Well now here's a thing. I think that MP's are underpaid for the responsibility they undertake. Unfashionable view, mebbes. But my opinion nevertheless.
Mmm... well you do first need to look at what qualifications you need to pass in order to do the job. I suspect it may be none. You might think that all you have to do is hang around for a while in the right circles and then you'll get what is more likely than not to be a plum job paid at 3 or 4 times the average wage. And there seem to be a welter of e.g. Tory MPs who manage to be able to hold down other jobs outside of Parliament which increase their income multifold. If it was full time how come they all can earn a crust e.g. writing this that or the other? And when you leave you seem to find a job quite easily half way up, or further, the greasy pole. The ones who end up in the limelight are by and large those who love the attention anyway. It's a form of stage. Many are attracted to it. They don't have to look that good or be able to demonstrate too much talent. They do have the front that most don't. Which I suppose is a form of qualification. They recite the party lines as best they can. And get well rewarded for it. Underpaid? Mmmm......
To me the fact that there are no prescribed qualifications for our representatives can only be a good thing. Otherwise you'd wind up with only the likes of Cameron, May, Osborne, Johnson or Diane Abbott as MP's. Far more important that the candidate actually has the attributes and/or life experience to do the job. I would have thought that a mix of people could only be a good thing. Fair to say that some do it better than others, and for varying degrees of self or public interest. But when done well, I'd aver that the role carries a high degree of responsibility which ought to be rewarded at least as well as the role of a headteacher - which it currently isn't.
Performance related pay perhaps? I'd like to see an accepted formula for that It is a hard job if done with full commitment. But it has sufficient reward in my view without the need for wage increase, and especially so when MPs have had relatively dramatic pay rises recently when the rest in the public sector haven't.
I'm in two minds about MPs pay - they are paid a lot and get perks (especially expenses) that we wouldn't, but it is pretty much two full-time jobs - they are expected to be in London doing the Parliament thing and in their constituency helping the residents. The good ones would be successful in many different roles in life (and have been previously), but some of them wouldn't be able to hold down a proper job.
I agree MP's are underpaid if you want the best 650 people in the country doing the job. However their motives for standing as MP's are often dubious - and when they get the "job" their motives for choosing which causes to focus on then can become dubious. I think the MP's should be allowed to choose their own individual salary. But it must be on the ballot paper when they are elected and they stick on that salary for the next 5 years adjusted by the same percentage as every other public servant.
Well I Certainly don't. .. Remember they so claim loads in expenses, and most of them have second, third and fourth jobs. How many other people would be allowed to have so many other jobs when their main one is supposed to be serving the people who elected them. ...
