The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Tezza1978]

Same with the Tories, there are voices saying Boris Johnson needs to come back. As I said in an earlier post, good competent people don't go into politics as, among other reasons, pay is higher and responsibility + public visibility lower in many other professions.

I truly can't stand Johnson and everything he stands for, he was an appalling Prime Minister in so many ways. I'd hate to have him back.

However in a binary choice between Johnson and the racist frog faced spiv, I'd pick Johnson every time.

 

[jfollows]

Same with the Tories, there are voices saying Boris Johnson needs to come back. As I said in an earlier post, good competent people don't go into politics as, among other reasons, pay is higher and responsibility + public visibility lower in many other professions.

People go into politics, at national level anyway, because they want to get something out of it.
There’s no way, whether or not I’m competent, that I’d ever have considered it. The pay isn’t good enough.
Boris Johnson is only in it for himself, he always has been. Completely untrustworthy.
The same applies to the Labour party under Keir Starmer, of course. I’d trust some of them, perhaps.

 

[ainsworth74]

There’s no way, whether or not I’m competent, that I’d ever have considered it. The pay isn’t good enough.

Plus add in the vitriolic hatred you'll get constantly, the threat of death or harm (two MPs killed in less than ten years, attacks on Constituency offices not uncommon), and the chance that you'll lose your job through no fault of your own and with very little notice.

Frankly it's a miracle we can manage to find enough people to do the job at all let alone people who might actually have some talents they can bring to the job.

 

[Topological]

Plus add in the vitriolic hatred you'll get constantly, the threat of death or harm (two MPs killed in less than ten years, attacks on Constituency offices not uncommon), and the chance that you'll lose your job through no fault of your own and with very little notice.

Frankly it's a miracle we can manage to find enough people to do the job at all let alone people who might actually have some talents they can bring to the job.

It comes up a lot, but we really need to increase the pay considerably. Get rid of expenses, ban additional jobs alongside being an MP, and provide accommodation in London as part of the job. People always get "offended" by the salaries, but realistically, being and MP is one of the most important jobs in the country and needs to compete with the private sector.

Seeing the protests recently I am reminded of a very important shift in British Politics. Since Blair went after Mondeo Man and added "New" to Labour there has been a big hole. Some deny it, some pretend it is not there, and others ruthlessly exploit it. Currently, we have Reform exploiting that void, but previously it was Johnson and before that UKIP and the BNP. The success of the exploitation has varied, thankfully the BNP did not do a great job.

The same applies in America, where the Democrats seem to be all about celebrity endorsements and the coastal cities rather than the working classes.

Closing the hole is a job for Labour, but it is a risk strategy and will upset some of Middle England. It will also upset the markets to close the gap. As a country, we need that gap plugging by Labour though, because if not the chances of a Trump figure emerging are too great. For those of us who will get clobbered by a progressive shift in Labour, we will just have to suck it up until 2029.

 

[jfollows]

I completely agree, but every time that MPs’ salaries are proposed to be increased, usually because of some independent body, there’s an outcry and the party leaders (who don’t generally need the money unless their name is Boris) veto the increase.
It stinks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Same with the Tories, there are voices saying Boris Johnson needs to come back. As I said in an earlier post, good competent people don't go into politics as, among other reasons, pay is higher and responsibility + public visibility lower in many other professions.

This slots nicely into the idea (for which I have some time) that we should have far fewer MPs but pay them a lot more so as to get the best people from all areas of industry.

 

[muz379]

I completely agree, but every time that MPs’ salaries are proposed to be increased, usually because of some independent body, there’s an outcry and the party leaders (who don’t generally need the money unless their name is Boris) veto the increase.
It stinks.

It is because we have a language in public life around MP's and even councillors where it is pretty mainstream to think "Oh they are all the same in it for themselves "

When actually there are several good examples of MP's and Councillors who do a good job for their constituents

And we haven't had leaders able to articulate that point and change the language in public life around those that represent us.

