes only half, of what council civil servants earn when their work is far more important. They should be paid commensurate to the job they do, which would reduce the need for outside interests and secondary income providing jobs.

As it is politically difficult for any MP to argue this, an independent body (truly independent) should be appointed to review the pay and allowances of MPs and bring it belatedly into line of that of other public servants paid from the public purse.

The only people capable of standing will soon be the rich if the 40k expense just to risk standing is any indication.

Perhaps an MP who did not rely on their MPs salary for funds, such as Zac Goldsmith, could best make the case on behalf of their colleagues who do rely on it and who are ludicrously underpaid compared to council chief execs.

Remember that MPs don't just receive their basic pay. They also receive generous allowances. Many employ family as secretaries or staffers. They receive subsidies to buy London homes and get to keep the capital gains from those homes. They also get the most protected of pensions.

Oberon says that MPs should have plenty of time to supplement their incomes with outside work. That's what I thought in 1999 when I became an MEP. A couple of non-exec directorships would fit the bill. In fact, I find that I'm working a six-and-a-half day week. No complaints. I enjoy it. But I certainly have no time for a second job on the side!

Like all "employees", if they are unhappy with their "terms and conditions" they can leave and go and work elsewhere.

Maybe the problem is not that MPs are not paid enough, but that others, particularly in the "state" sector are paid too much!

I see being a member as an honour, but not too 'taxing' I don't think that's true. Any decent MP, particularly one in a marginal seat, works bloody hard. One junior shadow minister I know does a standard 12 hour day - and works their constituency hard during the recess. Apart from perhaps some bankers an MP , working as they should is one of the hardest working professions.

This is particularly the case given that nowadays it is so much harder for MPs to pursue a second career - gone are the days when many MPs were also practising barristers or worked in the city.

If we want quality people as MPs we need to pay them commensurately.

It should all be about supply and demand. I don't see many MPs resigning for other jobs.

Headteacher, pay 100k
GP, pay 115k
Council civil servant chief exec - 115k +
Mp - 60k


That is the wrong comparison Tory T.

What is the ratio of applications to vacancies though in those professions you list?

We are the party of supply and demand - aren't we?

I agree with brolley man in his debate with Tory T but I am not surprised that Tory MPs are more wanting of more pay than Labour MPs. Tory MPs give up jobs as barristers, merchant bankers and business leaders. Labour MPs leave behind jobs as teachers, local government workers and voluntary sector officers.

The increase in pay of MPs above inflation should be directly proportional to (any)increases in duties and responsibilities.With less and less legislation introduced by,or scrutinised by Westminster the case is surely made for less pay and /or less members.

More money could go to MPs with serious Committee responsibilities and to frontbenchers.

I'm not suggesting MPs should be paid the same as factory labourers, because they are not factory labourers, but heaven help anyone who can't live on 60k plus generous expenses.

What happened to "public service"? Or is that as dead as the concepts of "honour" and "duty". This will surely switch off the voters faster than Dave's new spin doctors can try to turn them on. Shows once again he is just part of the Blairite stuff-the-public-while-you-can culture. Snouts in troughs.... Disgusting.

A council leader is probably financially better off than being an MP.

The Leader of croydon Council is paid £52000 for a part time job. An MP is paid £60000.It is true that the MPs get allowances. The allowances are used for staff and other expenses.

They really don't deserve the job, £60k plus extras and a gold plated pension scheme and they do an Oliver and WANT MORE.
What's wrong with out MP's? do they have no shame? do they not realise that more than half of the House's work emantes from Brussels and is therefore a nod through, with nothing for them to do? Are they stupid?
What is clear, is that these fools have become disengaged from the public and have no idea of the relative fiscal values between their money and average earnings. This is a result of the present arrangements, whereby politicoes see themselves as a profession, rather than an altruistic calling. The fault for that lies with the parties, intruding on the constituencies, imposing candidates, and organising "A-Lists".
A pox and plague on the greedy little tossers.

I agree with the supply and demand argument. There are some in the public sector who are overpaid.

Pay MPs whatever you want buy do NOT increase the salary budget. Gordon wants 2% Pay Norm - Denis Healey had 5% in 1978.

Just ask MPs how much they want and how many MPs should be laid off and how much bigger their constituencies should be.

Also - it is time to abolish the Pension Scheme and let Mps make their own arrangements on the open market

I wonder how many of the MPs who want more money, offer unsalaried internships?

Oh, and if you are counting up the extras, don't forget their pension...

Being an MP is a worthy act of public service that should be undertaken out of public spiritedness. To place MPs on a similar payscale to Barristers or City Executives would remove this and we end up with a House full of single minded careerists.

I agree that there must be a reasonable remuneration for MPs, in order that those capable persons with public spirit feel financially able to take on the job, but agree with George Hinton that 60K a year should really be enough.

...And shame on our MPs for leading the way in the greed stakes.

Slightly amazed at you Tory T. Apart from politically naive, this is deeply unconservative. The market should determine MPs pay and there are currently far too many applicants for the jobs available unlike for example Headmasters of large secondary schools where positions are still unfilled despite the generous salaries on offer.
Please don't try to argue that improving pay will improve the quality of applicant either all parties seem to have a quota of complete duds who I have no doubt at all would not be able to get a job with a comparable salary were they ever to lose their seats. These people are very lucky to earn what they currently do, to pay them more is a ludicrous idea.

