Share this post:
Resident doctors are striking again today (December 17, 2025) – and the airwaves are full of politicians complaining that they have already received huge above-inflation pay rises.
It is a profoundly dishonest position.
Doctors – among other public servants, suffered swingeing pay cuts between 2010 and 2024 that meant their income fell hugely over that period of time.
MPs have not felt the same pinch in any way; their incomes have been protected and their pay is currently slightly higher, in real terms, than it would have been if 2010 levels had been maintained.
I have been challenged on this. Some commenters on other platforms have suggested that my assertion is not true, so let’s go into this because it is well worth clarifying.
An honest future-direction message
“Vox Political is nearing the end of its fourteenth year, and I want to be honest with you: the online advertising model that kept the site free to read has deteriorated so sharply that it can no longer sustain the work.
This is not a reflection on the readership; it is a structural shift affecting small publishers everywhere.
Rather than quietly winding down, I’m giving you clear notice: Vox Political will close at the end of the year unless something dramatically changes. The good news is that The Whip Line already exists, is reader-funded, and is growing. That is where I can continue producing the journalism you value, free from the chaos of advertiser algorithms.
If you want the work to continue, please join me there. Free and paid subscriptions are available, but please remember it is the paid subscriptions – monthly and annual – that directly fund the reporting.”
UK MPs’ baseline pay (this does not include Cabinet Minister pay) has risen by around 31–37 per cent in cash terms since 2010, which means it has broadly kept pace with inflation, so in real terms it is roughly at parity with 2010 levels.
By contrast, UK resident doctors’ pay is currently four–10 per cent lower in real terms than in 2010–11, even after recent increases.
MPs earned £65,738 in 2010. As of April 2025, MPs earn £93,904. That’s a nominal rise of about 31.7 per cent.
Inflation between 2010–2025 has been roughly 30–35 per cent. This means MPs’ pay has kept pace with inflation, so their purchasing power is about the same as in 2010.
Now let’s look at resident doctors’ pay: Doctors received pay uplifts of 22 per cent over 2023–25, plus a four per cent rise and £750 cash sum in 2025.
Despite these increases, cumulative inflation since 2010 has outpaced their pay growth.
The British Medical Association argues that pay erosion since 2008 is closer to 25–30 per cent, depending on the inflation measure used.
But – say the naysayers – according to inflation, MP pay now should be £102,517, based on 2010 levels.
This is a classic case of using the wrong measure of inflation.
The standard measure of inflation used for most pay comparisons is CPI (the Consumer Price Index). Using this index, prices have risen by about 35–37 per cent between 2010 and 2025. Applying CPI to £65,738 gives a 2025 equivalent of around £89,000–£90,000.
MPs’ pay, at £93,904, is therefore slightly ahead of CPI inflation.
There is an older, higher measure of inflation called RPI (the Retail Price Index) that has risen by about 55–60 per cent over the same period. Applying RPI to £65,738 gives a 2025 equivalent of around £102,000–£105,000.
RPI is widely considered flawed and has been downgraded by the UK Statistics Authority. It tends to overstate inflation because of its formula.
Using RPI makes it look like MPs’ pay has fallen behind inflation, but using CPI (the accepted, official measure) shows MPs’ pay has actually kept pace or slightly outstripped inflation.
Since CPI is the official benchmark, the claim that MPs’ pay “should be £102,517” is based on the wrong inflation index.
Alternatively, some interlocutors have claimed that they are indeed using the CPI index of inflation because that’s what the Bank of England’s online inflation calculator uses to show how prices have changed between particular dates.
The operative word here is “prices”.
The Bank of England inflation calculator is based on CPIH, not CPI.
CPIH is the Consumer Prices Index including owner‑occupiers’ housing costs. It tends to run higher than CPI because it factors in housing costs (like imputed rents).
Between 2010 and 2025, CPI inflation is about 35–37 per cent, but CPIH shows closer to 55–56 per cent cumulative inflation. This is because it is an index of prices, not pay.
And that’s why the calculator gives a figure like £102,517 for MPs’ pay — it’s applying CPIH, not CPI, and it is the wrong method to calculate this sum.
Now, a niggly detail: if MP pay has kept pace with CPI at 35 per cent, why is it only 10 per cent short of CPIH at 55.9 per cent?
This is a subtle but crucial point about how inflation indices work.
At first glance, you’d think if MPs’ pay kept pace with CPI (at around 35 per cent), then compared to CPIH (around 56 per cent), it should be around 20 per cent short of the CPIH level quoted by the naysayers. But in reality, it’s only around 10 per cent short.
Here’s why:
Different baselines and compounding: CPI and CPIH don’t just differ in percentage growth; they measure different baskets of goods. CPI excludes housing costs, CPIH includes them. Over 15 years, compounding magnifies the divergence. CPIH’s higher annual growth rate produces a much bigger cumulative figure.
Compounding is when percentage changes build on top of each other, year after year, instead of being added up in a straight line. If inflation is three per cent one year, then four per cent the next, you don’t just add 3 + 4 = seven per cent.
Instead, you apply three per cent to the original amount, then four per cent to the new, higher amount.
Over many years, this “growth on growth” effect makes the cumulative total much larger than the sum of the annual percentages.
When you compare actual pay (£93,904) to CPIH’s implied figure (£102,517), the shortfall is around eight-to-nine per cent.
It looks smaller than the raw difference between 31.7 per cent and 55.9 per cent because we are comparing compounded increases, rather than a simple cumulative figure.
The apparent 20 per cent inflation gap translates into a smaller 10 per cent pay gap because of how compounding works on absolute amounts.
