Paying for your politicians

I once had it described to me that the USA had the best politicians money could buy! It took a few seconds for the humour of the comment to register!

However it does edge me toward my title. 

There has been a small rumpus here in the UK with yet another couple of MP's being "stung" apparently in the process of offering cash for questions. It is unfortunate that one of them is Jack Straw whom I have held in reasonable regard. He and Malcolm Rifkind deny any wrong doing it has to be said and I am not going to comment as I have not read the offending article. 

The point is though that it seems many MP's find it difficult to survive on their salary. 

An MP made this claim that the PM receives less than many GP's and headmasters of many schools. I have no problem with this. They are both doing proper jobs. I note that no one has mentioned how much lawyers and barristers make off the back of Legal Aid. Strange. 

I digress.

How should we remunerate our politicians? There are many, myself included, that think they already are. Their salary is £67000 which is three times the national average. They are also in receipt of quite staggering expenses which means their salary after tax is all theirs.

They can claim their rent/mortgage payments back for either their London residence or their constituency residence. Since the cost of property in London is SO extreme most make the tax payer fork out for the London property. So anywhere outside London a salary of £67000 gets you a lavish property and lifestyle to go with it. I have no problem with that bit of their expenses either. Tax payers should foot the bill for their representative to represent them in the capital. What we should do is consider moving the capital. Leicester is a far more central city for the rest of the UK than London currently is and housing is a fraction of the cost.

This would almost certainly remove politicians from the temptations of their fat cat city chums who are writing their own pay cheques (using a combination of their mobile phone number and the Ordnance Survey map reference point of their mansion) whilst perhaps focusing  their mind on what they were elected for i.e running the country. 

There is a good case for allowing MP's time to access and upgrade their skills. Some MP's are apparently doctors and dentists etc. Their tenure of office may be only 5 years so they may need to update skills for future employment. And that is fine. 

But allowing MP's to become director's of companies, some of whom may directly disable the MP's constituents (step forward Kenneth Clarke who has always supported the tobacco industry) and may even prevent them representing the views of constituents, that I have a problem with. I know Labour politicians are sometimes in the sway of trade unions. Trade unions are political movements so it is mildly more appropriate than being swayed by a vested industrial interests. My opinion as I am a member of a trade union, however if the union influence prevents the MP taking up the constituents views then that could also be wrong.

Political crackpot

So where does that leave us? A Politician recently claimed MP's would all be political crackpots if not allowed second jobs. What he forgets, and in my opinion shows his contempt for the electorate, is that we would have to elect them  first in which case the country would have the government it deserves.

So, in conclusion, I think the salary is just fine. I don't believe politicians should be in it for the money, but they should be remunerated for their time. If  the cost of being a politician in London is so gross do what the rest of the world has to do and move. If they want more money they should follow the PM's line (as given to the NHS) if you want more get a promotion or a different job. I have heard NHS Chief execs say that although they are paid way way above  the rest of us mortals it is less than they would get in Industry. And I same the same to MP's as I did to them - goodbye and switch the lights off as you leave.