I’ve read an irritating article in Comment Is Free [well, a more irritating article than most] claiming that we don’t pay our MPs enough, because they’re “too easily wowed” by money – hence, apparently, the Depriaska affair. So we should pay them more.

Bollocks to that.

MPs get paid £60,000 per year, plus a gold-plated pension, plus expense of up to £20,000 per year for a house in London, plus plenty of other perks. And, of course, if they lose their seat in an election then they’re eligible for a lump sum payment as well. Let’s not forget the posiblity of lucrative “consultancy” jobs, book deals, newspaper columns and the like as well that they can get paid for.

People at the top of other professions get paid a higher basic salary, true. But they are paid out of money a comopany makes, and their products are not something which we have to buy from them at the price they set – but with MPs, they raise the money to pay themselves from taxes which we have no choice but to pay. And, unlike with those in other professions, we have very limited opportunities to kick them out.

Yes, £60,000 may not be a massive wage, but it’s high enough when their expense claims and holidays and pensions are taken into account, and the average wage in the country. Especially considering the number of people who want to do the jobs. And the amount of powers that are being taken by the EU.

Being an MP is certainly a very hard job – but it is not one without its financial rewards.