Apologies for the music at the beginning being so loud and going on for so long - I was editing this late last night as our normal editor is taking a well deserved rest and for some reason it didn't sound as bad as I was editing. Either way, sorry! - Jack
Was just about to comment on that music. Oh Jack, what's happened? You're in a 'registry office' but didn't hear any explanation? Did I miss it? Did the music drown it out?
Just skip the music, it’s awful. The podcasts from the big news organisations mostly have nothing, or in a few cases a jingle (like How to Win an Election)
MPs don't just get zero notice when they leave, when an MP steps down or loses their seat at an election, they receive four months salary, which compares quite favourably to the commercial sector which is 1 to 3 months notice typically. On top of their normal salary, they also receive a very generous expenses package.
was going to comment a similar thing also mp now earn £91,346 not 85k but thats just the start of what MP receive when you take in things that are subsidized and expenses they earn a lot and thats not even considering you get a pay increase as a minister and more expenses. Also the idea that that most if not all mp would be earning that much if they never entered parliament is simply sure maybe those from a legal or finance background. but as an example Angela Rayner worked for a local council as a care worker and then as a union rep neither of those jobs is earning that base salary of 91k a year. Seriously there are just under 650 (taking into account SF no shows) the idea that all of them if they never became an mp or left being an mp could command a top 5% wage let alone that wage plus the value of mp benefits is laughable.
@@drayle71 I'm pretty sure the argument is not that all current MPs would otherwise be earning £100k+ (there will always be people who prioritise other things than money), but that the sort of people we want to have as MPs - good leaders and administrators - are also the sort of people that the business world wants as executives, so if we want people to choose to be MPs, we should make the compensation comparable.
Never actually considered the thought that MPs' should be paid more, the conversation here was super interesting and has altered my views. I would rather an MP gets paid more and must focus on their government role(s) than get paid less and have conflicts of interest with second jobs.
My main argument against pay rise for MPs is two fold 1. To the average person the amount MPs get paid is a lot of freaking money, so hearing they want more frankly sounds childish, they are getting paid atleast triple the average. 2. For me if you start paying a lot more you start to attract people who are only after the money and actual don't care about public service
What would you rather have? A politician with crazy high pay or a politician with financial interest in another company? We live in a capitalist society, noone not gona go for more money if they can. Id rather politician be paied crazy amount and be banned from taking up position in any private sectors than see them get paid what they do now and still rake in crazy amount from the private sector while now also having interest to push for policy that would benefit their stake in that company.
I agree with the first point but the second point is a bit ridiculous because if someone is already interested in serving the public why would more money put them off and also you are forgetting that the public vote for the MP in the first place so if the public feel as though that candidate is "only after the money" then they won't vote for them and/or the party won't select them.
On the public service argument, their are plenty of people that are financially motivated. I want the very best ones working for the people. Not for a corporation. As for the average earners argument...I don't care? I should hope that if we're paying more we would have a better field of candidates to choose from.
MP's are on literally double the median wage, if starting salary is £200k it will just attract people who are massively out of touch with working people, like bankers, CEO's, business owners, consultants and the already wealthy. If a CFO at a FTSE company looks at being an MP when they are 50 and thinks "oh its a pay cut but it'll have some perks", that kind of person is not who we want in parliament. The people we want in parliament are the ones who think £84k a year is a dream salary
Here is your problem, no sane human being with high qualifications thinks 84k is a dream salary. Like it or not people who are paid more tend to be more qualified, that's why you know they're able to accumulate wealth and others can't
@@iyoub6931 It's completely irrelevant that 84k isn't a dream salary. People should be in politics for more than a pursuit of money - they should be in it because they want to make a difference/represent their community/stand up for their principles. Your argument that we should focus on pay is myopic.
@@iyoub6931 Also, to add, the suggestion that people with high qualifications and big salaries are the best and most capable is laughable. Take it from somebody who works in big law; some people on £1m+ a year are utter clowns that I wouldn't want anywhere near the levers of power.
@@PretentiousPeter The idea that people should only run for office to represent the community is fantasy and delusion born from watching too many Hollywood movies. Reality is, for the last 1000 years of existence, that never was a thing in politics, it never happened and it will never happen. We need to face reality and be pragmatic about our choices of government.
Your argument doesn’t work that well. The only people that can run are people that can pay for their elections, stop their old job, and take on one of the stress positions in the country. People who run are willing to take pay cut now because they can get a host of benefits and privileges at the end of it, mainly because of the nature of the job and they can work in those benefits and privileges. Increasing pay and the additional reforms they talked about would go a long way in attracting more people who are willing to do it for the public service.
Should be simple. Theres a limit to hours worked per week. That 48. Theres a number of hours per week needed to fill the role of MP. Probably 40. If the second job doesnt take more than 8 hours a week, then ok?
In America my local representative is also a dentist, whenever they’re back from the capital they get to take in patients. It’s nice to know your rep is self sufficient and contributing past being a legislator
@@robertlind186Also means only people that have jobs they can afford to take extended breaks from can be politicians, ie those already quite well off. Cant have a construction worker, or any other worker who doesn't work for themselves run for office in your ideal world, which is wrong.
@@MichaelAbreuor you can mandate that companies provide mandatory time off for parliamentarians and have the government pay them at the same rate as their company
I love that my mother, as a nurse and then a teacher, has always been told her salary is limited because "if it pays too much, it will attract the wrong sort of people", while MPs - who often get to decide that other work is limited in compensation - must be paid more to attract the right sort of people.
yes, they should be forced to either resign or step away from all dealing with said company while in office. Their focus should be on the people, not the company they also work for and will push the agenda of
And if they are voted in knowing they have this other role? If their constituents are ok with it or like it and want a business man in office? You're enforcing your moral worldview on their democratic choice.
@samburgess7924 hey if you want a bunch of corporate lobbyists in government pal thats your choice, it forces a further conflict of interests beyond the whips imo and ive never been a fan of it. Look at theresa may, husband owned a private security company. Guess what public sector service got the most cuts during her tenture... just one example but it just prevents them lining their pockets imo when its a public service job
@@yully89 yes, having an MP that understands business and how promoting business will help the constitutes they represent. I agree governance is corrupting and you can get cronyism, but enforcing that no business men stands as MPs is foolish. It'd leave you with just careerists, you want options and a wide stock of options.
MPs pay, I agree with £150k, Minister £250k, Minister of state £350k PM £500k. Of course those numbers sound big, but the increases will be deducted by 50% in tax and NI. Unless we made public office tax exempt. That would then 'actually' pay MPs the full £86k and they would take that home. So no raise to the public purse, just a loss in revenue.
MP's get a wage far higher than the national average. As such it is more than reasonable that the public should be able to expect that MP's take up their roles as a serious profession. Right now there are many MP's (especially amongst the Conservative benches) that treat their role as a part time one or even in some cases (Farage being a prime example of this) like a hobby or even just as a status symbol that allows them more opportunities outside of Parliament or MP's offices. Even if second jobs can't be banned, there should be a limit on the amount of hours they are allowed to book for second jobs.
@@iyoub6931 If they don't have anything they can do, why bother paying them anything to do it, or to keep them from doing it in a bad or corrupt manner? An MP's official job is to represent their constituents' interests. That doesn't necessarily mean voting against the party line on major issues, but they have a voice in debates, a free vote on any issues that aren't whipped, and the option of breaking ranks and going independent in extreme circumstances. And that's before considering any actual politicking they might do.
No second jobs except where professional registrations have to be maintain. Any income from second jobs taxed at 100% so there's no financial benefit/conflict. And minimum standards of attendance at votes, committees and constituency surgeries with financial penalities for failing to meet them. MPs don't receive a salary, despite their claim, it is an attendance allowance, so it should be pro-rata to actual attendance. Fail to attend, fail to earn!
The trouble is, owning and collecting rent from properties isn't a job - upkeep and tenant relations is a job, but the property owner can hire people for that.
