Skip to main content

In defence of MPs salaries

Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph points out some interesting information about public sector expenditure.

As always, the most juicy bits are the salaries. In transport for London (TfL), for example there are 231 people are paid more than £100,000. The UK Treasury has 21.

Meanwhile it may be worth remembering that an MP has a salary of £64,766.

The Chief Executive of Shrewsbury Council earned £335,000 last year. The Head of TfL earned £494,884

It may be worth recalling that the Prime Minister earned £197,689.

Although I think "Sir" Nicholas Winterton has been one of the more egregious expenses cheats, and a pompous ass to boot, the media shit storm about his annoyance at losing his free first class rail travel seems a bit overdone. After all first class rail travel is a privilege that is extended to all officers in the army above the rank of Major.

MPs have become every one's whipping post, but at least 80% of them try to do a good job in not particularly great working conditions and actually quite poor remuneration, when one considers the rest of the public sector.

I, for one, hope that the new Parliament resents the outrageous larding of public sector pay and conditions so much that this is where they start the bonfire of the public sector vanities.


My wife recently decided to buy an "Oyster card", a thing provided by TfL which enables you to pre-pay for travel in London and which has just been extended to cover where we live in south-east London, served by overground rail rather than the underground network.

Well, the information provided on this, and the on-line system used to purchase one was appalling. We still have not got a straight answer from anyone on exactly how the charging system works. Every employee you ask at a counter gives you a different answer. The literature is just so badly written. The web-site is worse. As just a simple example, you are supposed to register your card, but the literature calls this process by one name in one place, by another name in another place, and the web-site calls it by a third name, and has such a tiny non-obvious link to how you do it that we spent ages trying to work out how to do it. This is just one example of bad design. The only reason I have not written a letter of complaint to TfL, is that the simple process of buying an Oyster card from them has amassed a dossier of bad practices on which I could write a whole dissertation. I haven't had time to sit down and write to them all that I want to write to them. I am looking at this from my professional role as an educator in IT, so I do have some professional knowledge in good communication and things like design of human interfaces. If a student of mine produced a website as bad as TfL's Oyster card site, I'd give that student a very low grade.

All this to say - TfL employ 231 people on a salary of over £100,000 yet they can't employ anyone who van design a decent website, or employ a little bit of general common sense and customer know-how to pick up all the things wrong with their website which I did in just an hour or so of using it.

I'd be happy to do the job of pointing out what is wrong with their website and suggesting improvements to it for half of £100,000, which would still be more than I get paid as a university lecturer with 20 years experience.
Anonymous said…
Although salaries of £300K plus for a local authority chief executive do seem excessive - in no way does a backbench MP merit a salary signiificantly higher than they are getting. They just don't have the responsibility. Neither do they need to put in years of study as do doctors - whose salaries seem to be a frequent aspiration for MPs.

I do think it is wrong that a local authority chief executive is paid more than the prime minister - I think the PM should be paid a higher salary than he gets now.

I'm also not in favour of doing away totally with MPs 2nd homes expenses/allowance in favour of paying all MPs a higher salary. That is a stupid idea which would make MPs not needing a 2nd home intrinsically better off than their peers.
KelvinKid said…
I would be a lot more impressed with your condemnation of public sector salaries if you had compared them to comparable jobs in the private sector.
Cicero said…
KelvinKid- The private sector generates wealth and whether we use one or another firm and thus subscribe to the directors pay is optional. Meanwhile public sector pay comes out of our pockets whether we wish it or not and is generally not performance related. Private sector pay is a matter for private shareholders. Public sector pay has fallen through the recession: public sector pay has continued to rise.

Matthew- I do think your points are absolutely on the money.

Anonymous- I do think we should be more thoughtful and less angry about Parliament
Dr Kevin said…
i would be interested to know how you measure the fact that 80% of MP's do a good job ?

is that statistic verfiable in any way ?
Cicero said…
Dr Kevin, well I think Yes, but as always it depends on what you are measuring. If you go to you can find a series of objective measures: amount of casework, speed in answering queries, questions asked and so on. The message seems quite clear to me that most MPS put in long hours both in their constituencies and at the House of Commons. Most of them are pretty tireless in seeking to improve the lot of their constituents. It is even true that most of them did not so much cheat in their expenses as were caught out by complicated rules- and the amounts of money involved were a few hundred not tens of thousands.
Where they do cheat or are lazy or useless, they should be punished, but our electoral system does not allow choices between candidates of the same party so in a "safe seat" it is next to impossible to get rid of them. Funnily enough the most disgraceful behaviour of MPs is almost entirely amongst MPs in safe seats- I don't think that is co-incidence

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo