MPs pay

Regular readers will know that I couldn't let this topic pass, without commenting.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has recommended that members of the UK parliament should receive salary increases equaling 11%.  At the same time, there would be cuts in allowances and changes to pension rights which, say IPSA, would make the overall impact a net zero cost.

I am quite okay with those proposed changes to allowances.  In my view they are already too high, so this little bit of pruning won't go amiss.  They are also largely tax-exempt - even in the socialist paradise that is today's Britain, some are more equal than others.

Similarly, the pension changes are merely 'tinkering' which bring the golden pensions that MPs currently enjoy, just the tiniest bit closer to those which other public sector workers have.  Note the comparison - public sector workers!  Not the poor benighted souls in the private sector.  They continue to have pensions that are far inferior to those of the cosseted civil servants, which they nevertheless, fund!

Maybe you disagree that MPs enjoy good benefits?  After all, why would so many of them be forced to 'fiddle' and cheat on their expenses if they were so generous?  I say fiddle and cheat because I have decided to mince my words and refrain from calling the activities lying and stealing, though that is what the courts in a few 'show trials' seem to have decided.

Consider this though, how many businesses could fund an 11% increase in base pay by cutting back on other benefits, without those 'benefits' already being way too high in the first place?

Ed Miliband, from the socialist Labour Welfare Party, remains true to form.  Being of the socialist frame of mind he cannot resist a free ride.  So when the 'this is outrageous' bandwagon rolls along he has to jump on it.  He has written to the UK Prime Minister requesting that all party leaders meet with IPSA and get the recommendation reversed.  My admiration for his ability to posture, while on a rolling bandwagon, is tempered by the biliousness his opportunistic hypocrisy, generates.

Let's think about this.  Miliband already knows that the UK PM, David Cameron opposes the increase - though I suppose there is no point in jumping on a bandwagon and not letting the whole world know by publishing a letter - but Miliband also knows that IPSA are trying to  establish a process for determining suitable levels of pay for MPs and that implementing such a process is always likely to result in one-off anomalies.  Don't get me wrong, I do not support the increase but neither do I support the hypocrisy that pretends that developing a systematic and transparent approach to the issue is somehow wrong.  I have posted here before on why I think MP pay should be lower and linked to a multiple of the UK National Average wage - one sure way to get MPs focused on improving the 'lot' of all the people.

Here is my suggestion.  The IPSA proposals would not take effect until 2015.  Let's assume that this means, after the May 2015 General Election.   Why don't we have all candidates for election in 2015, publicly declare in their election material,  whether they would accept the increase or if they would refuse it.  If the increase has to be awarded, for practical purposes, then they would commit to donating the increase towards the reduction in the National Debt.  Since they are so adept at increasing this National Debt, their contribution would be a welcome step, for once, in the right direction.

This would avoid a pointless fight between party leaders and IPSA and would give voters a chance to see if their candidate is really with them and recognizes what 'we're all in this together' really means.





 

MPs Pay

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.