The discourse around paying MPs more is almost identical to the discourse around paying, e.g., teachers more. When a polity has an underperforming education system, the most effective-and even the most cost-effective-solution is usually to *increase* teacher salaries. But it's politically almost impossible to sell that policy, because the public response will always be along the lines of, "Why are you wasting my tax money to reward failure?" People really struggle to think past the first-order effects of any policy. You don't pay the current teachers more as a reward; you pay them more so that their jobs become more competitive, and you end up with higher quality teachers overall over the course of the next decade. The same thing is true of MPs. Sure, we want MPs who do the job with public-spiritedness, but the less you pay them, the bigger the sacrifice you're asking them to make in service of that public spirit. And the bigger the sacrifice required to be an MP, the larger the share of the most talented people you filter out of the candidate pool. Furthermore, the more MPs feel like they're being paid below their value on the labour market, the more susceptible they are to corruption-both the sort of "soft corruption" of the revolving door between Parliament, business, and lobbying firms, but also good old fashioned "hard" corruption.
Politicians salaries should be adjusted yearly to reflect the average income of the population. If you paid them the median wage or the mean of the middle 80% and maybe add a flat $10-20k on top then maybe they’d have an incentive to support unions and liveable pay rises. Additional expenses like accomodation and flights should be done through submission to an independent body that books for them to ensure they’re flying economy unless unavoidable and not staying in penthouses at the four seasons. Politicians shouldn’t be struggling to make ends meet, but they shouldn’t be living lavishly either. Politics is packed with ultra wealthy people who are only there for the power though, you could pay them $0 and charge them $50k a year to be MPs and a lot of them would still do it. You need to remove the personal financial incentive by banning all external income, make them sell their stocks and businesses, ban second jobs, and at least a 10 year ban on foreign citizenship and working for any company that’s had any government contracts or that’s benefited from legislation they voted on. Running the country is a privilege not a right, they should be working for the people, not their own bank accounts. But good luck ever getting any of that without a post-societal collapse revolution.
MP 100-150 (+ pension) Minister 250-350 (+ pension) PM 700 (+ pension) But all of their dealing are heavily monitored by an independent body and they are held to the same level of accountability as a regular public sector workers under the law. No weaseling your way out of trouble. They're elected to some of the highest power/offices in the land, if they don't think they can deliver, they shouldn't have ran for office in the first place.
I wouldn’t want Labour to ban all 2nd jobs, though. Instead, all MPs to have a special tax band: same thresholds as normal people for their MPs salary, but a 100% tax for everything else
Ban lobbying. In a Liberal state, each citizen has equal power over the State. A society which privleges the Rich (or even the Poor) is corrupt and deserves what's coming to it.
There was a time when MPs were paid very little and even ex PM's struggled to get by once they were out of office. It led to a situation where only the independently wealthy or trade union sponsored could enter politics.
They should absolutely pay elected officials more. I would target about whatever a private sector C-Suite executive is paid. I'm also more than fine with limiting what they can do once out of office.
Why didn't you mention the expenses that MPs are exempt from due to their role? Surely the fact that they don't have to pay living and travel costs should factor into a conversation about their pay?
MPs should be allowed to have a second job. We need people in the House of Commons who do real jobs, not just career politicians. Plus, if MPs can't get a second job, then a lot of people won't be able to become MPs.
They have to just outright ban them having second jobs, enforcements, consultants fee, company dividends, everything. If you leave even the smallest hole in the law, someone will exploit it. "It's not a job, I volunteered, and they donated me money" "It's not a job, I just dividends from the company" "I'm not employed, I just consulted for a fee"
This seems like it would have the unintended consequence of leading to far more bribe-taking. Right now, if an MP is earning a good salary but feels the need to financially bail out a family member or friend, or has a gambling problem, or has a profligate spouse, or something, then they have legal ways of earning money on the side. Banning second jobs would mean that they suddenly have to choose between not doing those things and some sort of corruption.
In Rory Stewarts book he talks about raising £70,000 just for the leadership campaign, which was very small venture compared to standing initially as an MP.
What if MPs had the same take-home pay element that universal credit has. They are allowed a certain allowance each month but if they go over that their wage is reduced by 55p for every £1 they earn.
Definitely think MP & even American congress people shouldn’t have other jobs while serving the people. They should be paid over 120k+ per year. I also think they should banned from investing, getting gifts & more while they are serving.
We don't pay nurses that much because it's a vocational job... Let's make being an MP a vocational job then: no second jobs, 80k If you are too money-driven to take the deal, fine. We dont' need you.
Could you imagine an MP for your constituency not replying yo your letter or email, or not carrying your caseload because their time had been invested in their second job? Who monitors the moonlighting? If youre paid £85k then your time and effort needs to be invested in them, thats what you signed up for. Taking up a second income should require resignation.
You missed some facts about Farage’s returns. Approx. 16 hours of work per week is non-MP duties. And he’s not even set up a surgery in Clacton yet. So a huge chunk of the working week is not his main job. Some people have zero interest in serving the country and only want to serve themselves. Even if MPs were paid £1m, NF still double his salary by doing all the extra. And we can’t have a very well funded political class (including pension) as Zac suggests, without a job description for MPs and real, mid-term sackings/consequences if they don’t do their job at representing their constituents
my mate had the idea at one point that MPs shouldn't be payed drastically more, and possibly even closer to the median income, however in exchange they should receive a very generous, state subsidised discount at all establishments within their constituency only. which would in theory encourage them to actually spend more time within their constituency and representing the people there. how well this would work and how easy to implement this would be in practice is another question, but certainly a concept to ponder I think
So I agree mps should be paid more. Just because the job is so insecure and it’s a big risk. You’re supposed to give up so much of your free time to your job. It’s insane
To answer we need to decide What kind of person do we want to attract to be an MP? If you want the kind of people who went to top Universities and would otherwise sit in a CSuite somewhere than yes more pay for MPs. If you want people who can represent the working public then No MPs are adequately paid as it is. Personally I believe the pay is about right if not a bit high given all the extra benefits they get. To answer Jacks question MPs £85k, Minsters £100k, Jack knows them £101k, Prime Minister £150k.
I have a few issues with increasing MP pay. 1. Candidates are selected based on the local party membership, which is a very small % of the population. The majority of people vote along party lines. How intelligent/hard working the MP is, isn't that indicative of becoming an MP. It's more about charm/social connections/wealth. (At least this was my experience being involved in Labour party selection campaigns in my local area). Unless you have a more meritocratic way of MP selection, just raising the money won't do much to improve the quality. 2. Becoming the party candidate can cost a lot of money. Back in the early 2010s I know someone who spent upwards of £40k to become the candidate of a safe seat and lost. This is personal money. By increasing the financial reward, you would likely increase how much people spend to become an MP in the first place, thus keeping poorer people out. In addition the behaviours/attributes the system would reward would be risk taking behaviours (high risk, high reward) not intelect. I personally don't want to encourage all our politicians to be big risk takers.
Really dont agree that paying them more gets "the best for the job". You end up attracting Career Politicians who are totally detached from average people, and who view the idea of major changes, even when needed, as bad because it basically means they will have to drop their bag to make things happen. How would you even quantify the best people for the jobs of MP's? most people would say the best MP is the one who agreed with them, so are we just gonna pay them more based on how agreeable they are?
You also didn’t mention the distinction between what MPs have to declare. Rishi would have made far more with investments, and Hunt and Tice have dozens rental properties. Were any of these declared? And how many MPs are holding income or wealth offshore? If it’s offshore, it doesn’t need to be declared.
I agree that MP's should get paid more, say 125k for a normal mp. However from there, their pay rises should be capped to that of the average public sector pay rise percentage as well
I think UK MPs are compensated really well, at 2.6 times the median UK salary, and they shouldn't be allowed a second job (except maybe certain specific cases). Where I live, MPs get 3.3 times the median salary and aren't allowed to keep a second job.
One consequence of Ben's proposal could be an aggravation of the sunk cost of election campaigns, because you'd be more able to pay back the mortgage loan etc in the case of a victory, so it would make it harder for people without means to try and become an MP.
He keeps going on about Singapore as an example but quite frankly he seems to know nothing about Singapores political history in the second half of the 20th century after colonial rule with Lee Kuan Yew time as prime minister from 1959-1990 rule being describe as a Benevolent dictatorship. This was not a functioning democracy by any standard but what this gov did do well was crush most forms of corruption into the ground basically taking bribes or any form of kick back was just not worth the consequences its not as simple as they are paid more so they don't do corruption.
I think the bigger issue was tackled on and off during the conversation. Yes you want to attract people that are talented and intelligent, but that is not what qualifies as an MP nowadays. More people vote for a party rather than an individual, so position within a party and awareness of that person within the constituency is more important. People vote for presence not for qualifications. There are a lot of very qualified people that are paid way less than MPs, but they will never run because they are not within the political system.
Have you guys taken into account the security Farage has to hire in some of those figures, of course I don't know how he pays for that/his private car, he's said himself he used to be fine using rail and such but given way some people take the stuff he's said that he's far right and encouraged the riots etc, I can understand why he'd be more careful. Dislike him as you like but no one deserves to be attacked who isn't a criminal.
I wouldn't want to see him attacked. Unless it's milkshake 😂 I think it's fine if people pay him for appearances and interviews. Those are intermittent. I would expect him to put 40 hours a week into his MP role.
No one deserves to be attacked even if they are a criminal. It's the job of the law to deal with criminals. Farage has been getting accused of abusing expenses for years. Not a crime but he's definitely not an upstanding person.
Paying Singapore level salary will be digestible to the people only if the pay rise is coupled with stringent anti -corruption laws that Singapore has. I'm not sure but I think people can get life imprisonment for corruption in Singapore
The question of a higher wage being required to attract the best people always fails to account for the question of if we have the best now? A high wage high status job has created the Etonian class of politician we have now, is that the best? Maybe if they were not so attracted to the job we would get a more diverse and inclusive political class.
HOW can MP's have second jobs??? It should be illegal ! They arnt working hard enough for their constituents as it is! Past experience is obviously a positive but NOT 2nd jobs WHILE being an MP!
I think I've been convinced to agree to pay MPs more and ban second jobs completely. Although I do think maybe a practicing doctor or a scientist should perhaps be able to work part time with limited hours, I know Zach says you can get the same knowledge from reading but I have to disagree, keeping up-to-date on a sector requires experience to truly understand it and I'd have no issue with a doctor or scientist putting in 1 or 2 days a week in that sector (limit the sector and limit the number of hours they could work to a handful).
we should compare MPs salaries not to the inflated numbers of the c-suite but to professional salaries. Think about scientists or other high expertise roles, few make an MPs salary despite having far more valuable and demonstrable skills. Remember, being an MP requires two things: - that the local or sometimes national party likes you - that the party is the least unpopular in the area. That's it. Not saying that a back bench MP has an easy time of it, but most professionals already have more complex jobs for far less pay and with far fewer perks. £90k is plenty to attract those interested in ruling. Maybe £100k at a push. The idea that without a second job we wouldn't attract the best just reflects the entitled ambitions and mindset of the born-to-rule etonian class
I agree MP are under payed. It is obvious compared to private sector. But equally they are underpaid compared to other public sector jobs. NHS trust chief executives, headmasters, and head of councils can all be payed more than MP and MP is arguably on par or even more responsible than these jobs. I would be in favour in large increase to make sure they are highest payed public sector worker but ban on second jobs. With one caveat if they have a registration to keep such as a paramedic, doctor or other registered professional they can perform the minimum amount of hours to keep their registration.!
the pay question isnt really a question about money, its a question about quality. what kind of mps do we want? the problem is, historically, at least modern history, mps have ushered in the worst fall in living standards. As a tax payer on the receiving end of their polices, its a bitter pill to swallow giving them more when they've made Britain poor for a lot of working people. by "working people" I mean labour. I agree with the argument for more pay, but they need to earn it, they need to make our live feel better so giving them their spoils doesn't feel like a slap in the face because when ur struggling with the cost of living, seeing the people that caused it through polices like austerity, 'caused; one could argue if we paid them more the quality would be better ' get pay many times the average wage, is difficult. i agree paying them more would fix that in the long run, but what do u do about the bad ones still in there. i know we can afford it, but its hard to square that one.
How about you guys peg the salary of the MP to the average salary of the country during their time in office and 50% of that in retirement? MP's have an incentive to grow the economy for the middle people and ministers get an extra average salary of their department on top of their MP salary.
Generally i do not think 2nd jobs should be allowed and any businesses like with US presidents must be handed over to caretakers. Maybe you can make the exception that as the 2nd job does not create a conflict of interest maybe, but then how do you classify and monitor that
I think they should be allowed. Because they already have immense job insecurity, which is why they dodge questions so much. It allows them to stand without being so dependent on a party.
I think pay them more, but not tons more. You want to attract good people. The issue is that the current salary is far lower than a top businessman or lawyer could earn. Maybe you might say we don’t want those people as politicians but the point still stands that good people are being put off from the profession as the pay is not good or competitive. Sure it’s higher than most people’s wage but nowhere near that of other professions. Why would you choose to do “public service” as an mp when you could earn way more as a doctor or lawyer and equally provide a valuable public service.
No paid second jobs while sitting as an MP. One off or doing several speaking engagement gigs - I'm fine with. But i think parliament eligibility needs to change. Pay them absolutely buckets of cash, like 150k. But they can't have any financial assets (other than home/car for habitation) at all, same with owning property not for their habitation. 0 conflict of interest allowed. It all goes, sold before they become an MP or they are removed as an MP. Add an additional stipulation on that we pay them 50-75% of that salary, kind of like we do now, when they leave for 1 year - but they are unable to work in any position of relative influence for private companies and they cannot buy back the assets they sold during the 1 year period also. I want to remove the possibility that they vote with any short term personal gain in mind, and remove the power of jobs as gifts for favours in parliament. An MP leaves office, goes to work as programmer again at apple - allowed. Go piss girl. An MP leaves office and becomes part of the executive board at apple - not allowed. Corpo shill.
So I go to become an MP, "sell" all my property to my third cousin once removed, who also lets me stay in any of "her" properties, use "her" personal jet, and, as soon as the year's exclusion period is over, sells me it all back.
@@rmsgrey In that scenario, yeah. I'm not sure any method will be 100% effective. But the number of politicians, even the wealthy ones that are private jetting and have a large portfolio of properties will be low. And yeah they'll have special arrangment, person escrow mules and stuff if they are THAT wealthy. We could legislate against that, it might be considered fraud to do that. But the number of politicians who have stocks and shares, special relationships etc in companies, maybe own a single buy to let - I think thats higher. I want to reduce the temptation to use your position of power and influence for unfair gains. Most people will sell, recognise the reason for this, and do their job.
Political pay/compensation should be proportional to the minimum wage*(Living wage) of the electorate being represented, 12X(MP) 16X(Minister) and 20X(Prime Minister)) for example. Minimum wage being a living wage as FDR described “By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level, I mean the wages of a decent living.” ensuring talent at the top of the political system while supporting stable quality of life at the bottom. Decreasing the desperation of the bottom parts of the populace allows for increases to the level of involvement from the populace to keep the politicians accountable, while also supporting the resources already budgeted to health and education and improving their outcomes.
It's like they have a misunderstanding of value, that different peoples time is valued differently. It's also really weird that anyone feels they have the right to control what jobs and how many jobs someone has. If an MP can only handle being an MP they'll do that. If someone can handle more let them. If someone can't handle both but tries, they will get fired from one of the positions because why would you pay for someone who isn't doing enough. Same goes for voting, if an MP is failing a region they'll be voted out. There are other considerations, if a task the MPs need to do can be done by staff, and earning lots on a 2nd job can let them contract out their menial roles, is it really better to force them to do those roles? Should we? The framing is really weird, especially for an 'unbiased' channel. It's how much should they be allowed to earn, not how much can they earn without losing quality as an MP. Very leftist, very disappointing. What if they own a business on the side, should they just not be allowed to be an MP? This would lead to just career MP's who pick experts they agree with not who's correct or most experienced, having them be worldly is the first defence against this.
How much they should be paid? I quote from On the Fate of Species: "To obtain office they know very well that it suffices to give many gifts; to the people part of the diverted resources and sweet words and to their companions more of the resources and favours - without such it is as using a cat as bait for a rat and try to serve them with sincerity and competence is even more impossible no different from trying to get up a tree by climbing a broken rope. When any improvement is attempted, as reforming the worthless laws so that there is order and to change the rituals so that they are instructive and useful, such has only fear of the critic from the people, but as Guo Yan says ‘he who seeks the highest virtue has no harmony with the popular opinion and he who does great deeds does not take council with the multitudes’. That is what Democracy selects for; the optimal strategy on that environment is Corruption and Deceit - worse than being worthless, it actively selects for the detriment of society. How terrible indeed to be wise or to try to be good when such is not advantageous, for which among such is elect as the leader of the gang if not the most errant scoundrel; incarnation of calumny who like a dog fawns and cajoles the ill-humoured deaf glutton that is the demonic autocrat Demos? And are not self-evident the words of the oracle who says that the marginal and his party shall reign until an even more abominable rascal arise? With the most absurd baseless promises and shameless bribery, but which the people are only too exalted with happiness in accepting the crumbs and short dreams! They are delighted if some braggart come and being right or wrong throws upon them and their beliefs a flood of praises and flattery; they see not that such pigs are traitors who only sell them for gain and that money dictates all they profess - but they care not even if they know it to be endless slander, a tempest of abuse and a deluge of lies for much to the contrary as long as they are glorified and their opponents drowned in accusation they pallid with hunger gladly snap biting all calumny offered for them to devour. What chance has he who is such an imprudent fellow with a brazen heart who dares to uphold an opinion contrary to that of them all; who promises happiness not by adulation, bribery, deceit or being a prostitute to the highest bidder, but instead of vain lauds points them to the better way - what is his chance to be laureated instead of receiving a chiton of stones , he who aims not at pleasing, but at saying what is true? For more than any rock on the way what makes a man stumble throwing him into danger is his mouth; guarding it is guarding his soul, but those inclined to their lips terrify their own future - for with a slip of my tongue I can behead my neck. The Lakedaimonians had the insane law of training children in the art of stealing and ambushing, and they would be punished for being caught in the act and not for the act of stealing itself; yet as so Ksenophon might have said to a Lakedaimonian that he was the most fit for the endeavour of stealing the answer was the true nature of the democratic environment - as Cheirisophos said, the Athenians were the true masters at stealing as they dare to take from the public treasure even at great risk and trick them all as the very system thus perfectly selected for that master thief since those best at tricking the people were elected as magistrates. Nicias, their most successful commander throughtout the decades of the grand war, chose to waste the Athenian army and die in battle, since he knew that the correct choice of retreat would stain his name with disgrace of unjust condenations and an inglorious death by criminal execution ; that is all the ignorant people would see, promptly forgetting any responsibility for their vote and simply seeking a scapegoat to take on the blame for any misfortune that may happen , rather than any qualification to judge if good measures were instead thwarted by evil fortunes . That is what the democratic environment selects for; far distant to any benefit the blind whim of the masses selects for the very opposite of being honest and saying an unpleasant truth - be it told to the people or to his party members." To which a note comments at that last paragraph: "There is a very simplistic ‘argument’ that the public sector simply does not pay enough; that the high jobs as that of senators are one of the most important and valuable for the nation, but the pay is insignificant compared to management jobs on the private sector - and increasing the pay of those few to hundreds of thousands per month would not make any difference on the great coffers of the nation while thus making it more competitive and attractive for the most talented men to actually seek that job. While there is some clear logic to it, and as a kid I would impress people by repeating that opinion taken from others, the truth is very different; as shown what the democratic environment selects for, and it is left unchanged by that higher attractive, so that greater competition would merely exacerbate the problem selecting even more intensively for the greatest scoundrels - be they wittingly evil in strategically buying out the masses and colleagues or genuinely stupid follow his fantastical ideals which happened to convince the masses."
the book Zac mentioned was Good Chaps: How Corrupt Politicians Broke Our Law and Institutions - And What We Can Do About It, I finished i last week and it is a really good read
I agree with zac. Once you're elected you shouldnt be able to have any other job, but you get a comfortable pension for life. But I dont see why the PM should be paid so much more than an MP. Like if an mp is paid £150,000 then maybe a minister should be paid £200,000 and the PM £250,000, but not £350,000 or £500,000
How about as an MP they don't pay you if you have another revenue stream. So an mp will be paid £85K minus what they earn elsewhere. So if you made £40K doing a show you'd only get £45K for your MP work. If you earn more then £85K elsewhere then you get nothing.
@@samueldorrington8990 The trouble with reducing the value of getting paid (less than £85k) to zero is you then give MPs a competitive advantage - they're effectively working for free over a wide range of pay, so why should they charge market rate when they can undercut it?
@@samueldorrington8990 If you get the same money whether I pay you £15 an hour or £150 an hour, while someone else doing the same job would get more money the more I paid them, you can say "I'll work for you for £50 an hour" so I then save £100 per hour over hiring the other guy - and you get to establish yourself in the job ready for when you stop being an MP. And maybe you have a close personal friend who wants a secretarial position with very light duties who gets paid the same as you do, but since that money isn't going to an MP, that close personal friend can spend it on whatever the must-have accoutrements for the well-kept mistress are these days...
Apologies for the music at the beginning being so loud and going on for so long - I was editing this late last night as our normal editor is taking a well deserved rest and for some reason it didn't sound as bad as I was editing. Either way, sorry! - Jack
Was just about to comment on that music. Oh Jack, what's happened? You're in a 'registry office' but didn't hear any explanation? Did I miss it? Did the music drown it out?
Just skip the music, it’s awful.
The podcasts from the big news organisations mostly have nothing, or in a few cases a jingle (like How to Win an Election)
@@AaronTheHumanist shush
MPs don't just get zero notice when they leave, when an MP steps down or loses their seat at an election, they receive four months salary, which compares quite favourably to the commercial sector which is 1 to 3 months notice typically. On top of their normal salary, they also receive a very generous expenses package.
was going to comment a similar thing also mp now earn £91,346 not 85k but thats just the start of what MP receive when you take in things that are subsidized and expenses they earn a lot and thats not even considering you get a pay increase as a minister and more expenses. Also the idea that that most if not all mp would be earning that much if they never entered parliament is simply sure maybe those from a legal or finance background. but as an example Angela Rayner worked for a local council as a care worker and then as a union rep neither of those jobs is earning that base salary of 91k a year.
Seriously there are just under 650 (taking into account SF no shows) the idea that all of them if they never became an mp or left being an mp could command a top 5% wage let alone that wage plus the value of mp benefits is laughable.
@@drayle71 I'm pretty sure the argument is not that all current MPs would otherwise be earning £100k+ (there will always be people who prioritise other things than money), but that the sort of people we want to have as MPs - good leaders and administrators - are also the sort of people that the business world wants as executives, so if we want people to choose to be MPs, we should make the compensation comparable.
Maybe mix the music at the beginning a little lower next time
Independent media not taking audio mixing seriously challenge: impossible
MPs should not be able to work in private sector jobs.
Never actually considered the thought that MPs' should be paid more, the conversation here was super interesting and has altered my views. I would rather an MP gets paid more and must focus on their government role(s) than get paid less and have conflicts of interest with second jobs.
