So the plans to award MPs an 11% pay rise have been criticised across
Westminster and throughout the media, indeed MPs from all parties are going out
of their way to vocalise their opposition to it. However the Parliamentary
watchdog IPSA are still recommending a rise of £7,600 to £74,000.
Now the strange thing about IPSA is that it doesn’t need to get the
agreement of Parliament to bring in the changes. It was set up as an
independent body in 2009 after the expenses scandal. This rise, which doesn’t
come into effect until May 2015 (after the next General Election), comes as
part of a package of changes to MPs' salary and benefits which would see some
allowances scrapped.
Now our MP’s maybe thick but they aren’t daft, they know the public
oppose this rise, they know it has the potential to get them voted out of their
seats but they also know it’s probably justified. They’ve realised they can
make all the right noises saying they don’t support it and don’t want it
because they’ll get it anyway.
Hazy
MPs currently earn a basic salary of £66,396 however IPSA say their pay
has fallen behind ‘comparable jobs’
in recent years and a substantial "one-off" rise is justified.
They’re probably right too, It’s a salary that’s considerably more than I get
but it’s not enough for me to even consider standing for Parliament with all
the hassle that entails.
But that’s where things start to get hazy for me. How can they say MP’s
pay has fallen behind comparable jobs? What other jobs are comparable to an MP?
You don't have fixed hours. You don't clock in, the things you show up to you
claim expenses for. You come and go as you please. You don't even have to go to
the House of Commons if you don't want to. And if you do bother to show up
there’s bars and restaurants there selling cheap food and drink. All your
expenses are covered including ones which HMRC won't let Joe Public like us
claim for. And finally not a single qualification required. Name me one other
job like this !!
So I have no problem with MPs being paid more, I'd say £150K a year
would be about right, but that should be it, no more expenses, second jobs,
money paid by lobbying firms, or unions, no more memberships on boards. That
way it'll all be more transparent and they'll be able to concentrate on the job
their supposed to be doing. They should also get rid of the ludicrous
"parachute payment" that they get when they lose their seats as
that’s part of the risk you consider when you first decide to stand.
So with rewards should come greater accountability. Attendance at
Parliament, MPs' record on dealing with enquiries from their constituents, how
often surgeries are run, notification of outside interests, full breakdowns of all
constituency expenses etc. should be available in one place to voters. They
love their league tables so how about an annual league table for them? Who was the
worst MP, and who was the best?
Poor Timing
One issue for me, and it appears for them is the timing of this
announcement and the message it sends out. Public sector pay rises have been
limited to 1%. Why aren't MP's treated the same? As I’ve said, I actually agree
that there pay is a little low, but they can't have a different set of rules to
the rest of the tax payer funded employees. This is also not going to put them
in a strong position for negotiating with the unions over the rest of public
sector pay, “we've just had 11% but everyone else get 1%” is not a good
position to be coming from.
Just Who Are IPSA ?
They are the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. They were
set up under the previous Labour government as a response to the MP’s expenses
scandal. They were also set up to take the decisions about MP’s salaries out of
MP’s hands so they couldn’t be accused of awarding themselves inflated pay
rises.
Members of the authority include
- Sir Ian Kennedy (Chairman) - £700 per day
- Andrew McDonald (chief Exec) - £110,000 PA
- Phillip Lloyd (Director Finance & Corporate Services) - £105,000 PA
- John Sills (Director Policy & Communications) - £90,000 PA
Interestingly these people aren’t like the common man they purport to
represent and they’re all paid significantly more than an MP. So they really have
plenty in common with the rest of the plebs like you and me don’t they ?
Other Representatives of ‘The
Working Man’
The other representatives of the working man are the unions so how do
their leaders compare? Well a definitive union ‘rich list’ was published twelve
months ago and revealed that the total pay and perks of the highest-paid union
bosses totalled £4.6million.
Thirty-six general secretaries and chief executives received
remuneration in six figures, including the heads of many of the big public
sector unions.
Christine Blower, of the NUT, enjoyed total remuneration of £142,363, a
rise of £13,353 (nearly 11%) on the previous year, according to the report.
Brendan Barber, head of the TUC, was on £139,634 (up £17,040 – or 14%), while
Len McCluskey of Unite was on £122,434.
Paul Kenny, of the GMB, had a package worth £121,000, a £4,000 rise,
while Bob Crow, of the militant RMT, was on £121,687, up £3,586, the report
says. Mark Serwotka, of the PCS, had total remuneration of £116,429, it added.
On that basis, the MP’s increase is very much aligned with what the
Union leaders have been awarding themselves, but that’s probably another blog
all by itself.
Old School v Career Politicians
For me the major issue today is that of career politicians (see a
previous blog for my thoughts on that one) who see politics as a career option
with a salary commensurate with their expectation. It’s no longer a vocation or
a public service for them.
Up until the mid 1950’s MP’s were paid very little, we got candidates
with political fervour and vision. Now we get career servers, carrying out a
relatively well paid job, and mostly towing the Party line. Back then we had
better ‘Politics’ for the Nation when MP’s were either openly sponsored by big
business or by Unions. At present we get posh graduates with a politics degree
looking for job security. Maybe it’s time for a change.
I preferred the older system of low paid MPs because they were doing it
more out of duty than as a “career”. I think Tony Blair himself, and the
changes he made are evidence enough why “career politicians” are a backwards
step – that is of course unless you’re a career politician.
So What Do We Do ?
People are saying on various forums and in the papers, if you do not
like the fact that your MP will get an 11% pay rise then make sure you vote
them out at the next General Election. Well what use is that, the salary of new
incoming MP will have already had the pay rise applied and will be on the
higher rate from the start. So that arguments floored.
It’s the whole system that needs to change. Getting rid of career
politicians is a start. Why does this
country continue to keep faith with and vote in these clueless people who just
tow the same party line, usually promising things they are incapable of
delivering. It baffles me as much as it would had I lived in medieval times
believing the world was flat when someone told me it is round.
An obvious one is that MP’s pay should be set for the life of a
Parliament - when they put themselves up for election, they then know the Terms
of Employment. If you don't like these terms then don't stand for election.
Until we change the whole system the MP’s snouts will remain firmly in
the public trough.
Apathy
Most of the population in this country just don't get it, do they? Or
perhaps they do, they just don't care and know that the their fellow countryman
will do absolutely nothing about it. In other countries this kind of change
causes protests and potentially even a peaceful revolution, in the UK we whine
and go back to work like the obedient little plebs we are.
People in the UK just don’t complain or protest about politics anymore.
Most of the chav’s probably don’t know what an MP is for a start, now if they
took X-factor off we’d probably have a riot !!
No comments:
Post a Comment