Any donatioms welcome as always.
Absolutely useless. Selfish. Greedy. Corrupt. Spineless. Stupid. Lying scum.
These aren’t just the words we reserve for journalists after Covid. They are also the words we use to describe, on the whole, those who represent us in Parliament.
I’m not here to argue the case for the current house. I’m here to suggest why paying MPs £250k a year – or just under three times the C.£90k they earn today – offers the prospect of dramatically improving how they serve us. It will shock you to know one of the reasons this argument isn’t made more strongly by the major parties or the MPs in the house is that they know it harms the current status quo. They know it preserves power and influence in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. I’m even using Corbyn lines now. But even he didn’t suggest this and with good reason.
What are the arguments then for doing this? Well here are my top ones.
1. Breadth and quality of candiate
If we want clever and bright people to apply for normal reasons, the pay must compete. I don’t care how civic minded someone is. I care how good a job they can do. Pay elicits the best quality and experience. It isn’t perfect. But it works in general.
The wage offered and the public exposure is about as enticing to someone with an IQ over 58 that no one in their right mind sane would apply. I work in finance and Analyst positions can pay upto £75k now for someone with 3 years post qualified experience (so 6 years since leaving university and 3 doing an accountancy qualification) to month end reports. This is absurd. If 25 year olds can earn as much as those you want to run your country and they don’t have to go on morning news and explain how to stop migrant boats. Which way will the talent go?
2. Break the two party system
The only realistic way to win election is by becoming a member of a party that will fund your campaign. So the mad are taken under the wing of parties and they have expectations of their candidates from day 1. So much for free speech or the needs of constituents. If you want to be elected you play by the party rules and thought demands.
With the prospect of a salary of £250k more may be willing to enter and compete against this model. Choosing to borrow to fund their own campaigns. Being open about that and now free to speak their own mind the constituents should see genuine locally compassionate and nuanced campaigns to vote for. Not more of the same. And look. This person is taking a risk to compete here. They mean it. Can you say the same of the Labour or Tory candidate?
At the very least this challenges the old world even if in the short-term it elicits few elected independent MPs. I would go further, but not for this essay, to say funding for independent campaigns should be made available by the state to foster democracy like this. The candidate shouldn’t need to borrow. We want debate and challenge you would think.
Jeremy Corbyn or Rishi Sunak. Neither would advocate this model as they know it helps the old parties retain their stranglehold over the reigns of polticial power. Any leader knows a salary of £250k a year would mean they lose out. To you.
So MP’s aren’t about to tell you this is a good idea folks. As counter-intuitive as this may seem.
£1.25m of potential earnings for a 5 year Parliament would mean more independent candidates would enter the fray, invest in campaigns and challenge the status quo. The major parties sometimes can’t even afford to stand candidates in each constituency already. Imagine how much weaker even Labour or the Conservatives would become if forced to compete with well funded and resourced campaigns by independents in their strongholds. It would bring down the old party world. They couldn’t afford to compete.
3. No more second jobs
Today by virtue of such low pay for MPs we allow them the grey area of second jobs or funding for offices that allows influence over them at the expense of your influence over them.
This is a recipe for failure. By paying them £250k they have no right to be out moonlighting. If they want to do radio or TV work then donate it all to charity. The game of “reasonable money on the side” which inevitably seems to also miraculously lead to board roles after their time in parliament ends with the very businesses they advised ends.
Close the door on corruption by making the reason why they do it not plausible to anyone. If you earn £250k a year to work as an MP, get on with the job for contituents.
4. Self-reinforcing model of voters first
Given they are paid £250k and that is more than most will earn in the private sector if they lost their elected status they will become ever more focused on re-election prospects. Which means constituency needs are the priority, then party or whoever else. They can’t try and ride waves. If your potholes aren’t fixed like they said then boot them out. They won’t make as many promises they can’t keep now their wage is a real loss to them if booted out.
There are more arguments, but these are the key ones I’d make.
Yes, those today in the house don’t deserve this pay. I struggle to think of more than a handful that might. We mustn’t let this deter us from the opportunity at hand. These MPs are the evidence of why the current system has been shown to have failed. They are not evidence of what higher pay can achieve.
Pay people so much they can’t afford not to listen to you dear voters.