If you're increasing the wage then you _must_ bin the subsidies on everything. Their canteen alone is outrageous
My main argument against pay rise for MPs is two fold
1. To the average person the amount MPs get paid is a lot of freaking money, so hearing they want more frankly sounds childish, they are getting paid atleast triple the average.
2. For me if you start paying a lot more you start to attract people who are only after the money and actual don't care about public service
What would you rather have? A politician with crazy high pay or a politician with financial interest in another company? We live in a capitalist society, noone not gona go for more money if they can. Id rather politician be paied crazy amount and be banned from taking up position in any private sectors than see them get paid what they do now and still rake in crazy amount from the private sector while now also having interest to push for policy that would benefit their stake in that company.
I agree with the first point but the second point is a bit ridiculous because if someone is already interested in serving the public why would more money put them off and also you are forgetting that the public vote for the MP in the first place so if the public feel as though that candidate is "only after the money" then they won't vote for them and/or the party won't select them.
On the public service argument, their are plenty of people that are financially motivated. I want the very best ones working for the people. Not for a corporation.
As for the average earners argument...I don't care? I should hope that if we're paying more we would have a better field of candidates to choose from.
Obviously no. Its a clear conflict of interest
MP's are on literally double the median wage, if starting salary is £200k it will just attract people who are massively out of touch with working people, like bankers, CEO's, business owners, consultants and the already wealthy. If a CFO at a FTSE company looks at being an MP when they are 50 and thinks "oh its a pay cut but it'll have some perks", that kind of person is not who we want in parliament. The people we want in parliament are the ones who think £84k a year is a dream salary
Here is your problem, no sane human being with high qualifications thinks 84k is a dream salary. Like it or not people who are paid more tend to be more qualified, that's why you know they're able to accumulate wealth and others can't
@@iyoub6931 It's completely irrelevant that 84k isn't a dream salary. People should be in politics for more than a pursuit of money - they should be in it because they want to make a difference/represent their community/stand up for their principles.
Your argument that we should focus on pay is myopic.
@@iyoub6931 Also, to add, the suggestion that people with high qualifications and big salaries are the best and most capable is laughable.
Take it from somebody who works in big law; some people on £1m+ a year are utter clowns that I wouldn't want anywhere near the levers of power.
@@PretentiousPeter The idea that people should only run for office to represent the community is fantasy and delusion born from watching too many Hollywood movies. Reality is, for the last 1000 years of existence, that never was a thing in politics, it never happened and it will never happen. We need to face reality and be pragmatic about our choices of government.
Your argument doesn’t work that well. The only people that can run are people that can pay for their elections, stop their old job, and take on one of the stress positions in the country. People who run are willing to take pay cut now because they can get a host of benefits and privileges at the end of it, mainly because of the nature of the job and they can work in those benefits and privileges. Increasing pay and the additional reforms they talked about would go a long way in attracting more people who are willing to do it for the public service.
Should be simple. Theres a limit to hours worked per week. That 48.
Theres a number of hours per week needed to fill the role of MP. Probably 40.
If the second job doesnt take more than 8 hours a week, then ok?
Simple solution, any "2nd job" pay has to be capped at the minimum wage, no bonuses, gifts etc.
NO. being an MP is the job
In America my local representative is also a dentist, whenever they’re back from the capital they get to take in patients. It’s nice to know your rep is self sufficient and contributing past being a legislator
@@robertlind186Also means only people that have jobs they can afford to take extended breaks from can be politicians, ie those already quite well off. Cant have a construction worker, or any other worker who doesn't work for themselves run for office in your ideal world, which is wrong.
@@MichaelAbreuor you can mandate that companies provide mandatory time off for parliamentarians and have the government pay them at the same rate as their company
MPs do have their entire lives subsidised, it’s not just the 85k
I love that my mother, as a nurse and then a teacher, has always been told her salary is limited because "if it pays too much, it will attract the wrong sort of people", while MPs - who often get to decide that other work is limited in compensation - must be paid more to attract the right sort of people.
yes, they should be forced to either resign or step away from all dealing with said company while in office. Their focus should be on the people, not the company they also work for and will push the agenda of
And if they are voted in knowing they have this other role? If their constituents are ok with it or like it and want a business man in office? You're enforcing your moral worldview on their democratic choice.
@samburgess7924 hey if you want a bunch of corporate lobbyists in government pal thats your choice, it forces a further conflict of interests beyond the whips imo and ive never been a fan of it. Look at theresa may, husband owned a private security company. Guess what public sector service got the most cuts during her tenture... just one example but it just prevents them lining their pockets imo when its a public service job
@@yully89 yes, having an MP that understands business and how promoting business will help the constitutes they represent. I agree governance is corrupting and you can get cronyism, but enforcing that no business men stands as MPs is foolish. It'd leave you with just careerists, you want options and a wide stock of options.
MPs pay, I agree with £150k, Minister £250k, Minister of state £350k PM £500k. Of course those numbers sound big, but the increases will be deducted by 50% in tax and NI. Unless we made public office tax exempt. That would then 'actually' pay MPs the full £86k and they would take that home. So no raise to the public purse, just a loss in revenue.
Labour should ban MPs. Especially their own and other Tories.
MP's get a wage far higher than the national average. As such it is more than reasonable that the public should be able to expect that MP's take up their roles as a serious profession. Right now there are many MP's (especially amongst the Conservative benches) that treat their role as a part time one or even in some cases (Farage being a prime example of this) like a hobby or even just as a status symbol that allows them more opportunities outside of Parliament or MP's offices. Even if second jobs can't be banned, there should be a limit on the amount of hours they are allowed to book for second jobs.
Remember that being an MP is not an average national job, it is really important and should be compensated as such
@@iyoub6931 ...provided the MP is actually doing their job.
@@rmsgrey what is their job? What can an MP do without their party's consent? An MP can't change your constituency's life
@@iyoub6931 If they don't have anything they can do, why bother paying them anything to do it, or to keep them from doing it in a bad or corrupt manner?
An MP's official job is to represent their constituents' interests. That doesn't necessarily mean voting against the party line on major issues, but they have a voice in debates, a free vote on any issues that aren't whipped, and the option of breaking ranks and going independent in extreme circumstances. And that's before considering any actual politicking they might do.
No second jobs except where professional registrations have to be maintain. Any income from second jobs taxed at 100% so there's no financial benefit/conflict. And minimum standards of attendance at votes, committees and constituency surgeries with financial penalities for failing to meet them. MPs don't receive a salary, despite their claim, it is an attendance allowance, so it should be pro-rata to actual attendance. Fail to attend, fail to earn!
Yes labour should ban second jobs
More importantly ban MP, lords and civil servants from being landlords
The trouble is, owning and collecting rent from properties isn't a job - upkeep and tenant relations is a job, but the property owner can hire people for that.
"More importantly ban lords from being landlords"
I have so many ways to respond to this in mind I can't settle on just one.
One suspects Cameo is a great way to launder money
The discourse around paying MPs more is almost identical to the discourse around paying, e.g., teachers more. When a polity has an underperforming education system, the most effective-and even the most cost-effective-solution is usually to *increase* teacher salaries. But it's politically almost impossible to sell that policy, because the public response will always be along the lines of, "Why are you wasting my tax money to reward failure?" People really struggle to think past the first-order effects of any policy. You don't pay the current teachers more as a reward; you pay them more so that their jobs become more competitive, and you end up with higher quality teachers overall over the course of the next decade.
The same thing is true of MPs. Sure, we want MPs who do the job with public-spiritedness, but the less you pay them, the bigger the sacrifice you're asking them to make in service of that public spirit. And the bigger the sacrifice required to be an MP, the larger the share of the most talented people you filter out of the candidate pool. Furthermore, the more MPs feel like they're being paid below their value on the labour market, the more susceptible they are to corruption-both the sort of "soft corruption" of the revolving door between Parliament, business, and lobbying firms, but also good old fashioned "hard" corruption.