It’s annoyingly complicated – and that makes it easy for bad actors (not those who questioned me online – I mean those with a political agenda) to use it to hoodwink us.
The answer is to point them to this article.
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
MPs should not sneer at resident doctors when they haven’t had to take years of pay cuts
Share this post:
Resident doctors are striking again today (December 17, 2025) – and the airwaves are full of politicians complaining that they have already received huge above-inflation pay rises.
It is a profoundly dishonest position.
Doctors – among other public servants, suffered swingeing pay cuts between 2010 and 2024 that meant their income fell hugely over that period of time.
MPs have not felt the same pinch in any way; their incomes have been protected and their pay is currently slightly higher, in real terms, than it would have been if 2010 levels had been maintained.
I have been challenged on this. Some commenters on other platforms have suggested that my assertion is not true, so let’s go into this because it is well worth clarifying.
UK MPs’ baseline pay (this does not include Cabinet Minister pay) has risen by around 31–37 per cent in cash terms since 2010, which means it has broadly kept pace with inflation, so in real terms it is roughly at parity with 2010 levels.
By contrast, UK resident doctors’ pay is currently four–10 per cent lower in real terms than in 2010–11, even after recent increases.
MPs earned £65,738 in 2010. As of April 2025, MPs earn £93,904. That’s a nominal rise of about 31.7 per cent.
Inflation between 2010–2025 has been roughly 30–35 per cent. This means MPs’ pay has kept pace with inflation, so their purchasing power is about the same as in 2010.
Now let’s look at resident doctors’ pay: Doctors received pay uplifts of 22 per cent over 2023–25, plus a four per cent rise and £750 cash sum in 2025.
Despite these increases, cumulative inflation since 2010 has outpaced their pay growth.
The British Medical Association argues that pay erosion since 2008 is closer to 25–30 per cent, depending on the inflation measure used.
But – say the naysayers – according to inflation, MP pay now should be £102,517, based on 2010 levels.
This is a classic case of using the wrong measure of inflation.
The standard measure of inflation used for most pay comparisons is CPI (the Consumer Price Index). Using this index, prices have risen by about 35–37 per cent between 2010 and 2025. Applying CPI to £65,738 gives a 2025 equivalent of around £89,000–£90,000.
MPs’ pay, at £93,904, is therefore slightly ahead of CPI inflation.
There is an older, higher measure of inflation called RPI (the Retail Price Index) that has risen by about 55–60 per cent over the same period. Applying RPI to £65,738 gives a 2025 equivalent of around £102,000–£105,000.
RPI is widely considered flawed and has been downgraded by the UK Statistics Authority. It tends to overstate inflation because of its formula.
Using RPI makes it look like MPs’ pay has fallen behind inflation, but using CPI (the accepted, official measure) shows MPs’ pay has actually kept pace or slightly outstripped inflation.
Since CPI is the official benchmark, the claim that MPs’ pay “should be £102,517” is based on the wrong inflation index.
Alternatively, some interlocutors have claimed that they are indeed using the CPI index of inflation because that’s what the Bank of England’s online inflation calculator uses to show how prices have changed between particular dates.
The operative word here is “prices”.
The Bank of England inflation calculator is based on CPIH, not CPI.
CPIH is the Consumer Prices Index including owner‑occupiers’ housing costs. It tends to run higher than CPI because it factors in housing costs (like imputed rents).
Between 2010 and 2025, CPI inflation is about 35–37 per cent, but CPIH shows closer to 55–56 per cent cumulative inflation. This is because it is an index of prices, not pay.
And that’s why the calculator gives a figure like £102,517 for MPs’ pay — it’s applying CPIH, not CPI, and it is the wrong method to calculate this sum.
Now, a niggly detail: if MP pay has kept pace with CPI at 35 per cent, why is it only 10 per cent short of CPIH at 55.9 per cent?
This is a subtle but crucial point about how inflation indices work.
At first glance, you’d think if MPs’ pay kept pace with CPI (at around 35 per cent), then compared to CPIH (around 56 per cent), it should be around 20 per cent short of the CPIH level quoted by the naysayers. But in reality, it’s only around 10 per cent short.
Here’s why:
Different baselines and compounding: CPI and CPIH don’t just differ in percentage growth; they measure different baskets of goods. CPI excludes housing costs, CPIH includes them. Over 15 years, compounding magnifies the divergence. CPIH’s higher annual growth rate produces a much bigger cumulative figure.
Compounding is when percentage changes build on top of each other, year after year, instead of being added up in a straight line. If inflation is three per cent one year, then four per cent the next, you don’t just add 3 + 4 = seven per cent.
Instead, you apply three per cent to the original amount, then four per cent to the new, higher amount.
Over many years, this “growth on growth” effect makes the cumulative total much larger than the sum of the annual percentages.
When you compare actual pay (£93,904) to CPIH’s implied figure (£102,517), the shortfall is around eight-to-nine per cent.
It looks smaller than the raw difference between 31.7 per cent and 55.9 per cent because we are comparing compounded increases, rather than a simple cumulative figure.
The apparent 20 per cent inflation gap translates into a smaller 10 per cent pay gap because of how compounding works on absolute amounts.
It’s annoyingly complicated – and that makes it easy for bad actors (not those who questioned me online – I mean those with a political agenda) to use it to hoodwink us.
The answer is to point them to this article.
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Tories and Lib Dems engineer fastest fall in wages since Victorian times
Like this:
The self-employment deception will leave Osborne wrong-footed over tax returns
Like this:
Keep talking, Iain – your idiot ideas will run your party right out of office
Like this:
Like this: