The High Cost of Free Politics: Why Cutting MP Pensions May Be a Trap

When the new regime announced the cancellation of pension payments for parliamentarians, the public reaction was electric. 

The majority went "Gaga," seeing it as a righteous strike against a privileged class. It is a populistically brilliant move, cutting costs and punishing an unpopular elite. 

However, while the public cheers, few pause to calculate the long-term adverse ramifications.

By stripping away financial security from public office, we risk creating a paradox where a move intended to punish elites actually entrenches them, dragging us back toward a feudal structure that modern democracies, and indeed, socialist movements, fought tirelessly to destroy.

The Return to Feudalism

The most dangerous consequence of abolishing parliamentary benefits is the "gentrification" of politics.

In the 19th century, the British Chartist movement demanded payment for Members of Parliament (MPs) not to enrich politicians, but to enable the working class to serve.

Before salaries and pensions were introduced, only the independently wealthy, landowners, feudal lords, and industrial tycoons, could afford to sit in parliament.

If we remove the financial safety net of a pension, we inadvertently erect a "wealth barrier" to entry. 

A middle-class professional, a teacher, or a union leader cannot afford to derail their career for five years of public service if they face financial ruin afterward. 

The only people who can afford to take that risk are those who already possess generational wealth.

We effectively tell the public: "You may govern, but only if you can afford to pay for the privilege." 

The "Make Hay" Effect: Incentivizing Corruption

You cannot expect a person to oversee millions in public funds while worrying about their own future grocery bills. 

This touches upon the economic concept of Efficiency Wages. 

When public officials feel financially insecure or undercompensated relative to their power, the incentive to utilize their office for private gain skyrockets.

This is the "Make Hay While the Sun Shines" phenomenon. 

If an MP knows their time is limited and there is no pension waiting for them at the end, the rational economic actor will maximize their earnings now.

This leads to:

 

• Rent-seeking: Creating policies that favor specific businesses in exchange for future board seats.
• Kickbacks: demanding immediate payouts for approving projects.
• Short-termism: Prioritizing quick, flashy wins over long-term stability because they won't be around (or paid) to see the long-term results.

Singapore’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, famously argued against the "hairshirt" concept of politics. 

He posited that to prevent corruption; you must pay market rates. 

If you pay peanuts, you not only get monkeys, you get monkeys who steal the bananas.

The Socialist Irony

The supreme irony is that this move often comes from regimes claiming to represent the common man. 

Yet, by dismantling the compensation structure, they destroy the very ladder that allows the common man to climb into leadership.

True progressive governance requires that political office be treated as a profession, not a hobby for the rich. 

A pension is not merely a reward; it is a deferred compensation that ensures an MP can leave office with dignity, without having had to sell their vote to the highest bidder during their term.

Conclusion

Cheering for the abolition of MP pensions is emotionally satisfying but structurally suicidal for a democracy. 

It creates a legislature that is either exclusively rich (and out of touch) or desperately corrupt (and for sale).

If we want honest representatives who look like the people they serve, we must be willing to pay for them. 

The cost of a few hundred pensions is a rounding error compared to the cost of systemic corruption and the loss of inclusive governance. 

We must be careful not to applaud the very chains that will bind us to a new feudalism.