This slots nicely into the idea (for which I have some time) that we should have far fewer MPs but pay them a lot more so as to get the best people from all areas of industry.

Less national MP's elected by PR making nationally important strategic decisions .

Full time regional/local decision making bodies making local/regional decisions.

 

[edwin_m]

It is because we have a language in public life around MP's and even councillors where it is pretty mainstream to think "Oh they are all the same in it for themselves "

When actually there are several good examples of MP's and Councillors who do a good job for their constituents

And we haven't had leaders able to articulate that point and change the language in public life around those that represent us.

This is important, and "they're all as bad as each other" is one of the main reasons for Farage's success. The Tories proved themselves to be hopeless and Labour (despite some actual achievements) are giving the same impression, so the thinking is that if they've tried two lots of grifters who've messed things up, then why not turn to the only other lot with a reasonable chance of taking power. On closer inspection Reform are a mix of failed Tories and those with more sinister motivation, but at the moment who else looks like a credible alternative?

This slots nicely into the idea (for which I have some time) that we should have far fewer MPs but pay them a lot more so as to get the best people from all areas of industry.

Historically the idea has been to pay a reasonable but not excessive amount, so that it doesn't attract people who are just in it for the money. There isn't an easy answer to this - it could still be a motivation for people on low salaries, and some who could earn much higher pay elsewhere may be motivated by the side money they can make for themselves including by influencing policy to their personal advantage. We could look at making each MP's pay proportionate to what they earned before, but that doesn't really seem fair when one aim should be to have our representatives as a cross-section of society.

I think perhaps the answer includes a ban on side jobs (other than to keep up professional credentials, where any pay would be deducted from their parliamentary salary) and a much stricter enforcement on people financially exploiting current or recent political roles. But this doesn't tackle those people who have big financial interests (or their friends do) in the outcome of a policy decision they are responsible for.

 

[Topological]

This is important, and "they're all as bad as each other" is one of the main reasons for Farage's success. The Tories proved themselves to be hopeless and Labour (despite some actual achievements) are giving the same impression, so the thinking is that if they've tried two lots of grifters who've messed things up, then why not turn to the only other lot with a reasonable chance of taking power. On closer inspection Reform are a mix of failed Tories and those with more sinister motivation, but at the moment who else looks like a credible alternative?

Historically the idea has been to pay a reasonable but not excessive amount, so that it doesn't attract people who are just in it for the money. There isn't an easy answer to this - it could still be a motivation for people on low salaries, and some who could earn much higher pay elsewhere may be motivated by the side money they can make for themselves including by influencing policy to their personal advantage. We could look at making each MP's pay proportionate to what they earned before, but that doesn't really seem fair when one aim should be to have our representatives as a cross-section of society.

I think perhaps the answer includes a ban on side jobs (other than to keep up professional credentials, where any pay would be deducted from their parliamentary salary) and a much stricter enforcement on people financially exploiting current or recent political roles. But this doesn't tackle those people who have big financial interests (or their friends do) in the outcome of a policy decision they are responsible for.

This is why I advocate for a much higher salary. No side jobs (though you make a good point about professional credentials, maybe there can be agreements for "leave" from the requirements of those though)

There is no stopping the introduction of more criminal offences around corruption.

I also think that if the salary was much higher the roles would be more competitive meaning that it would not be so easy to get the people with 'interested friends' into power. You can never eliminate the gaming of systems, but a more competitive environment would help.

Maybe we need to step further back and look at the candidacy processes. If it was required to have been out there pounding the pavements in "losing" constituencies before even getting to the winnable seats then it would further discourage those who were in it to help their friends. If it would clean up politics then I can see no reason not to offer graduate-level salaries for candidates to serve their local areas in a "probation" for becoming an MP.

 

[Chuffing Heck]

Mps/civil servants do very well they get a whole host of benefits on top of their pay, and when they screw up they can walk straight into a job in civvy street usually from the lobbyists!

