MP Pay, Perks & Power: Who Decides and Who Pays?

MPs’ Pay, Perks, and Privilege: Who Really Controls the Public Purse?

Why an elected job now looks like a platinum-plated contract, and why so many voters feel locked out of the conversation

While ordinary citizens face austerity, rising living costs, and funding cuts, Members of Parliament continue to enjoy generous salaries, expenses, and perks, often without meaningful public oversight. Why do those in power operate by a different rulebook, and who holds them accountable?

A Two-Tier System of Privilege

In the UK, the divide between politicians and the public has never felt more profound. While struggling families are told to tighten their belts, MPs continue to receive substantial salaries, expense allowances, and unique perks, many of which ordinary workers or local business owners could never dream of accessing. Here we explore the disparity in treatment, the lack of transparency, and the growing frustration among taxpayers who have little say in how their money is spent.

Lavish Lifestyles at the Expense of the Vulnerable

There’s growing outrage over MPs accepting pay rises while:

People with disabilities have benefits slashed
Pensioners are struggling to heat their homes
Children are going hungry
Carers have an obligation if in receipt of carers allowance to work as a carer for a minimum of 35 hours per week at a rate of £2.38 per hour or £333.20 per month.

Is the government saving money, or are they simply reallocating resources to uphold a political elite?

When people perish due to poverty, homelessness, or untreated health issues, it raises a disturbing question: How much longer can this injustice continue under the guise of fiscal responsibility?

Salaries and Benefits: What Do MPs Really Get?

As of 2025, MPs earn a base salary of £91,346, with ministers and higher-ranking officials receiving significantly more. For example:

Prime Minister: £167,391 (including MP salary)
Cabinet Ministers: £151,649
Junior Ministers: £118,300+

But the salary is just the beginning. MPs also receive:

Generous pension contributions
Free or subsidised food and drink in Parliament
Second home allowances
Staffing budgets (over £200,000 annually per MP)
Travel expenses, including mileage, train fares, and flights

1. The Numbers That Spark the Anger

From 1 April 2025 the basic salary for a back-bench Member of Parliament is £93,904, more than two-and-a-half times the 2024 UK full-time median of £37,430 reported by the Office for National Statistics.
This pay will rise automatically each April in line with a formula set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA); this spring the uplift was 2.8 %, worth about £2,500.

2. The Perks Beyond the Payslip

The Perks No One Voted For

In addition to salaries and expense claims, MPs enjoy:

Golden goodbyes (resettlement grants when they leave office)
Priority access to healthcare and financial advisors
Exclusive parliamentary bars and restaurants
Subsidised alcohol and meals at Westminster
Membership in private clubs and associations, often funded indirectly through public money

While struggling local businesses must pay full rent, tax, and utilities, MPs can claim many of their costs under the guise of “parliamentary duties.”

Category	What MPs Can Claim	Why It Rankles
Staffing	Up to £250,820 a year for staff outside London and £268,550 for London seats.	Small businesses must fund payroll from sales, not the taxpayer.
Accommodation & Travel	IT kit, phones, stationery, and free postage envelopes on top of ordinary expenses.	Millions of commuters pay their own season tickets and rent.
Office & Equipment	Food bank users see MPs dining “at meal-deal prices”.	Local charities often crowd-fund for the same basics.
Catering & Bars	The Commons’ kitchens still run at a net cost of roughly £2.8 m a year despite repeated promises to end “subsidies”.	A defined-benefit scheme (PCPF) is far more generous than most private-sector plans.
Gold-plated Pension	A defined-benefit scheme (PCPF) far more generous than most private-sector plans.	Private firms have largely switched to cheaper defined-contribution plans.
Golden Goodbyes	Up to four months’ salary if they lose their seat (“winding-up payment”). Ministers receive separate severance; Dominic Raab’s 2024 exit cheque was almost £17,000.

3. “Making Their Own Rules”, Or Do They?