The only second jobs MPs should be allowed to have are trade jobs. No finance, no propagandising, nothing to do with being a celebrity.
In a perfect world, Nigel Farage would only have one job: Milkshake Mopper.
I think so too. I hate the man.
However, lots of people voted for him, so he belongs in Parliament to represent them.😢
MP should get £250k minimum but actually do their DAMN JOB!
You should require minimum hours and performance evaluations like any other job you’re being paid for.
And if they can manage both, fine, if not fine. The performance evaluation for being an MP is called an election.
The thing is... they are only really beholdant to their constituents and any system of rules you create starts controlling them in other ways
Why's the music so loud?
Politicians salaries should be adjusted yearly to reflect the average income of the population. If you paid them the median wage or the mean of the middle 80% and maybe add a flat $10-20k on top then maybe they’d have an incentive to support unions and liveable pay rises. Additional expenses like accomodation and flights should be done through submission to an independent body that books for them to ensure they’re flying economy unless unavoidable and not staying in penthouses at the four seasons. Politicians shouldn’t be struggling to make ends meet, but they shouldn’t be living lavishly either. Politics is packed with ultra wealthy people who are only there for the power though, you could pay them $0 and charge them $50k a year to be MPs and a lot of them would still do it. You need to remove the personal financial incentive by banning all external income, make them sell their stocks and businesses, ban second jobs, and at least a 10 year ban on foreign citizenship and working for any company that’s had any government contracts or that’s benefited from legislation they voted on. Running the country is a privilege not a right, they should be working for the people, not their own bank accounts. But good luck ever getting any of that without a post-societal collapse revolution.
I saw someone saying that MPs should be allowed second jobs but all other income should be taxed at 100%
I enjoyed seeing Zacs socks right in front of camera 😆 next time i want to see some silly socks.
MP 100-150 (+ pension)
Minister 250-350 (+ pension)
PM 700 (+ pension)
But all of their dealing are heavily monitored by an independent body and they are held to the same level of accountability as a regular public sector workers under the law. No weaseling your way out of trouble. They're elected to some of the highest power/offices in the land, if they don't think they can deliver, they shouldn't have ran for office in the first place.
I wouldn’t want Labour to ban all 2nd jobs, though. Instead, all MPs to have a special tax band: same thresholds as normal people for their MPs salary, but a 100% tax for everything else
Ban lobbying. In a Liberal state, each citizen has equal power over the State. A society which privleges the Rich (or even the Poor) is corrupt and deserves what's coming to it.
Good points. 👍
There was a time when MPs were paid very little and even ex PM's struggled to get by once they were out of office. It led to a situation where only the independently wealthy or trade union sponsored could enter politics.
Additionally, benefits rises should be tied to MPs allowance rises. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
They should absolutely pay elected officials more. I would target about whatever a private sector C-Suite executive is paid.
I'm also more than fine with limiting what they can do once out of office.
Why didn't you mention the expenses that MPs are exempt from due to their role? Surely the fact that they don't have to pay living and travel costs should factor into a conversation about their pay?
They should be getting less than minimum wage, considering how little they actually work and all the subsidies and expenses they get.
MPs should be allowed to have a second job. We need people in the House of Commons who do real jobs, not just career politicians. Plus, if MPs can't get a second job, then a lot of people won't be able to become MPs.
They have to just outright ban them having second jobs, enforcements, consultants fee, company dividends, everything. If you leave even the smallest hole in the law, someone will exploit it.
"It's not a job, I volunteered, and they donated me money"
"It's not a job, I just dividends from the company"
"I'm not employed, I just consulted for a fee"
This seems like it would have the unintended consequence of leading to far more bribe-taking.
Right now, if an MP is earning a good salary but feels the need to financially bail out a family member or friend, or has a gambling problem, or has a profligate spouse, or something, then they have legal ways of earning money on the side. Banning second jobs would mean that they suddenly have to choose between not doing those things and some sort of corruption.
In Rory Stewarts book he talks about raising £70,000 just for the leadership campaign, which was very small venture compared to standing initially as an MP.
What if MPs had the same take-home pay element that universal credit has. They are allowed a certain allowance each month but if they go over that their wage is reduced by 55p for every £1 they earn.
How about people who need to have a second job to maintain their qualification do so without taking a salary? Either 100% tax or give it to charity.
Definitely think MP & even American congress people shouldn’t have other jobs while serving the people. They should be paid over 120k+ per year. I also think they should banned from investing, getting gifts & more while they are serving.
We don't pay nurses that much because it's a vocational job...
Let's make being an MP a vocational job then: no second jobs, 80k
If you are too money-driven to take the deal, fine. We dont' need you.
100% agree, trying to out bribe our own politicians seems fruitless
I like the idea of linking MP pay to either minimum wage or the standard benefits allowance.
Labour should ban mps doing insider trading but they won't..
Could you imagine an MP for your constituency not replying yo your letter or email, or not carrying your caseload because their time had been invested in their second job? Who monitors the moonlighting? If youre paid £85k then your time and effort needs to be invested in them, thats what you signed up for. Taking up a second income should require resignation.
You missed some facts about Farage’s returns. Approx. 16 hours of work per week is non-MP duties. And he’s not even set up a surgery in Clacton yet. So a huge chunk of the working week is not his main job. Some people have zero interest in serving the country and only want to serve themselves. Even if MPs were paid £1m, NF still double his salary by doing all the extra. And we can’t have a very well funded political class (including pension) as Zac suggests, without a job description for MPs and real, mid-term sackings/consequences if they don’t do their job at representing their constituents
my mate had the idea at one point that MPs shouldn't be payed drastically more, and possibly even closer to the median income, however in exchange they should receive a very generous, state subsidised discount at all establishments within their constituency only. which would in theory encourage them to actually spend more time within their constituency and representing the people there. how well this would work and how easy to implement this would be in practice is another question, but certainly a concept to ponder I think
So I agree mps should be paid more. Just because the job is so insecure and it’s a big risk. You’re supposed to give up so much of your free time to your job. It’s insane
they should link their wage to the average income. yes being an MP is important but lets be honest in a FPTP system, a single MP has no power.
To answer we need to decide What kind of person do we want to attract to be an MP? If you want the kind of people who went to top Universities and would otherwise sit in a CSuite somewhere than yes more pay for MPs. If you want people who can represent the working public then No MPs are adequately paid as it is. Personally I believe the pay is about right if not a bit high given all the extra benefits they get. To answer Jacks question MPs £85k, Minsters £100k, Jack knows them £101k, Prime Minister £150k.
I have a few issues with increasing MP pay.
1. Candidates are selected based on the local party membership, which is a very small % of the population. The majority of people vote along party lines. How intelligent/hard working the MP is, isn't that indicative of becoming an MP. It's more about charm/social connections/wealth. (At least this was my experience being involved in Labour party selection campaigns in my local area). Unless you have a more meritocratic way of MP selection, just raising the money won't do much to improve the quality.
2. Becoming the party candidate can cost a lot of money. Back in the early 2010s I know someone who spent upwards of £40k to become the candidate of a safe seat and lost. This is personal money. By increasing the financial reward, you would likely increase how much people spend to become an MP in the first place, thus keeping poorer people out. In addition the behaviours/attributes the system would reward would be risk taking behaviours (high risk, high reward) not intelect. I personally don't want to encourage all our politicians to be big risk takers.
Really dont agree that paying them more gets "the best for the job". You end up attracting Career Politicians who are totally detached from average people, and who view the idea of major changes, even when needed, as bad because it basically means they will have to drop their bag to make things happen. How would you even quantify the best people for the jobs of MP's? most people would say the best MP is the one who agreed with them, so are we just gonna pay them more based on how agreeable they are?
You also didn’t mention the distinction between what MPs have to declare. Rishi would have made far more with investments, and Hunt and Tice have dozens rental properties. Were any of these declared? And how many MPs are holding income or wealth offshore? If it’s offshore, it doesn’t need to be declared.
I agree that MP's should get paid more, say 125k for a normal mp. However from there, their pay rises should be capped to that of the average public sector pay rise percentage as well
I think UK MPs are compensated really well, at 2.6 times the median UK salary, and they shouldn't be allowed a second job (except maybe certain specific cases). Where I live, MPs get 3.3 times the median salary and aren't allowed to keep a second job.
Camio is obviously for marketing and it makes sense tbh
I wonder, and maybe you could investigate: what is the ratio between the average salary and MP starting salary in Singapore?
I agree Mps should be Paid quite a lot more
One consequence of Ben's proposal could be an aggravation of the sunk cost of election campaigns, because you'd be more able to pay back the mortgage loan etc in the case of a victory, so it would make it harder for people without means to try and become an MP.
Just need better transparency and voter choice. It can work or it can't, their constituents should decide.
Should there be a difference in rules for MPs versus Ministers?
Honestly, sounds like an argument for UBI
Agree - Bin second jobs, pay MPs more.
I'd go further. Pay them full MP pay for 5 years after they leave but they can't during those 5 years work.
He keeps going on about Singapore as an example but quite frankly he seems to know nothing about Singapores political history in the second half of the 20th century after colonial rule with Lee Kuan Yew time as prime minister from 1959-1990 rule being describe as a Benevolent dictatorship. This was not a functioning democracy by any standard but what this gov did do well was crush most forms of corruption into the ground basically taking bribes or any form of kick back was just not worth the consequences its not as simple as they are paid more so they don't do corruption.
I think the bigger issue was tackled on and off during the conversation. Yes you want to attract people that are talented and intelligent, but that is not what qualifies as an MP nowadays. More people vote for a party rather than an individual, so position within a party and awareness of that person within the constituency is more important. People vote for presence not for qualifications. There are a lot of very qualified people that are paid way less than MPs, but they will never run because they are not within the political system.
No, they should not.
Have you guys taken into account the security Farage has to hire in some of those figures, of course I don't know how he pays for that/his private car, he's said himself he used to be fine using rail and such but given way some people take the stuff he's said that he's far right and encouraged the riots etc, I can understand why he'd be more careful. Dislike him as you like but no one deserves to be attacked who isn't a criminal.
I wouldn't want to see him attacked. Unless it's milkshake 😂
I think it's fine if people pay him for appearances and interviews. Those are intermittent.
I would expect him to put 40 hours a week into his MP role.
No one deserves to be attacked even if they are a criminal. It's the job of the law to deal with criminals.
Farage has been getting accused of abusing expenses for years. Not a crime but he's definitely not an upstanding person.
Paying Singapore level salary will be digestible to the people only if the pay rise is coupled with stringent anti -corruption laws that Singapore has. I'm not sure but I think people can get life imprisonment for corruption in Singapore
No that's why they get paid
The question of a higher wage being required to attract the best people always fails to account for the question of if we have the best now? A high wage high status job has created the Etonian class of politician we have now, is that the best? Maybe if they were not so attracted to the job we would get a more diverse and inclusive political class.
HOW can MP's have second jobs??? It should be illegal ! They arnt working hard enough for their constituents as it is! Past experience is obviously a positive but NOT 2nd jobs WHILE being an MP!
I think I've been convinced to agree to pay MPs more and ban second jobs completely. Although I do think maybe a practicing doctor or a scientist should perhaps be able to work part time with limited hours, I know Zach says you can get the same knowledge from reading but I have to disagree, keeping up-to-date on a sector requires experience to truly understand it and I'd have no issue with a doctor or scientist putting in 1 or 2 days a week in that sector (limit the sector and limit the number of hours they could work to a handful).
we should compare MPs salaries not to the inflated numbers of the c-suite but to professional salaries. Think about scientists or other high expertise roles, few make an MPs salary despite having far more valuable and demonstrable skills.
Remember, being an MP requires two things:
- that the local or sometimes national party likes you
- that the party is the least unpopular in the area.
That's it. Not saying that a back bench MP has an easy time of it, but most professionals already have more complex jobs for far less pay and with far fewer perks.
£90k is plenty to attract those interested in ruling. Maybe £100k at a push.
The idea that without a second job we wouldn't attract the best just reflects the entitled ambitions and mindset of the born-to-rule etonian class
I agree MP are under payed. It is obvious compared to private sector. But equally they are underpaid compared to other public sector jobs. NHS trust chief executives, headmasters, and head of councils can all be payed more than MP and MP is arguably on par or even more responsible than these jobs. I would be in favour in large increase to make sure they are highest payed public sector worker but ban on second jobs. With one caveat if they have a registration to keep such as a paramedic, doctor or other registered professional they can perform the minimum amount of hours to keep their registration.!
Link their salary to the minimal salary, perhaps 3 to 5 times of that. And then they can decide how much they want to earn.
the pay question isnt really a question about money, its a question about quality. what kind of mps do we want? the problem is, historically, at least modern history, mps have ushered in the worst fall in living standards. As a tax payer on the receiving end of their polices, its a bitter pill to swallow giving them more when they've made Britain poor for a lot of working people. by "working people" I mean labour. I agree with the argument for more pay, but they need to earn it, they need to make our live feel better so giving them their spoils doesn't feel like a slap in the face because when ur struggling with the cost of living, seeing the people that caused it through polices like austerity, 'caused; one could argue if we paid them more the quality would be better ' get pay many times the average wage, is difficult. i agree paying them more would fix that in the long run, but what do u do about the bad ones still in there. i know we can afford it, but its hard to square that one.
How about you guys peg the salary of the MP to the average salary of the country during their time in office and 50% of that in retirement? MP's have an incentive to grow the economy for the middle people and ministers get an extra average salary of their department on top of their MP salary.
Generally i do not think 2nd jobs should be allowed and any businesses like with US presidents must be handed over to caretakers.
Maybe you can make the exception that as the 2nd job does not create a conflict of interest maybe, but then how do you classify and monitor that
Needs more music.
I think they should be allowed. Because they already have immense job insecurity, which is why they dodge questions so much.
It allows them to stand without being so dependent on a party.
I think pay them more, but not tons more. You want to attract good people. The issue is that the current salary is far lower than a top businessman or lawyer could earn. Maybe you might say we don’t want those people as politicians but the point still stands that good people are being put off from the profession as the pay is not good or competitive. Sure it’s higher than most people’s wage but nowhere near that of other professions. Why would you choose to do “public service” as an mp when you could earn way more as a doctor or lawyer and equally provide a valuable public service.
No paid second jobs while sitting as an MP. One off or doing several speaking engagement gigs - I'm fine with.
But i think parliament eligibility needs to change. Pay them absolutely buckets of cash, like 150k. But they can't have any financial assets (other than home/car for habitation) at all, same with owning property not for their habitation. 0 conflict of interest allowed. It all goes, sold before they become an MP or they are removed as an MP. Add an additional stipulation on that we pay them 50-75% of that salary, kind of like we do now, when they leave for 1 year - but they are unable to work in any position of relative influence for private companies and they cannot buy back the assets they sold during the 1 year period also. I want to remove the possibility that they vote with any short term personal gain in mind, and remove the power of jobs as gifts for favours in parliament.
An MP leaves office, goes to work as programmer again at apple - allowed. Go piss girl.
An MP leaves office and becomes part of the executive board at apple - not allowed. Corpo shill.
So I go to become an MP, "sell" all my property to my third cousin once removed, who also lets me stay in any of "her" properties, use "her" personal jet, and, as soon as the year's exclusion period is over, sells me it all back.
@@rmsgrey In that scenario, yeah.
I'm not sure any method will be 100% effective. But the number of politicians, even the wealthy ones that are private jetting and have a large portfolio of properties will be low. And yeah they'll have special arrangment, person escrow mules and stuff if they are THAT wealthy. We could legislate against that, it might be considered fraud to do that.
