‘All in this together’ falls on deaf ears with MPs’ pay rise

WELL, we’re off again. Out they come once more, with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) saying that MPs should be awarded a 10 per cent salary increase from next April. This is in addition to the one per cent rise they will receive from the same month, which means that following the one per cent rise, their salaries will increase from £67,000 to £74,000.

IPSA has stated that this increase is necessary to more accurately reflect the demands of being an MP and to attract future candidates with the required abilities. They say that failure to pay ‘fair rates’ would make it harder to recruit good candidates. Why do I keep expecting the ‘if you pay peanuts...’ argument to quickly emerge?

Nurses are being offered, at the most, a one per cent rise; similar amounts to policemen, teachers, firemen, care workers etc. and our soldiers, if they’re not facing redundancy, will see very modest increases in their pay, when we all know their true worth.

Why is this? Because ‘what they are worth’ did not enter into the calculations at all. Britain is £1.3 trillion in debt and owing to the severe recession, the Government ruled that such very small rises in pay must be made. They were very keen to inform us that no exceptions could, or would be made and coined the phrase ‘we are all in this together’.

But, IPSA, apparently doesn’t understand this ruling and, obviously, believes that MPs must be regarded as an exception. It must be the cynic in me to wonder just how are members of this independent body recruited and how are their salaries calculated? They describe the size of increase awarded to all the above workers as ‘miserly’ if offered to MPs. They say the job of an MP is not an easy one, but I believe the job of a soldier in Afghanistan is not very easy also.

However, there is also one very major difference between the workers mentioned above and our MPs. All the above categories of workers are under-staffed, many seriously under-staffed yet they have to exist on the small offers made.

MPs? Well, they are grossly over-staffed by around 40 per cent. Britain has around 250 more MPs than is justified but, apparently, this does not enter into the calculations on what pay they should receive – why?

If IPSA is going to be regarded as a serious body shouldn’t it be recommending drastically pruning the numbers of MPs? Perhaps then, the correct number of MPs could be better paid.