MPs no longer vote on their own pay. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, passed after the expenses scandal, handed that power to IPSA, a statutory watchdog whose board is appointed through an open recruitment process and confirmed by the Speaker.
IPSA consults each year and publishes detailed spreadsheets of every claim, but the consultation is technical and low profile, so only niche groups usually respond. theipsa.org.uk

Ministers’ extra salary bands are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) and then set in secondary legislation under the Ministerial & Other Salaries Act 1975, again without a public vote. gov.uk In short, Parliament outsourced decisions to “independent” bodies, but ordinary taxpayers get, at best, a comments box, not a veto.

4. Why MPs Public Offices Are Not Run Like a UK Business

MPs vs. Local Businesses: An Unfair Comparison

While UK businesses pay rates, corporation tax, NI contributions, and comply with strict financial regulations, MPs are:

Reimbursed for expenses most businesses must cover themselves
Operate without financial penalties for poor performance
Do not contribute to national productivity in the same way SMEs (small and medium enterprises) do

Businesses employ people, boost local economies, and pay for their operations. MPs, on the other hand, rely on the taxpayer to run both their office and often their second home.

MPs as ‘public office’	A Small or Community Business
Funded from general taxation, meant to let anyone stand regardless of wealth.	Funded from revenue and investment capital; survival depends on profit.
Oversight by IPSA, the media, and ultimately elections.	Claimable costs must fit the IPSA rule book and are published.
Claimable costs must fit the IPSA rule book and be published.	Costs are private unless you breach tax law.
Pension guaranteed by statute.	Pension is whatever the owner can save.

The logic, at least on paper, is that democracy needs MPs who can both live in London and run an office back home. In practice, voters see perks they will never enjoy, and the comparison with struggling high-street employers fuels resentment.

5. Can the Public Challenge the Spending?

Taxpayer Voices Silenced

Despite paying for these privileges, taxpayers have no direct vote or mechanism to approve or veto MP expenses or salaries. Unlike shareholders in a company, citizens have no board meetings, referendums, or real-time oversight of how public money is allocated. The lack of participatory democracy in financial decisions has led many to ask: Why are we funding their luxuries while essential services are crumbling?

Freedom of Information & IPSA data dumps reveal every receipt, but trawling thousands of lines is a full-time job.
Petitions to Parliament can force a debate at 100,000 signatures, yet the vote is non-binding.
Elections remain the blunt instrument: sack your MP or keep them.
Judicial review is theoretically possible but ruinously expensive.

So there is transparency, but accountability is indirect, slow, and frequently toothless.

6. The Trust Gap, and the Human Cost Narrative

Time for Reform: Level the Playing Field

If MPs are so confident they deserve their perks, let them:

Run their offices like a small business, absorbing costs like rent, utilities, and travel
Submit expenses to public vote or oversight boards that include ordinary citizens
Disclose every penny spent on perks, luxury, or lifestyle
Accept pay based on performance, attendance, and impact, just like many workers

When public services are squeezed, each new pay rise or subsidy row looks like proof that “MPs think they’re better than us”. Seen through that lens, even modest perks feel morally outrageous: voters ask why libraries close and care packages shrink while the Commons bar still serves cut-price steak.

7. Who Decides How Much Is Enough, and What Could Change?

Who Decides MPs’ Pay, And Why Not Us?

IPSA, while “independent,” is not elected by the public. It consists of a board with minimal public input. Pay recommendations often cite comparisons with corporate or legal sector salaries, ignoring the public service ethos MPs are meant to uphold.

Surely the general public, those funding these salaries, should have a binding say in whether MPs deserve more money, or whether the current system is failing.

IPSA & SSRB could peg future increases to the median wage, not bespoke formulas, so MPs only get a raise when everyone else does.
Citizens’ juries could review the allowances scheme every Parliament and make binding recommendations.
Cap or scrap loss-of-office payments for ministers who quit voluntarily or over misconduct.
Publish all catering and facilities costs in real-time and open the estate’s restaurants to the public at full commercial prices.
Require MPs to pay a flat “business contribution” toward their offices, mirroring the way employers pay business rates, to sharpen cost awareness.

