I am reading reports of the pay rise for MPs and presume they are well informed; these things usually are.
I am one of the few who has argued MPs should have a pay rise - but I said on clear condition that they were not allowed second jobs (a point I note Ed Miliband has come out in favour of).
That necessary condition has not happened. Instead we get a situation where some logical expenses - like the cost of a meal when working late - are abolished whilst pensions and termination payments are cut and pay is increased with a claim being made that overall this is reasonably revenue neutral.
To which my response is, why do it then? This, in that case, has no policy objective inherent in it, does not achieve an economic goal, will not diversify parliament but will cause massive public resentment.
That comes as close to a policy cock-up as you can get. So much for the wisdom of independent panels of advisers.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The main issue here are the vast rentier incomes made outside Parliament – the M.P income is in many cases mere loose change outside dodgy consultancies. names that appear on headed notepaper. Many M.P’s earn vast sums whilst doing the M.P. job , no wonder they never give you a decent answer to a question when you write to them!
On the Guardian blog, some one gave a sample of M.P.s’ outside earnings:
Sorry forgot to attach this:
Some 295 of the 650 MPs declared some form of income, and 20 made more money outside Parliament than their MP’s salary of £65,738.
The total declared by Conservative MPs came to £4.3 million and by Labour MPs £2.4 million.
The MPs to declare the most income included:
Gordon Brown (Lab) £1.37million
Stephen Phillips (Con) £740,000
Geoffrey Cox (Con) £417,000
Nicholas Soames (Con) £305,000
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Con) £276,000
Alistair Darling (Lab) £263,000
John Redwood (Con) £238,000
Jack Straw (Lab) £183,000.
Given that they are M.P’s, how ‘hard’ are they working for those sums – must be inherited economic rent or lease of their name – utterly appalling! My M.P. owns land and has properties in London and inherited Millions and has a great talent at sidestepping any questions you send him. he also claims footling amounts of money for snacks and five minute taxi journeys that most of us wouldn’t have the front to even think about claiming. This is a moral dustbin and an affront to any notions of human decency.
In the interests of fairness, is it not the case that Gordon Brown’s external income does not go into his pocket but into a charitable body?
Yes
Simon, it’s important to note that, in stark contrast to his predecessor, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown does not keep any of the money he earns, all of which comes from his charitable work – see http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/28/gordon-brown-is-parliaments-highest-earning-mp-but-he-donates-it-all-to-charity-3810963/
You will also note from the above website that Gordon Brown has not even claimed the ex-Prime-Ministerial pension to which he is entitled. He more and more resembles President Jimmy Carter – reviled in office, but widely honoured out of office.
Andrew
That is completely fair comment
Riuchard
Wasn’t aware of the Brown situation – apologies to him and thanks for informing me.
I’m not sure it has much to do with their wisdom, Richard, nor their independence, in terms of being free from political intereference. But the fact is that no panel of advisors – or anyone else for that matter – operates in a vacuum. For example, they would be well aware of the likely political, press and public reaction to their ideas and/or recommendations. Obviously, I have no knowledge to what extent that influenced their thinking in this case. But I’d be surprised if the reason they’ve gone down the revenue neautral route and thus produced a dogs breakfast of a policy isn’t largely due to that.
Quite likely
One problem with no activities outside Parliament is that we get career politicians
with no experience of life outside politics. Parliament is already stuffed with lawyers and ex think tank minions. It is also at its lowest ever for ex manual workers.
How about payment by results e.g. voting record, attendance at committee etc?
I don’t agree
I want people who go having had careers
Right now they start out and remain politicians – because their families can afford for them to be so
There seemed to be an endless parade of MP’s yesterday who are in favour of the pay rise and angry at their respective party leaders who are not. Over and over I heard “don’t want to get into a situation where at elections a Dutch auction takes place”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23276966
I find that quite insulting, in the many years I have voted, both at local and general elections, how much an MP gets paid, has never once figured in my decision making process, let alone the thought “I’d vote for them if they would only work for less money”, a UKIP candidate could say they’d work for free and I would still not vote for them.
After thought: Surely all the reasons being tended by the “Dutch Auction” Myth brigade, would be “feasible” now and not dependent on them not taking the pay rise?