MPs' falling pay
MPs' relative pay has been falling down the years. Inspired by this post by Raedwald, I looked at how their pay has changed relative to average earnings - and I was surprised.
A formal salary was introduced in 1911 at £400 a year. Had salaries risen in line with average earnings since then, MPs would now be paid over £140,000 a year. Had they risen in line with average earnings since 1964 (when the Lawrence Committee set pay at £3250 a year), they'd be paid £100,000.
In fact, their base salary is £61,820.
But here's a strange thing. When David Lloyd George introduced that £400 wage, he said it was "the minimum allowance to enable men to come here." Which suggests he had a fancy idea of the minimum.
Or did he? He thought such a sum was necessary to attract men "who would render incalculable service to the state."
I suspect we can agree that current MPs' salaries do not do this.
A formal salary was introduced in 1911 at £400 a year. Had salaries risen in line with average earnings since then, MPs would now be paid over £140,000 a year. Had they risen in line with average earnings since 1964 (when the Lawrence Committee set pay at £3250 a year), they'd be paid £100,000.
In fact, their base salary is £61,820.
But here's a strange thing. When David Lloyd George introduced that £400 wage, he said it was "the minimum allowance to enable men to come here." Which suggests he had a fancy idea of the minimum.
Or did he? He thought such a sum was necessary to attract men "who would render incalculable service to the state."
I suspect we can agree that current MPs' salaries do not do this.
Is this supposed to be some kind of ironic joke? £61,820 base, plus your TV license/kitchen/home repairs/etc etc etc paid for by the taxpayer, still not good enough?
Posted by: QuestionThat | May 27, 2008 at 05:10 PM
Unfortunately, many of the MPs that I am acquainted with tend to be Scottish Labour ones.
Far from helping their fellow man - or even their constituents - their main object is to line their own pockets.
I'm sure there are many " Good" MPs - people like Ron Brown, Tam Dalziel, The Beast of Bolsover spring to mind, and I'm sure there are many on the Tory side too. But I believe many do it for the money and not for love.
Posted by: kinglear | May 27, 2008 at 05:50 PM
Their level of responsibilities has also been falling so a fall in remuneration would be justified.
Posted by: chris strange | May 27, 2008 at 07:32 PM
Silly me, it is actually obvious that they are being overpaid. Where they paid the correct amount for what they produce is worth then the supply of potential legislators should ballance the demand for them, but it doesn't. Lets see how far it will fall until it does.
Posted by: chris strange | May 27, 2008 at 07:56 PM
I think using average earnings may be misleading, because I'm sure that working-class earnings have risen considerably faster than middle-class earnings since 1911, which would skew the multiplier upwards. A doctor in 1910 could be earning between £1000 and £2000 a year, as the source you quote points out, and (back of envelope calculation) an MP's stipend equates more to £40-60k than to £140k.
As for responsibilities, I'd argue that the reverse is true; the government's activities are far greater now than in 1911, and so MPs have more to oversee.
Posted by: ajay | May 28, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I'd be interested in ajay expanding on his claim about MPs having more to oversee.
Posted by: ukliberty | May 28, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Simple, pay MP's more but have less of them. With regional assemblies and European government they have little scope for work(legislating) now in any event. 400 would be plenty and they can have half the money saved as extra salary.
Posted by: cityunslicker | May 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM
MPs in reality have a compensation package equivalent to £115,000 (not including a fair valuation of their pension package).
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | February 19, 2009 at 02:37 PM