"compared to just 52% of Labour MPs (many more of whom probably saw their pay rise when they entered the Commons)."

What an incredibly patronising comment

Roger, interesting that you have no time to supplement your income, but surely thats a choice you have made (and a very commendable one too), however whats the average back benchers suplemented income I wonder, coupled with the large allowances I'm sure its very big. Never one to miss a chance to pop one of at our Chancellor, didn't Gordon employ his brother with his allowance?

My objection is not so much that MPs are overpaid - currently it's less than a pound a year for each constituent - but that they aren't actually doing the job we pay them to do. Of course you can't buy patriotism or devotion to freedom and democracy, but I'd willingly pay decent MPs more even though I grudge the sums paid to the present lot of MPs. One worry not mentioned so far is that 76% regard "constituency business" as the most important aspect of their work. Of course MPs should pay attention to the views and interests of their constituents, but much of this so-called "constituency business" relates to local matters which should be dealt with by local councillors and/or the social services while matters of national and international importance, which should be the meat and drink of our elected representatives in the national legislature, are barely mentioned or deliberately misrepresented and in some cases concealed. If you see how an
MP like Martin Salter gets himself portrayed in the local press then you might suppose he's the leader of Reading Borough Council, or the Mayor of Reading,
or possibly the Reading Ombudsman, rather than a Westminster MP. But that's how he curries favour with the voters in Reading to get himself re-elected, while quietly selling them down the river every day he's at Westminster.

what is the average salary of a social worker?

They get paid well, but they are expected to have two homes and drive between them every week. The cost of the second home is met by Parliament but things like needing to have two complete sets of furniture are not. I don't buy the argument that they are 'more important' than people doing other jobs so should be paid more. Get your Hayek out on market values and 'real' values.

I would think the best case for increasing their pay is the uncertainty they face. Great MPs get swept in and out through no fault of their own - I wouldn't object to giving them a guaranteed income for, say, five years so they can plan their finances properly. So, if an election is called after four years and they lose their seat, they get another year's pay so they can sort themselves out and move on.

THere you go.

Tory T; all that your figures prove is that there are far too many top official in local government being seriously and needlessly overpaid. This is a direct result of the Labour Government's decision to bribe these often mediocre performers into supporting their various anti democratic "reforms". For MPs to claim that this in some way justifies them getting their snouts even further into the tax payer funded trough is purely self serving greed and is deeply unpalatable to those of us who actually have to generate wealth.

Paying MPs too much attracts the wrong sort of people to the job. Pay should be reduced stage by stage until the number of applicants for the job is in line with the number of positions available.

Ideally MPs should have private incomes so that they are not a burden on the taxpayer.

"Headteacher, pay 100k
GP, pay 115k
Council civil servant chief exec - 115k +
Mp - 60k

Yes the stupid taxpayers are being impoverished to pay for this largesse....

Since we know there are only 906 persons in the public sector earning >£100k and 308 of those work at the BBC we can see very few headteachers are on such packages.

As for GPs since they are self-employed contractors they do not get a salary, but are paid on the basis of capitation fee per patient varied by age group plus performance pay based on meeting targets which are measured in points.

Some doctors also own pharmacies and some run more than one practice; or run private business selling single dose vaccines in place of MMR....this boosts incomes.

But as Self-Employed Contractors and their contracts with the PCT say "Contractor" in them and allow the PCT to transfer the contract to a private company such as United Healthcare, Inc. In time it will be a full private service like dentistry anyway

When will MPs realise that some of us don't want them trying to legislate and run our lives for us?

Anyone interested in the history of MPs pay should read this document which outlines the history of MPs pay over the years, and the reasons for which it was raised. You might also find it interesting to read about the imes when the governments low pay increases (generally 2-5%) have been rejected in favour of huge ones suggested by the regulatory body for MPs' salaries.

We need to be careful with MPs pay, saying its an honour is not enough these days. Honour won't pay your ridiculously huge council tax bill, nor will it pay for your ID card or TV licence. Serving in the armed forces is an honour, anyone care to suggest we stop paying them?

Also has everyone already forgotten how much the average MP has spent on getting elected in the first place? Anyone care to ask their accountant if they should invest 50,000 in a startup "business", which has a guranteed return of nothing?

MPs wages are probably just about right, and they should continue to rise with inflation. I do sometimes feel though that government ministers get a bit of raw deal. My father doesn't have to cope with press intrusion, the ability to fired just because the boss doesn't like you and the sheer stress that must come with the job, yet he earns about the same as a cabinet minister for sitting in an office.

Oh, and there is yet more information on the history of MPs' salaries in this document

I cannot see what all the fuss is about.There are many comparisons already being put in this subject without me rehearsing them again. Lets face it,we do not pay our MP's as well as we should. Who in their right mind,would put a promising career in the Private sector on hold for the duration of a Parliament(4 to 5 years) for the sort of salary MPs are paid.It is OK as a hobby for someone who is rich with private means but not for the type of MP we should be encouraging.ie.Those with a real belief in Conservative principles and a not some 'Johnny come latelys' and who have already shown that in their working life that they have been successful. No wonder that some of them are concerned with the A listing and I would not blame them for choosing to concentrate on in futhering their career where they are more appreciated than appears to be the case in the Party.

Isn't it funny, that MPs are demanding higher and higher wages, just as the powers and relevance of Westminster is in dramatic freefall - as the EU produce and force onto us nearly all of our laws. Westminster is fast becoming an irrelevance, but they want more money ?

They really are a greedy, unprincipled bunch of cretins. Sack 'em all. They do no good anyway.

First reform the Commons and Lords. Reduce their numbers by half and double Constituency size for MPs. Introduce annual assessments for MPs in line with the professions, and arrange for annual deselection for those not up to scratch.
Current pay does not take into account the rediculous level of expenses and the level of universal abuse of these expenses. The further feather bedding of political careers with appointments in the public service and Lords, and opportunities for employment in the private sphere offered by grateful contacts fostered during their parliamentry careers, must also be recognised by the gullible public.
Perhaps potential MPs should tender for vacant constituencies. I'm sure there would be no shortage of con artists for the jobs. After all there is no shortage at present, and few if any have proven themselves at any other profession/trade.

Who in their right mind would put a promising career in the private sector on hold?..... Cllr Bruce Mackie. Hundreds and hundreds of people Bruce! I don't think your argument has any merit at all.

"After all there is no shortage at present, and few if any have proven themselves at any other profession/trade."
So all of the ex-barristers and city traders on the commons benches would be as poor as church mice if they didn't have their MPs salary?

£60k basic, £120k "expenses", the most generous pension scheme in Europe, plus whatever they can make on the side.

That seems pretty generous when you consider that 90% of them are little more than time-serving lobby-fodder.

Why don't the MPs form a union and strike for better pay and working conditions? The new "Unite" super-union could come out in support of them.

As Oberon says, this is sorry news.

While I am convinced that the Conservative approach is best in theory, I am often deeply worried by my personal contact with our performance on the ground...

My sister is a junior doctor and Conservatives have totally failed to hold the government to account over changes that will see her and 8,000 others unreasonably lose their jobs.

I live in Hampshire and our Conservative controlled Hampshire CC is a waste of space.

In too many places I see elected Conservatives failing to live up to expectations so no, I'm not in the mood to hear our MPs moaning about how much they're paid.

Well Malcolm,what I am asking is that we should look at committment to the cause and a proven track record in a position which is subjected to a high degree of pressure to be one of the main reasons for choosing our candidates.There are a few I am sure who are pulling the strings in CCHQ who have yet to hold down a proper job outside politics. Nevertheless we need to pay MPs accordingly. By the way,quantity does not necessary equate with quality.

Might I suggest as the Tories love being "In Europe" they apply the principles of the "Common Market". The downward pressure on wages that are being felt by the governed should be felt by the governors. This is the "level playing field" that they are seeking to promote after all? We have plenty of Eastern Europeans who would do a better job at a fraction of the price.

For getting the privilege to alter the course of national policy they should be grateful and accept what they are given, there needs to be only about a third the current number of MP's and the Lords could be replaced with Select Committees including members not from parliament.

Local Councillors could handle constituents needs and there are far too many of those too!

My sister is a junior doctor

It would be good if we could make clear that ALL doctors below Consultant Grade in the NHS are called junior doctors.....even the Registrar that performs the operation

I don't agree with cutting the number of MPs. An average of 70,000 constituents is already more than enough. Increasing the size of constituencies, numerically and geographically, would make MPs even more remote from those they are supposed to represent, until eventually they become like MEPs. It would also shrink the pool of suitable MPs available to serve in the government, and just
as importantly to mount an effective opposition in the Commons whenever the governing party had a large majority. Moreover it would help to entrench both incumbent MPs and the existing parties leading to a further ossification of the system. Considering that the country has a GDP in the region of £1200 billion
a year the financial cost of operating an effective democracy is trivial.

"Tory MPs in 'Snouts in Trough' Shock".

Hold the front page.

Utterly dreadful but not surprising. As someone on a third of the present pay in one of the world's most expensive cities I'd happily settle for £60K anyday.

"It would be good if we could make clear that ALL doctors below Consultant Grade in the NHS are called junior doctors....."

Yes, TomTom, the title is enormously misleading. And too few (including Patricia Hewitt, I suspect) understand how the changes wreck the careers of the 8,000 affected doctors. A registrar who does not get a job this year:

1. can’t re-apply until next year (by which time they are a year out-of-practice and therefore at a disadvantage),
2. can’t go back to being a hospital doctor (now being 4 years out-of-practice at general medicine),
3. can’t go elsewhere in the UK because there’s only one employer of junior doctors in the country.

These doctors have been enormously expensive to train, have committed their own funds to examinations, etc., are not being measured according to their ability, are still required, but are nevertheless losing their jobs because of the incompetence of the government and the total failure of our MPs to hold the government to account.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker