A Wage Increase For Our MPs...

Iain Dale has a post up arguing for the rise in MPs pay, and there are a couple of paragraphs in there that are very telling. Not so much about Dale's thoughts, but about the whole debate around MPs pay.

MPs still get paid less than a Deputy Head Teacher, a GP or a senior Health Service manager. I happen to think that if we want people to pass laws over us we should be attracting top class people into politics, rather than some of the dross we have got at the moment on all sides of the House. The desire to serve the public is a vital part of all of this, but that doesn't mean MPs should have to wear hairshirts the whole time.

I'm not saying £65,000 is peanuts, but it's certainly attracting too many monkeys.

Let's deal with this bit by bit.

First of all, does the fact that MPs earn less than a Deputy Head Teacher, GP or senior health service manager automatically mean that an MP deserves to be paid more? Is the job of an MP - which is effectively lobby fodder mixed with working for the Citizens' Advice Bureau - really worth more than a GP? And let's be a bit controversial here - can we really be sure that a Deputy Head, GP or a senior health service manager (whatever that is) isn't overpaid as well?

We need to be attracting those most suited to the job to become MPs. That doesn't mean that we have to attract those who are lusting after as much money as possible. In fact, I'd argue that those motivated by money are not going to be the best to become MPs. The pay should be a lesser factor - the desire to be a public servant should be foremost in the minds of applicants (which, in fairness, Dale alludes to. Sort of.)

Furthermore, while I do want our politicians to be wearing hairshirts all of the time, most people don't. And they probably would have been happy with the amount MPs earn as a salary - before they discovered that MPs were rinsing the taxpayer dry through various expenses fiddles. People were happy for politicians to take home a decent salary, and then some of them took the piss. Hell, some of them not only took the piss, but spat in the face of the taxpayer and dissed the taxpayer's mother. At a time when the respect for British politicians is probably at an all time low, it seems curious that anyone - even an independent body - would be advocating paying them more.

And £65,000 - well, giving the figures around the average salary in this country, it is a lot for the majority of people. In fact, it is at least £30k more than the average person earns in this country. But I'd argue that the reason why we are getting monkeys - and self-serving monkeys who only interrupt their fiscal onanism to fling shit in the taxpayer's face at that - is because entering the Commons has been such a good gravy train to jump aboard. The concept of a public servant needs to dwell in the servant side of things - and part of that, even if it doesn't require an actual sacrifice - does require something other than a desire to make as much money as possible.

I believe £65,000 is too much for an MP - particularly when you throw in the benefits they get on top of that. If I was an MP, then I would take £30k as a basic salary, and about £10k on top of that in expenses. I know I could do it because I have worked in Central London doing a job requiring a lot of travel. But what puts me off being an MP isn't the salary, but rather the shit that goes with the job. Including the intrusive staring at the private lives of MPs, and the fact that the job really could be done by a trained chimp when it comes to activities in the Commons. For £65,000 a year I really do expect our elected officials to do something other than bray like a rabid mob at PMQ's, and traipse through the correct lobby on the instructions of a whip.

£65k a year for what we've got; I honestly believe we could have much better for far less.