 

[Railwaycat]

This slots nicely into the idea (for which I have some time) that we should have far fewer MPs but pay them a lot more so as to get the best people from all areas of industry.

Who've severed all connections with those industries that they were involved in once they got into politics....good luck with that!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2025 ==

Getting rid of the aircraft carriers is a complete non starter politically and I disagree - they are militarily useful.

Carriers 'vulnerable white elephants built to annoy China'

HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Prince of Wales and Type 45 Destroyers are examples of MOD's 'long tradition of procurement disasters', claims former MoD director who became chief executive of the European Defence Agency

www.plymouthherald.co.uk

Royal Navy carriers are 'vulnerable white elephants built to annoy China' says defence chief​

HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Prince of Wales and Type 45 Destroyers are examples of MOD's 'long tradition of procurement disasters', claims former MoD director who became chief executive of the European Defence Agency​

The situation is even worse now with the rapid development of drones.

Here's a more detailed,even and up to date assessment:

Britain’s aircraft carriers: a national embarrassment?

The Royal Navy’s £6bn carriers have been ridiculed by Russia and others as symbols of British decline and delusion, obsolete in the age of drones and ...

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

 

[Tetchytyke]

pay them a lot more so as to get the best people from all areas of industry.

I don’t think getting more MPs from the greedy CEO classes would be a good thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t think getting more MPs from the greedy CEO classes would be a good thing.

I do. These people know how to run the country efficiently; the present lot do not.

 

[Harpo]

I do. These people know how to run the country efficiently; the present lot do not.

Only the present lot?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I do. These people know how to run the country efficiently; the present lot do not.

Do they? Really?

You’re swallowing the “private sector means efficient” propaganda whole. In the vast majority of cases it isn’t true.

You also need to consider that rapacious corporate greed is a large part of the reason why the country is in such a mess and why nobody has any money.

There’s a “cost of living crisis” even for people like me. My household income is north of £130k a year. I am comfortable in that I can pay my mortgage and turn the heating on without worrying. I have no debt (except the mortgage) yet even then I certainly do not feel remotely wealthy.

Part of this is when I go shopping it costs 50% more than it did five years ago. Tesco are making record profits from robbing people blind. Their CEO gets ten million quid a year. No cost of living issues for him.

Government should be acting to control the worst excesses of the widespread corporate psychopathy we have now. Stuffing Westminster with yet more greedy CEOs won’t change that, it will make it worse.

The revolving door between industry and government (and the regulators) is already quite bad enough.

 

[JamesT]

Do they? Really?

You’re swallowing the “private sector means efficient” propaganda whole. In the vast majority of cases it isn’t true.

You also need to consider that rapacious corporate greed is a large part of the reason why the country is in such a mess and why nobody has any money.

There’s a “cost of living crisis” even for people like me. My household income is north of £130k a year. I am comfortable in that I can pay my mortgage and turn the heating on without worrying. I have no debt (except the mortgage) yet even then I certainly do not feel remotely wealthy.

Part of this is when I go shopping it costs 50% more than it did five years ago. Tesco are making record profits from robbing people blind. Their CEO gets ten million quid a year. No cost of living issues for him.

Government should be acting to control the worst excesses of the widespread corporate psychopathy we have now. Stuffing Westminster with yet more greedy CEOs won’t change that, it will make it worse.

The revolving door between industry and government (and the regulators) is already quite bad enough.

Tesco's profit margin is in single digits percentage-wise. They are a very efficient operator in a competitive market. But they are very large, revenue is tens of billions, so £10m to get who they think is the best is worth it to them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Tesco's profit margin is in single digits percentage-wise.

Yes, it is, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of fish.

"Oh they only make 7.7% margin!" Yeah, and that translates to an annual profit of over three billion quid. 10% increase in profit from 2024 to 2025 alone. No cost of living crisis for Ken Murphy. He passes it on to everyone else- mostly his own staff.

