The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, let by Sir Ian Kennedy, seems likely, if rumours are true, to recommend a £10,000 per year salary increase for UK MPs.
It is expected that IPSA will also propose that future increase be linked to average national income. I take this to mean that an MPs salary would be a multiple of the national average salary. The £10,000 increase takes an MP's salary to around £75,000 and this will seem to set this at three times the current national average.
First thoughts.
All of the MPs that were elected in 2010 and in the subsequent by-elections were elected knowing what was the salary on offer. Theirs is essentially a fixed-term contract with compensation set for the period. So any change should only take effect after the next general election.
I would go further than IPSA and firstly reduce pay for those MPs representing Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh constituencies. There are local assemblies for these parts of the UK and these bodies carry-out functions that are decided locally, so why should these MPs get the same as English constituency MPs, who potentially have a heavier workload?
Next I would follow the IPSA suggestion but with a regional flavour. I would look not at the national average pay, and give MPs a multiple of that but look at regional average pay and base the multiple on that. There is no better way to get these MPs focused on lifting the pay of taxpayers, than giving them an incentive that their salary will go up, as well!
Finally, I would go further than IPSA. I would give all MPs that represent constituencies outside of Greater London, a flat fee for expenses. Those within Greater London (as defined by the Mayor of London boundaries), would get less. How much of a flat fee? I am probably the wrong person to ask, as for me, I would split it into two. Say £15,000 to cover London living costs and £30,000 to cover a constituency office. Also throw in a flat fee for transport based on the distance from Westminster to their constituency, at the HMRC tax-free rate - currently around £0.42 per mile, and they would get this two times a week.
Of course, the expenses that they get for their Westminster living, must be taxable as a benefit in kind. That is how such expenses would be considered by HMRC for any other taxpayer/employee.
I will send this to David Cameron and some of the others but don't expect them to actually do anything - turkeys voting for Christmas and all that - but they must, at some point, look at the essentially corrupt system that passes for how we are governed and bring about true reform. Otherwise, at some point, people will do as gets done in other countries - they will invade the 'Westminster bubble' and bring down the whole rotten edifice - maybe physically or maybe by electing a one-term party whose sole goal is total reform! Remember Sir James Goldsmith's pledge to get his people elected to give the people a referendum on EU membership and then resign? The British are famously stoic but when finally roused, they don't stop until they get what they want.
It is expected that IPSA will also propose that future increase be linked to average national income. I take this to mean that an MPs salary would be a multiple of the national average salary. The £10,000 increase takes an MP's salary to around £75,000 and this will seem to set this at three times the current national average.
First thoughts.
All of the MPs that were elected in 2010 and in the subsequent by-elections were elected knowing what was the salary on offer. Theirs is essentially a fixed-term contract with compensation set for the period. So any change should only take effect after the next general election.
I would go further than IPSA and firstly reduce pay for those MPs representing Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh constituencies. There are local assemblies for these parts of the UK and these bodies carry-out functions that are decided locally, so why should these MPs get the same as English constituency MPs, who potentially have a heavier workload?
Next I would follow the IPSA suggestion but with a regional flavour. I would look not at the national average pay, and give MPs a multiple of that but look at regional average pay and base the multiple on that. There is no better way to get these MPs focused on lifting the pay of taxpayers, than giving them an incentive that their salary will go up, as well!
Finally, I would go further than IPSA. I would give all MPs that represent constituencies outside of Greater London, a flat fee for expenses. Those within Greater London (as defined by the Mayor of London boundaries), would get less. How much of a flat fee? I am probably the wrong person to ask, as for me, I would split it into two. Say £15,000 to cover London living costs and £30,000 to cover a constituency office. Also throw in a flat fee for transport based on the distance from Westminster to their constituency, at the HMRC tax-free rate - currently around £0.42 per mile, and they would get this two times a week.
Of course, the expenses that they get for their Westminster living, must be taxable as a benefit in kind. That is how such expenses would be considered by HMRC for any other taxpayer/employee.
I will send this to David Cameron and some of the others but don't expect them to actually do anything - turkeys voting for Christmas and all that - but they must, at some point, look at the essentially corrupt system that passes for how we are governed and bring about true reform. Otherwise, at some point, people will do as gets done in other countries - they will invade the 'Westminster bubble' and bring down the whole rotten edifice - maybe physically or maybe by electing a one-term party whose sole goal is total reform! Remember Sir James Goldsmith's pledge to get his people elected to give the people a referendum on EU membership and then resign? The British are famously stoic but when finally roused, they don't stop until they get what they want.
No comments:
Post a Comment