« Too few heroines in IT | Main | Paternity leave proposals may be delayed »

Never mind the expenses - are MPs actually underpaid in 2009?

May 2009 was by no means a vintage month in terms of MPs' standing in the hearts and minds of the British public, with the Telegraph's expenses witch-hunt (external website) galvanising popular interest in (and condemnation of) politicians to an extent rarely seen in recent years. In this context, it is a brave individual who puts forward the possibility that MPs might actually be underpaid (external website), but the BBC's Michael Blastland has done just that.

Using the excellent online household income calculator service (external website) from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), Blastland calculates how an average MP's income of just over £1,100 per week (comprising average expense claims of just under £300 per week and take-home salary at a shade over £800 per week) compares with that of the average UK citizen.

According to Blastland:

On salary alone, the MP's household [income] is above about 91% of the population - 55 million individuals. About 9% have household incomes higher than this. And lump them both together (salary and expenses) - our honourable member sits above about 96% of the population - 58 million individuals. A working partner would push them higher still.

He raises the interesting notion that the current expenses scandal might arise from a classic case of cognitive dissonance - while MPs are demonstrably better paid than the vast majority of the population, and should by all rights be aware of such, they might at the same time perceive themselves to be hard done by when compared to the stellar pay packets enjoyed by their peers in private industry.

Blastland puts this as follows:

I wonder if they found themselves in the expenses mess because, bluntly, they think they are poor. Perhaps they do feel poor compared with many of those they meet. MPs work hard and could probably earn more doing something else. So could many people.

  • Thanks to my colleague David Shepherd for bringing this article to my attention via Twitter.
  • UPDATE: Please see the Comments box below for a link to a very interesting blog post from one of our readers, discussing the relevance of what the IFS terms an "average wage", and seeking out more appropriate measures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). XpertHR also offers in-depth analysis of ONS pay data on our Official Figures pages (subscription required).

And of course, XpertHR offers a wealth of content on how to get expenses right (subscription required for each):

Share on Tumblr

Michael Carty | |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.xperthr.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/54075

Comments (1)

I think the "average salary" thing is a bit misleading - especially as it includes all part time workers, young people at the start of their working lives etc - I have done a bit more analysis of this on my blog:

http://danversbaillieu.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-is-relevance-of-average-wage.html

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

What is XpertHR?

XpertHR is the UK's most cost-effective HR online information source for compliance, good practice and benchmarking.

Subscribe to the blog feed

Subscribe to the Employment Intelligence feed   [What is this?]

Email this page or add it to a social network site

Other XpertHR blogs

Other XpertHR services

Blog rating

 

Archives

Tag cloud

latest from XpertHR