Summary: Rethinking Public Spending — Not Punishing the Vulnerable

If MPs wish to justify their high salaries and generous perks, the first step should not be targeting the disabled, carers, or low-income families. Instead of making austerity a weapon against the vulnerable, many of whom are already living in survival mode, lawmakers must have the courage to explore more ethical, sustainable ways of reducing public spending. Cutting essential lifelines like PIP, Carer’s Allowance, or Universal Credit may save pennies on paper but costs lives in the real world.

Here are just a few alternative areas for brainstorming:

Abolish second-home allowances for MPs and require remote participation unless proven necessary
Cap MPs’ expense claims and make all submissions publicly reviewable
Close tax loopholes and tighten enforcement against offshore tax avoidance schemes
Reduce government consultancy contracts, many of which are awarded without transparency
Slash spending on vanity projects (e.g. HS2 expansion, military parades, or refurbishments to ministerial offices)
Reform the House of Lords, reducing the number of lifetime peers
Implement a wealth tax on billionaires and mega-corporations who pay less proportionally than nurses or carers
Freeze MPs’ salaries during times of national hardship, tying increases to public sector average pay
Reallocate advertising budgets, reducing taxpayer-funded propaganda campaigns
End subsidies to private companies that do not deliver public value or fair wages
Encourage Learning, the long-term unemployed and the abled disabled could learn a new skill and make the government money through student finance loans.
Give up the physical office for a virtual one and save taxpayers money whilst also saving the planet.

💼 Encouraging Employment or Education to Boost the Economy

To address unemployment while stimulating economic growth, all able-bodied individuals who are out of work should be offered a clear choice: secure employment within a defined timeframe or enrol in higher education or vocational training. By encouraging people to learn a trade or develop new skills, the government could simultaneously reduce welfare dependency and generate revenue through the student loan system. This model not only invests in the individual but also in the future workforce, fostering a more skilled and self-sufficient society. For those with disabilities or mobility issues, institutions like the Open University offer flexible, remote learning options, ensuring that no one is excluded from upskilling due to physical limitations.

🏢 Rethinking the Role of MPs in a Digital Age

To truly lead by example in reducing public spending, Members of Parliament could forgo physical constituency offices in favour of operating entirely online. The savings in rent, utilities, staff overheads, and commuting expenses would significantly lighten the burden on taxpayers. A shift to remote parliamentary work would also help reduce carbon emissions and support the UK’s climate goals. MPs could engage with their constituents through interactive, secure websites tailored to each community, for example, domain names like www.ManchesterMPLabour.co.uk or www.CardiffMPConservative.co.uk. These digital platforms could offer live chats, newsletters, video Q&As, and transparent updates, making representation not only more accessible but also more efficient and environmentally responsible.

Real leadership means sacrifice, and it should start from the top, not from those already on their knees.

Conclusion

MPs are different from ordinary businesses: democracy needs representatives who are not bankrupted by serving. But independence has morphed into insulation. Unless the systems that decide pay and perks invite genuine public participation and are seen to do so, each new uprating will deepen the sense that Westminster plays by rules written for itself, with the bill posted to everyone else.

The British public deserves more than performative accountability and empty apologies. A democratic society must include financial transparency and the power to challenge decisions made in their name. Until MPs are held to the same standard as businesses, carers, and low-income families, the message is clear: there’s one rule for them and another for the rest of us.

It’s time the taxpayer had a seat at the table, not just the bill.

Resources:

Andrew Jones

+ posts

Andrew Jones is a seasoned journalist renowned for his expertise in current affairs, politics, economics and health reporting. With a career spanning over two decades, he has established himself as a trusted voice in the field, providing insightful analysis and thought-provoking commentary on some of the most pressing issues of our time.

Spread the love