During the MP Expenses farrago, John Mann MP (Labour, Bassetlaw) was one of a relatively small number who impressed me by their performance.

This is a section from Thursday’s Daily Politics, which is an exchange between Jack Straw MP, John Mann MP, BBC Presenter Jo Coburn, and Nick Herbert MP (Conservative, Arundel), about the recent ‘research’ suggesting that MPs think they deserve a much larger salary.

Jack Straw launches a series of (mainly untrue) diversionary attacks on journalists, claiming that most criticising MPs earn more than MPs, while actually the critique comes mainly from the public.

Spring-Heeled Jack suggests that £65,726, which on it’s own puts your basic MP in roughly the top 5% of the population by income, plus generous expenses for their London pads, plus a food allowance, plus extra money for committee responsibilities etc, plus a gold-plated pension, plus all the rest, was not enough for the poor things.

From 2’45″ John Mann explains why this is essentially exactly the same tissue of bollocks (apologies to Anna – no other word would suffice here) that it was last time.

But John Mann also said something else even more interesting in an exchange later on, which I haven’t seen anyone pick up on yet. This is verbatim, from 8’00″.

Jo Coburn: Should a General Secretary of a Union be paid a Six Figure Salary.

John Mann MP: If it was my Union I’d get it reduced.

Jo Coburn: Thank-you. Thank-you very much, John Mann. Got a clear answer there !

Brillo: I think his Union’s General Secretary is a worried man.

John Mann, according to his Linked In profile, and other places, is a Member of both Unite and the GMB.

A quick check of the Unite return on the Certification Officer’s website reveals that the General Secretary Len McCluskey received in his package, in 2011:

Gross Salary – £101,385

Pension Contributions – £14,782

Car Benefit – £6,247

Total Package Value – £122,434

We should acknowledge that that is quite significantly less than the eyewatering £186,626 received by Derek Simpson in 2009-10.

The return for the GMB does not contain the equivalent information, but the Taxpayer’s Alliance have figures from 2011, which includes Paul Kenny of the GMB:

That’s a John Mann quote to remember for 2015.

(26/1/2012: Article updated to exclude NI Contributions from Len McCluskey’s reward  package.)

StormInATeacup
January 28, 2013 at 17:31

Put MPs on minimum wage as their basic salary, then bring in performance
related pay – if you are the chancellor & said you would reduce the
deficit by X%, you get a substantial bonus for actually doing so. All MPs
would also have to submit timesheets each month, and would only be paid for
the hours actually worked as an MP – attending the house (and being awake), in
government meetings (not party ones), meeting constituents and/or replying to
correspondence etc etc.

binao January 29, 2013 at 11:34

I see squeaker Bercow has joined the call for more money for the poor
underpaid MPs.
So that should kill it stone dead

dak January 28, 2013 at 00:57

I think that MPs should be paid in excess of six times the UK average wage
(which would be about £176,000 p.a.). In this way we could attract people of
real quality instead of the party placemen we have now and we would have many
more independents.

Also, local councillors should be on about £80,000, for the same
reason.

I make much more than MPs do now and I seem to do very little for it
(private sector).

JOHYN MALPAS
January 27, 2013 at 00:33

bully for thew GPs . Would you want to put up with the common folk

Cascadian January 26, 2013 at 21:08

Pay them the private sector comparable (if you can find one) I say. I am
feeling benevolent today.

Cameron is equivalent to a CEO of perpetually under-performing, expensive
to run corporation-he should do as Lee Iacocca did, slash his salary to
£1/year until the company starts paying its way, the budget is reduced and
chunks of the debt are being paid back annually, all union employees pay is
frozen until such time. Union-exempt employees need to show a higher degree of
urgency towards the problem. Cabinet ministers (the equivalent of a
vice-president) should take a 50% cut until their budgets are bought into
balance, when that is achieved we’ll talk about a salary review based on
performance. MP’s who are little more than trained seals, jumping up and
sitting down in the commons at the Speakers behest could have their
compensation set as a bucket of Great Yarmouth herrings/day. But lets be fair,
it seems the “job” mainly attracts recent graduates from obscure universities
with little work experience, what does the city pay for similar experience?
£15,000 max? with increases tied purely to a proportion of the decrease in
Debt, if it increases, salary is reduced. Expenses? nope, you can have a free
second-class season ticket to your constituency, thats all. Long service
MP’s-sorry your time is done, you did no good, start looking for a real job,
you know, like what you always boast that you are qualified for, we wish you
well. Some will say this will encourage graft and corruption-maybe so, then
the prime minister needs to re-enact the crime of treason tomorrow, punishment
upon conviction public hanging at Parliament Square within two days. It will
only happen once, I assure you.