But Tesco are saying they're going to have to sack people because they "can't afford" to pay their staff the increased minimum wage. Pleading poverty on profits of three billion quid. Give me a break.

 

[J663738]

I don’t think getting more MPs from the greedy CEO classes would be a good thing.

*except in Wales!
Here, the gravy train just had an extra two carriages added, despite the overwhelming opposition from the general public.
When Starmer wonders why he did so badly in Wales, this is one of many reasons.

 

[JamesT]

Yes, it is, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of fish.

"Oh they only make 7.7% margin!" Yeah, and that translates to an annual profit of over three billion quid. 10% increase in profit from 2024 to 2025 alone. No cost of living crisis for Ken Murphy. He passes it on to everyone else- mostly his own staff.

But Tesco are saying they're going to have to sack people because they "can't afford" to pay their staff the increased minimum wage. Pleading poverty on profits of three billion quid. Give me a break.

If these companies were rapaciously greedy as you claim, wouldn’t they be squeezing every last bit of profit and have a higher profit margin?

The increase in staffing costs due to the higher minimum wage and the NI increase was half a billion. You don’t need too many of those before they start making a loss.

A little more focus on cost control wouldn’t be a bad thing for government, how often do their projects go over time and budget? Though perhaps that change needs to be in the civil service rather than the politicians.

 

[Magdalia]

Tesco's profit margin is in single digits percentage-wise. They are a very efficient operator in a competitive market.

The profit margin of the big supermarkets often gets mentioned in the news, it is 3-4%.

Part of this is when I go shopping it costs 50% more than it did five years ago.

There are two main drivers here. One is the cost of supplies. A particularly important factor is the price of wheat, because of the amount grown in Ukraine before the invasion. Anything that needs to be cooked is also affected by energy prices, so baked goods made with wheat flour have been particularly hard hit.

The other is labour costs. Supermarkets tend to pay above the minimum wage to retain staff, but increases in the minimum wage affect their staff costs because of the need to maintain the differential. They are also affected by increased labour costs in the supply chain.

 

[Topological]

*except in Wales!
Here, the gravy train just had an extra two carriages added, despite the overwhelming opposition from the general public.
When Starmer wonders why he did so badly in Wales, this is one of many reasons.

Isn't that the "red water" of Wales that Welsh Labour are going on about?

BBC Article on Red Water

Welsh Labour is setting itself apart from its UK counterpart, First Minister Eluned Morgan has said.

In an interview marking the start of the new Senedd term, she told Politics Wales she was "determined to make sure that people recognise" that in Wales, "we hold on to the values that have always set us apart".

 

[jon0844]

It comes up a lot, but we really need to increase the pay considerably. Get rid of expenses, ban additional jobs alongside being an MP, and provide accommodation in London as part of the job. People always get "offended" by the salaries, but realistically, being and MP is one of the most important jobs in the country and needs to compete with the private sector.

I think this is a good idea although realistically you can't get rid of expenses. The job means there will be loads of things where expenses will be incurred and you couldn't expect the employee to fund them out of their own pocket (whatever the salary they got). You could get rid of the system and require expenses to be covered by a credit/debit card that is issued to them - with strict rules on what can and can't be claimed, and harsh penalties for fraudulent use (like perhaps jail time for repeat offences).

If you completely overhauled the system then you wouldn't need to have politicians voting for their own pay rises. The grades would be all new. Pay rises could be linked to inflation, but with the understanding that so would the minimum wage etc.

Likewise, having accommodation provided or an allowance would also make sense. Let people keep their existing properties (the role of MP isn't a job for life, so your own home shouldn't be factored in). If an MP has a long way to travel, give them a season ticket or another allowance for travel by car. Basically, do what is done for employees of private businesses up and down the country. I would have no issue with an MP having a season ticket and enjoying the benefit of free leisure travel as a result - as any season ticket holder would.

