Prime minister Keir Starmer has been under the cosh for accepting freebies from party donors and others. In recent weeks it has emerged that Starmer has declared more free tickets and gifts than any other major party leader in recent times, with his total now topping £100,000 since early 2020. It is all perfectly legal, but it raises serious questions over his judgement. At the same time, the revelation that his chief of staff, Sue Gray, is being paid more than him, £170,000, lifted the lid on tensions at the heart of government (the suspicion is the story was leaked by aggrieved insiders). Together, the stories have dented the reputation of the government, but also raised the question: do we actually pay our PM enough?
How much does the prime minister get paid?
Isn’t that enough pay?
It’s not a small salary. Only one in 100 British taxpayers earn more than that per year. But it’s not even a remotely competitive salary compared with elsewhere in the higher echelons of the public sector – or even elsewhere in Whitehall. According to government data, some 664 senior government officials earned more than £150,000 last year, of whom 278 were being paid at least as much as the PM. And that’s just civil servants.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
In the public sector as a whole, many thousands of people earn far more. The director-general of the BBC is paid £525,000; the chief executive of Network Rail gets £585,000, for example. And it’s somewhat ironic that the journalist who broke the story about Gray’s pay – the BBC’s Chris Mason – is paid a lot more than either of them. In 2023-2024 he was paid about £260,000, according to the BBC. Not bad, but not as much as more experienced BBC political hacks such as Laura Kuenssberg (£325,000) and Nick Robinson (£345,000).
What about the private sector?
Compared with private-sector leaders, the PM’s pay is thin gruel. According to recent data from a High Pay Centre survey, the median pay for FTSE 100 chief executives last year was £4.19 million – the highest level on record, and up from £4.1 million the previous year. That’s 24 times the PM’s earnings. But even compared with other national leaders, Starmer’s pay is unimpressive. He’s not even the best-paid national leader in the nation he leads. Within the UK, the first minister of Scotland takes that prize, with a salary of £176,780. The Welsh first minister gets £148,575 and the leader of the Northern Irish assembly £123,500. The Irish taoiseach – leader of a state 13 times smaller than the UK by population – is paid €239,089 (roughly £200,000).
How much do prime ministers get paid globally?
We pay our PM very modestly. According to a recent paper by consultancy Talent Insight, the UK is 29th out of 48 countries surveyed in terms of how much it rewards its head of government. We’re far behind the likes of the US, Germany and Japan (the US president gets $400,000, or about £300,000, plus another $50,000 allowance for expenses such as clothing). We’re marginally ahead of Turkey, Chile and the Netherlands. The striking outlier in the comparison charts is Singapore, which pays its chief executive Lawrence Wong about $1.7 million – but with very strict rules on what freebies politicians can accept. That’s a million dollars more than the next best paid leader, Hong Kong’s John Lee Ka-chiu. Other notably well-paid leaders (rankings vary with exchange rates) include those of Switzerland and Australia.
So should we be paying more to the prime minister?
Yes, says Simon Kelner in the i newspaper. The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883 was admirable, but it is strange that a 19th-century law aimed at stopping intimidation by landowners remains the framework for judging whether the PM should accept hospitality at Arsenal or let Waheed Alli pay for his specs. The current kerfuffle demeans the office – and we should start paying a basic salary more in line with the job’s importance.
What about other politicians?
The problem with money in British politics is that there’s just not enough of it, says The Economist. “Total political donations per year add up to roughly the cost of a competitive Senate race in America. A benevolent millionaire could fund almost all of Britain’s biggest political think tanks and have change left from £20 million.” Salaries are well below the market rate – for MPs, advisers and think-tank wonks – severely limiting the talent pool and making the cost of accepting them too high for many professionals.
Last year Labour advertised for a new head of economic policy, offering a £50,000 salary to help shape the direction of a £2 trillion economy. When salaries for MPs were first introduced in 1911, they were £400 a year, or roughly six times the full-time average wage. Now they earn just over double the average full-time wage. This “lack of money leaves much of politics the preserve of those who are rich, mad, thick or saintly. Sadly for Britain’s body politic, the saints are outnumbered by the rest.” If we want better politics, we need to pay for it.
This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.
-
Rail fares could spike by 5.8% next year – how to save on train travelJuly’s RPI inflation reading tends to determine rail fare hikes in the following year. We look at how much your train tickets could cost, and how to save money
-
'Governments are launching an assault on the independence of central banks'Opinion Say goodbye to the era of central bank orthodoxy and hello to the new era of central bank dependency, says Jeremy McKeown
-
'Governments are launching an assault on the independence of central banks'
Opinion Say goodbye to the era of central bank orthodoxy and hello to the new era of central bank dependency, says Jeremy McKeown
-
Why investors can no longer trust traditional statistical indicatorsOpinion The statistical indicators and data investors have relied on for decades are no longer fit for purpose. It's time to move on, says Helen Thomas
-
The most likely outcome of the AI boom is a big fallOpinion Like the dotcom boom of the late 1990s, AI is not paying off – despite huge investments being made in the hope of creating AI-based wealth
-
The rise of Robin Zeng: China’s billionaire battery kingRobin Zeng, a pioneer in EV batteries, is vying with Li Ka-shing for the title of Hong Kong’s richest person. He is typical of a new kind of tycoon in China
-
How retail investors can gain exposure to Lloyd’s of LondonIt’s hard for retail investors to get in on the action at Lloyd’s of London. Here are some of the ways to gain exposure
-
The goal of business is not profit, but virtueOpinion Serve your customers well, and the profits will follow, according to a new book. It rarely works the other way around, says Stuart Watkins
-
Earnings estimates are a rigged game – especially in the USThe number of US stocks beating earnings estimates tells us only that guidance has deliberately been set too low
-
Why is Britain's industrial base crumbling?Opinion More and more factories in the UK are closing, and the government doesn’t seem to care. What’s going on?