But the number of politicians who have stocks and shares, special relationships etc in companies, maybe own a single buy to let - I think thats higher.
I want to reduce the temptation to use your position of power and influence for unfair gains. Most people will sell, recognise the reason for this, and do their job.
Political pay/compensation should be proportional to the minimum wage*(Living wage) of the electorate being represented, 12X(MP) 16X(Minister) and 20X(Prime Minister)) for example. Minimum wage being a living wage as FDR described “By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level, I mean the wages of a decent living.” ensuring talent at the top of the political system while supporting stable quality of life at the bottom. Decreasing the desperation of the bottom parts of the populace allows for increases to the level of involvement from the populace to keep the politicians accountable, while also supporting the resources already budgeted to health and education and improving their outcomes.
I vote to keep the joke in lmao
You mean Singapore the one-party “democracy”?
Never mind why Farage in making cameos, who is actually paying money for a Farage cameo?
It's like they have a misunderstanding of value, that different peoples time is valued differently. It's also really weird that anyone feels they have the right to control what jobs and how many jobs someone has. If an MP can only handle being an MP they'll do that. If someone can handle more let them. If someone can't handle both but tries, they will get fired from one of the positions because why would you pay for someone who isn't doing enough. Same goes for voting, if an MP is failing a region they'll be voted out.
There are other considerations, if a task the MPs need to do can be done by staff, and earning lots on a 2nd job can let them contract out their menial roles, is it really better to force them to do those roles? Should we?
The framing is really weird, especially for an 'unbiased' channel. It's how much should they be allowed to earn, not how much can they earn without losing quality as an MP. Very leftist, very disappointing. What if they own a business on the side, should they just not be allowed to be an MP? This would lead to just career MP's who pick experts they agree with not who's correct or most experienced, having them be worldly is the first defence against this.
maybe not jobs related to politics but if they were a doctor or engineer i would think it should be fine
Your music at the start of the video is abit loud when your introducing yourselves, makes it a bit hard to hear you.
How much they should be paid?
I quote from On the Fate of Species:
"To obtain office they know very well that it suffices to give many gifts; to the people part of the diverted resources and sweet words and to their companions more of the resources and favours - without such it is as using a cat as bait for a rat and try to serve them with sincerity and competence is even more impossible no different from trying to get up a tree by climbing a broken rope. When any improvement is attempted, as reforming the worthless laws so that there is order and to change the rituals so that they are instructive and useful, such has only fear of the critic from the people, but as Guo Yan says ‘he who seeks the highest virtue has no harmony with the popular opinion and he who does great deeds does not take council with the multitudes’.
That is what Democracy selects for; the optimal strategy on that environment is Corruption and Deceit - worse than being worthless, it actively selects for the detriment of society.
How terrible indeed to be wise or to try to be good when such is not advantageous, for which among such is elect as the leader of the gang if not the most errant scoundrel; incarnation of calumny who like a dog fawns and cajoles the ill-humoured deaf glutton that is the demonic autocrat Demos? And are not self-evident the words of the oracle who says that the marginal and his party shall reign until an even more abominable rascal arise? With the most absurd baseless promises and shameless bribery, but which the people are only too exalted with happiness in accepting the crumbs and short dreams!
They are delighted if some braggart come and being right or wrong throws upon them and their beliefs a flood of praises and flattery; they see not that such pigs are traitors who only sell them for gain and that money dictates all they profess - but they care not even if they know it to be endless slander, a tempest of abuse and a deluge of lies for much to the contrary as long as they are glorified and their opponents drowned in accusation they pallid with hunger gladly snap biting all calumny offered for them to devour.
What chance has he who is such an imprudent fellow with a brazen heart who dares to uphold an opinion contrary to that of them all; who promises happiness not by adulation, bribery, deceit or being a prostitute to the highest bidder, but instead of vain lauds points them to the better way - what is his chance to be laureated instead of receiving a chiton of stones , he who aims not at pleasing, but at saying what is true?
For more than any rock on the way what makes a man stumble throwing him into danger is his mouth; guarding it is guarding his soul, but those inclined to their lips terrify their own future - for with a slip of my tongue I can behead my neck.
The Lakedaimonians had the insane law of training children in the art of stealing and ambushing, and they would be punished for being caught in the act and not for the act of stealing itself; yet as so Ksenophon might have said to a Lakedaimonian that he was the most fit for the endeavour of stealing the answer was the true nature of the democratic environment - as Cheirisophos said, the Athenians were the true masters at stealing as they dare to take from the public treasure even at great risk and trick them all as the very system thus perfectly selected for that master thief since those best at tricking the people were elected as magistrates.
Nicias, their most successful commander throughtout the decades of the grand war, chose to waste the Athenian army and die in battle, since he knew that the correct choice of retreat would stain his name with disgrace of unjust condenations and an inglorious death by criminal execution ; that is all the ignorant people would see, promptly forgetting any responsibility for their vote and simply seeking a scapegoat to take on the blame for any misfortune that may happen , rather than any qualification to judge if good measures were instead thwarted by evil fortunes .
That is what the democratic environment selects for; far distant to any benefit the blind whim of the masses selects for the very opposite of being honest and saying an unpleasant truth - be it told to the people or to his party members."
To which a note comments at that last paragraph: "There is a very simplistic ‘argument’ that the public sector simply does not pay enough; that the high jobs as that of senators are one of the most important and valuable for the nation, but the pay is insignificant compared to management jobs on the private sector - and increasing the pay of those few to hundreds of thousands per month would not make any difference on the great coffers of the nation while thus making it more competitive and attractive for the most talented men to actually seek that job.
While there is some clear logic to it, and as a kid I would impress people by repeating that opinion taken from others, the truth is very different; as shown what the democratic environment selects for, and it is left unchanged by that higher attractive, so that greater competition would merely exacerbate the problem selecting even more intensively for the greatest scoundrels - be they wittingly evil in strategically buying out the masses and colleagues or genuinely stupid follow his fantastical ideals which happened to convince the masses."
Yes
the book Zac mentioned was Good Chaps: How Corrupt Politicians Broke Our Law and Institutions - And What We Can Do About It, I finished i last week and it is a really good read
MP's are not underpaid at all they get 85k plus expenses
I agree with zac. Once you're elected you shouldnt be able to have any other job, but you get a comfortable pension for life.
But I dont see why the PM should be paid so much more than an MP. Like if an mp is paid £150,000 then maybe a minister should be paid £200,000 and the PM £250,000, but not £350,000 or £500,000
Maybe we should pay all public servants more so that we have the best people in all public serving roles.
Or make the roles performance based so you get less bloat, more efficiency and productivity.
How about as an MP they don't pay you if you have another revenue stream. So an mp will be paid £85K minus what they earn elsewhere.
So if you made £40K doing a show you'd only get £45K for your MP work.
If you earn more then £85K elsewhere then you get nothing.
Or apply Universal Credit rules - your attendance allowance is reduced by 65p for every pound you earn elsewhere.
@@rmsgrey well I'm proposing you lose a £1 for every £1 you earn elsewhere.
@@samueldorrington8990 The trouble with reducing the value of getting paid (less than £85k) to zero is you then give MPs a competitive advantage - they're effectively working for free over a wide range of pay, so why should they charge market rate when they can undercut it?
@@rmsgrey sorry, can you explain again. I don't understand.
@@samueldorrington8990 If you get the same money whether I pay you £15 an hour or £150 an hour, while someone else doing the same job would get more money the more I paid them, you can say "I'll work for you for £50 an hour" so I then save £100 per hour over hiring the other guy - and you get to establish yourself in the job ready for when you stop being an MP.
And maybe you have a close personal friend who wants a secretarial position with very light duties who gets paid the same as you do, but since that money isn't going to an MP, that close personal friend can spend it on whatever the must-have accoutrements for the well-kept mistress are these days...