I would also like to see minimum attendance levels imposed so MPs do have to turn up every now and then for debates and votes, or at the very least develop a voting system that requires all MPs to take part - not to do deals with each other so they can all stay away.

The current system is not working, and even though I expect more MPs are honest than dishonest, the perception is now such that all MPs are corrupt and on the take.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this is a good idea although realistically you can't get rid of expenses. The job means there will be loads of things where expenses will be incurred and you couldn't expect the employee to fund them out of their own pocket (whatever the salary they got). You could get rid of the system and require expenses to be covered by a credit/debit card that is issued to them - with strict rules on what can and can't be claimed, and harsh penalties for fraudulent use (like perhaps jail time for repeat offences).

As a formerly prolific business traveller I don't understand the issue with expenses - it's just people who don't know how that all works.

However the expenses should be, as they are for a business:
1. Paid only against receipts, other than small non-receiptable incidentals (though a fixed allowance is probably a better way to cover these).
2. Only paid where necessary for the business.
3. Not bringing any personal benefit or gain to the recipient (thus it's OK to claim rental of a property for a long term thing like being an MP, and the company has paid for a flat for me where it was cheaper than hotels in the past, but it's not OK to claim for a mortgage unless the company, not the employee, is purchasing the home for future employees to use).
4. Subject to the standard income tax related limits.

A corporate credit card could be used if it's felt preferable to pay-and-claim, I've had one of these in the past when I travelled often and it did make personal accounting easier.

Obviously, expenses fraud should and would be dealt with with due seriousness.

Likewise, having accommodation provided or an allowance would also make sense. Let people keep their existing properties (the role of MP isn't a job for life, so your own home shouldn't be factored in). If an MP has a long way to travel, give them a season ticket or another allowance for travel by car. Basically, do what is done for employees of private businesses up and down the country. I would have no issue with an MP having a season ticket and enjoying the benefit of free leisure travel as a result - as any season ticket holder would.

Indeed, this also makes sense. The one thing I'd say is that paying expenses to rent flats/for hotels is not practically avoidable, because a large dedicated MP accommodation block would be too risky a terrorist target. Having people distributed around different parts of London is much easier for security purposes and thus probably worth the extra cost. However as I note above, these expenses should never be for mortgages, only rental. A core tenet of business expenses is that the employee doesn't benefit personally from them, they simply cover their out of pocket costs to put them in the position they would be in if they hadn't had to travel.

 

[Topological]

I think this is a good idea although realistically you can't get rid of expenses. The job means there will be loads of things where expenses will be incurred and you couldn't expect the employee to fund them out of their own pocket (whatever the salary they got). You could get rid of the system and require expenses to be covered by a credit/debit card that is issued to them - with strict rules on what can and can't be claimed, and harsh penalties for fraudulent use (like perhaps jail time for repeat offences).

If you completely overhauled the system then you wouldn't need to have politicians voting for their own pay rises. The grades would be all new. Pay rises could be linked to inflation, but with the understanding that so would the minimum wage etc.

Likewise, having accommodation provided or an allowance would also make sense. Let people keep their existing properties (the role of MP isn't a job for life, so your own home shouldn't be factored in). If an MP has a long way to travel, give them a season ticket or another allowance for travel by car. Basically, do what is done for employees of private businesses up and down the country. I would have no issue with an MP having a season ticket and enjoying the benefit of free leisure travel as a result - as any season ticket holder would.

I would also like to see minimum attendance levels imposed so MPs do have to turn up every now and then for debates and votes, or at the very least develop a voting system that requires all MPs to take part - not to do deals with each other so they can all stay away.

The current system is not working, and even though I expect more MPs are honest than dishonest, the perception is now such that all MPs are corrupt and on the take.

Good point on expenses. Though there would be a much narrower range and most would be about "Entertainment" rather than home improvements etc. IF an important trade envoy needs to go and see Taylor Swift then I guess it is right that the state pays. That is how private business handles it.

