In the news

ideologically driven people doing the job, rather than excellent administrators

Careful now, your ideology is showing

Forgetting about MP salary for a moment, I'd quite like to see government ministers drug tested and security cleared (financial checks etc). Not because I necessarily think that people who take drugs or have dodgy finances can't be good at their jobs, its more about the principle that people leading government departments should be held to the same standards as their staff. See also accepting hospitality and using whatsapp for government business etc.

I think the problem is the same as it's always been. The sort of people who want to get into positions of power are rarely the people that the population would want to be in positions of power.

The narrative that all politicians are liars and all the same has played into the hands of the genuinely dodgy. Whataboutery around making opposition councillors try to sound the same as MPs using their influence to spaff hundreds of millions of public pounds are part of that. Not to say that we should accept any sort of dodgyness from public officials.

The proposals for the changes to the crime of "Misconduct in public office" would be a first step perhaps...

An offence of corruption in public office: which would apply where a public office holder knowingly uses or fails to use their public position or power for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment, where that behaviour would be considered seriously improper by a “reasonable person”. A defendant to this offence will have a defence if they can demonstrate that their conduct was, in all the circumstances, in the public interest.

The salary thing is a Thatcherite red herring, yes.

What would improve MPs behaviour is effective regulation: a strict code of conduct and financial regulation, and a disciplinary body with active investigatory powers backed up with funding and claws.

What would improve MPs behaviour is effective regulation: a strict code of conduct and financial regulation, and a disciplinary body with active investigatory powers backed up with funding and claws.

Actual sanctions for breaking the rules. Instant dismissal for serious incidents. Warning for first offence, dismissal for second for less serious. Same as their staff.

I think an MP salary is attractive but attractive to a lot of chancers that would fail any round of interviews for a job with the same salary in the real world.

Happy to be corrected but weren’t MPs originally all the landed gentry who did a bit of public admin out of ‘noblesse oblige’ so the salary was an afterthought?

There are loads of jobs in government/civil service paying more than that because they need to attract serious people to actually do stuff, not Mark Francois.

Being an MP was unpaid until the early 20th century. Pay was introduced to make it viable for people who did not have an independent source of income.

The majority of the cabinet for the last 10 years have been independently wealthy (i.e. part of the millionaire / billionaire class), and not reliant on MP or ministerial salary, which sort of suggests that we are back in the 19th century.

Of course it isn't a fixed rule, but higher pay is generally likely to attract higher ability people. This is apparent in both the public and private sector. Why wouldn't this apply to MPs?

It's near-impossible to do that, because of the idea that Parliament has to regulate its own affairs to retain the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.

They could create a body to regulate their affairs (e.g. IPSA, Parliamentary Standards Committee) but there's no way you could stop them voting to change or amend them to make them less favourable to their friends.

So much of our system (in fact the entire doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty) relies on trust, which is why it's so important to elect the right people.

Honestly, how "good" do we need them to be at the job. It's currently at least half done by a bunch of self serving, emotionally illiterate, entitled arseholes phoning it in for a few hours a week between engagements and pocket lining exercises, the heavy lifting is all sorted by underlings. The job should be to engage with local people and convey what they want on a national level, I don't think you need to be the best of the best to do that and if you are, maybe your time is better spent elsewhere. There should be a minimum requirement of time spent doing certain things, such as engaging with locals at surgeries or whatever, actually sitting and debating issues on their behalf and voting should be allowed virtually for times when sitting isn't practical. I'm sure that someone with half a brain and a functioning heart is preferably to the opposite when the opposite can only be convinced that serving the public is worthwhile if their over inflated salary matches the over inflated salary of those heading the world's private sector decline into the abyss.

It's currently at least half done by a bunch of self serving, emotionally illiterate, entitled arseholes

Shouldn't we aspire to better?

Because as is evidenced in this discussion, the comparison of MP salary is always made to national averages and/or a nurses salary rather than appropriate peer group.
It would be interesting to get a load of recruitment consultants, give them an MP job description(does this exist?), create a person spec, log the working hours, location and see what they came up with as a salary.