These morons do not realise that had they worked in the private sector
their “company” would long since been in bankruptcy and they would be
wandering the streets with a cardboard sign looking for work, their pension of
course would also have disappeared.

Once the union plebs start to feel the pain I assure you the Union boss
compensation problem will be resolved swiftly.

Andy January 26, 2013 at 17:04

I have just two questions: –

Who funds the pay of the union bosses?

Who funds the pay of the MPs?

I look on MPs as being part of the public sector. They should stay in line
with the public sector and accept: –

Pay freezes
Career average pensions

Matt
Wardman January 26, 2013 at 18:03

One problem with that is comparisons with GPs, who are averaging around
£110-120k in the public sector.

Which is some 10s of k above GPs elsewhere.

Agreed on the freezes and pensions.

Farmer January 26, 2013 at 18:46

You should see how much GPs earn in Ireland

Mudplugger
January 26, 2013 at 20:51

Slight correction, Matt. Most GPs are NOT in the public sector – they
operate as ‘commercial partnerships’ (your local GP Group Practice),
selling most of their services to one major customer, the NHS. It has
always been thus since the NHS started, being the only way governments,
then and now, could persuade the grasping medics to join in.

The £120k figure is an average of what they decide to pay themselves
(as ‘partners’) from the ‘annual profits’ of their commercial
enterprise.

However, when it suits them (such as pensions), they choose to
piggy-back onto the generous NHS scheme – quelle surprise ! It’s called
having your cake and eating it. Again, sloppy governments have allowed
this continuing deceit to happen.

Matt
Wardman January 29, 2013 at
06:11

That’s near enough for me for a short piece
, particularly with the pensions.

GildasTheMonk
January 26, 2013 at 14:55

Cheeky bastards. Great figures Matt

Mudplugger January 26, 2013 at 13:47

The starting point for any salary level should be to recognise that it’s a
market-place and the ‘employers’ need to offer an adequate package to attract
enough applicants.

Given that there are currently 650 MPs, but that 3000 people applied for
the vacant positions, then I would conclude that the current reward package
satisfies the requirement. If the number of applicants were ever to drop
below, say 1000, then perhaps the package should be reviewed upwards.

JohnS January 26, 2013 at 14:42

Mudplugger “Given that there are currently 650 MPs, but that 3000 people
applied for the vacant positions”

I assume that 3,000 was the number of actual candidates. The number is
several times higher if you include people who tried but failed to be
adopted as a candidate by the various parties (many of whom no doubt would
have been better, certainly less subservient, MPs).

Mudplugger
January 26, 2013 at 16:58

To be honest, 3,000 was an estimate (couldn’t be arsed looking it up) –
but I like your point that the true total should include all those who
failed even to win a party candidacy. Let’s call it 10,000 min ?
Even
more reason to consider the current reward package adequately
attractive.

Daniel
Thomas January 26, 2013 at 13:38

In my experience renumeration packages are usually adjusted to reflect
market value for any particular position or skill. As far as I can see there
are no comparible positions for MP’s outside of the incestuous political
world. This applies especially to career politicians that jumped on the
political gravy train straight from school.

Members of Parliament, particulaly multi term backbenchers, would be like
fish out of water in the real world therefore they are worthless. This fact
should be reflected in their current renumeration packages.

Being an MP should be treated as public duty after a working life in the
real world of business and industry not a comfortable, well rewarded career
which leads to complacency and corruption.

ivan January 26, 2013 at 15:59

Hear, hear!!

Backwoodsman
January 26, 2013 at 18:55

When I’m in full ‘foaming at the mouth mode’, I frequently think along
the same lines, re MP’s experience.
……..Then I think of all the civil
servants who have retired early on gold plated index-linked pensions and
currently infest Dorset and energetically campaign (so far unsuccessfully,
thank God) for the limpdims and the idea seems less attractive !

Jeremy
Poynton January 26, 2013 at 13:02

When you fact in their very generous pension allowances, out in the real
world, MPs would have to earn £83k+ to achieve the same pension

Enough said. They do not need or deserve a pay rise