Once salarys are grade based and linked to inflation then everything becomes a lot easier.

Given that it will be GBR, and therefore essentially costless, I would probably go the whole way to throwing in a free travel pass. Before anyone says anything, this would be first class as well because the aim is not to be spiteful. We would not suddenly see MPs travelling on the longest CrossCountry routes to get "value for money" on their pass.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There are two main drivers here. One is the cost of supplies...The other is labour costs.

Inflation is running at about 3.5%, depending on which measure you use.

Tesco's profit increased by 10% between 2024 and 2025, although its turnover only increased by 2%.

In terms of margin, Tesco was making about 3.1% after adjustments in 2021, so before the war and the related cost rises. It's now 4.5% after adjustments; the gross margin is about 7.7%. So their margin has gone up by 50% whilst the cost of my shopping basket has also gone up by 50%. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

It's not just Tesco. A lot of businesses are hiding rampant price-gouging behind the "cost of living crisis" and this is feeding into the inflation rate. But the Bank of England- full of economic experts who are supposedly far more intelligent than you or I- try and claim that the real inflationary driver is wage rises for us plebs and that we all just need to accept lower wages. I can't remember the last time I got a cost of living pay rise that matched inflation, never mind beat it. They're gaslighting us.

No wonder Reform are doing so well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No wonder Reform are doing so well.

I heard an interesting point made on LBC yesterday (forget who the presenter was) - the vote for Reform is mostly about the fact that the little guy isn't being looked after by the state any more. They aren't getting pay rises, costs are going up and they can't afford to buy a home. The point was made that if Reform doesn't deliver on fixing this - and to be honest I'm confident they have no chance of doing so, given that immigration, while an issue, is not THE issue (rather it's just a scapegoat) - they wouldn't like to think what might happen in terms of social unrest or even worse political approaches. That would be a real shame, but could be where we are headed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think this is a good idea although realistically you can't get rid of expenses.

As a formerly prolific business traveller I don't understand the issue with expenses - it's just people who don't know how that all works.

Most of what MPs claim as expenses are actually the costs of running a constituency office. The MP rents the office space, employs the office staff, pays for the photocopying. The MP then claims these costs back from central funds.

That's why the expenses bills for a lot of MPs are so high. It's not profligacy, it's that the MP is effectively running a business and then getting reimbursed for it.

But MPs also use this scheme to enrich themselves. A significant number of MPs employ their spouses and children as constituency office staff, and the taxpayer is the one who foots the bill for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But MPs also use this scheme to enrich themselves. A significant number of MPs employ their spouses and children as constituency office staff, and the taxpayer is the one who foots the bill for it.

If they are actually doing a job in the same way, and for the same pay, as they would be doing if a totally different person was employed, I can't see an issue with that per-se. However it does require a bit of scrutiny to ensure that such employment is genuine (i.e. the work is being done on the same basis as if it wasn't family, and it is necessary) and not a smokescreen for sneaking extra money.

 

[JamesT]

If they are actually doing a job in the same way, and for the same pay, as they would be doing if a totally different person was employed, I can't see an issue with that per-se. However it does require a bit of scrutiny to ensure that such employment is genuine (i.e. the work is being done on the same basis as if it wasn't family, and it is necessary) and not a smokescreen for sneaking extra money.

MPs employing relations was banned in 2017. However it wasn't made retrospective, so there is still a rump of those who were doing it before 2020.

 

[Gloster]

If they are actually doing a job in the same way, and for the same pay, as they would be doing if a totally different person was employed, I can't see an issue with that per-se. However it does require a bit of scrutiny to ensure that such employment is genuine (i.e. the work is being done on the same basis as if it wasn't family, and it is necessary) and not a smokescreen for sneaking extra money.

Since 2017 MPs have been banned from employing spouses and close relatives (‘connected persons’). However, those that were employed before can remain in their jobs. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop MPs employing people as favours for others.