I find the idea that a qualifier to be an MP is to be prepared to sacrifice their own situation bizarre.

Turns the position into a quasi-religeous thing, surely? Martyr to the cause of public service.

If we instead looked for competent administrators with a firm grasp of how to make something work, instead of looking for those with a religious fervour to drive free-market ideals without ever having made said ideals work might that not be better?

I guess it is supposed to be classed as a vocation rather than a job, you don't really want people attracted by the salary and them looking to change roles in two years because they have been head hunted

Why not? Better to have people sticking around for 35 years an treating it as a sinecure? Higher turnover of MPs would be a net positive.

We need fewer acquisitive types in parliament! Let’s make it so the job is more attractive to people who are motivated by money!

Fun paradox guys.

Have you worked somewhere with a high turnover of senior managers? You just land up with endless restructure, new initiatives and transformation and by the time they get on top of their brief they leave with everyone still reeling from the changes they have made and nothing implemented long enough to deliver a benefit before being reshaped by the next person

vocation rather than a job

Which is what we've always done, and ended up with the current bunch of talentless, venal cunts.

We need fewer acquisitive types in parliament! Let’s make it so the job is more attractive to people who are motivated by money!

Fun paradox guys.

You are suggesting that the current bunch are not motivated by money?

I think you need to re-examine your position here.

I would argue you would get more turnover and better performance if they were properly regulated and disciplined rather than paying them more, if you know you can't be sacked why would you be motivated to excel?

Have you worked somewhere with a high turnover of senior managers?

I don't think it'd be any worse than what we currently have. Or rather, I think that's what we currently have - it compares to the ministerial roundabout that we all put up with.

Every five years all the dice are thrown in the year, and then on top of that then there's a twice - three times a year reshuffle (at the whim of of one bloke) to either reward loyalty or remove people away from departments before the consequences of their actions catch up with them. It nevers seems to be "X, you've had a lifelong passion in education and 20 years experience of LEA admin, why don't you be education secretary"

Shouldn't we aspire to better?

100%, bit I don't think that's done by paying overpaid people more and hoping that paying them more money will result in them not trying to half arse a job and swindle more money.

I don't think further inflating MPs' salaries to 7 or 8x the national average is going to help much.

Like that’s already an insane amount of money to earn (compare to what the average earning).

Your position about an hour ago was that they are too motivated by ideology, pick a lane

I also don't think it's a quasi religious thing to want serve people despite being able to earn more elsewhere, the idea that the only reward from work or production is monetary is one of the bigger problems we face and that not being paid well over the odds is some kind of sacrifice is laughable, everyone deserves a fair wage for the work they do, the over inflated wages at the tops of banking and industry are a symptom of the problem, not an aspiration.
As well as MPs already getting plenty of money, the issue of not really being able to become an MP unless you can already afford wait until you get elected for a wage because you're independently wealthy or have the backing of a major party through connections is an issue. I reckon split an MPs job into elected MP and proportionately locally elected MPs assistants ideally from across the political spectrum (probably top 4 people on your voting card), assistants help the MP fulfill their voted for vision but are paid a living wage to do MPly admin duties around the constituency on MPs behalf say 3 days a week, when elections come round the electee gets bumped to MPs full time job and average UK wage, if MP loses office they're free to do living wage work 3 days a week or fuck off to a corruption committee approved job. Any skulduggery at any level is punished properly, with proper public warnings, fines, jail time, bans from office or all four. I'm convinced if you made it an actual job, with actual work and actual consequences for fucking it up then most of the people currently in charge would be uninterested in or unqualified to do it and we'd all be a lot better off for that.

I am guessing lack of Money isn't the problem, look at Geoffrey Cox, has earnt millions while an MP from second jobs on top of his MP salary and still felt the need to claim expenses on a london property that he rents out, the issue isn't money it is weak rules and disciplinary procedures