This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/13/mps-expenses-pay-rise

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
MPs would rather hike up expenses than accept a pay rise MPs would rather hike up expenses than accept a pay rise
(5 days later)
The management of the MPs' expenses row has been so catastrophic that if you look at it too closely, it will make you afraid of the way MPs manage everything else. After the initial scandal, they made a great show of surrendering their fate to Ipsa (the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority), who duly filed their recommendations, which were that salaries should go up to £74,000. Like so many things, it's an unpopular view until you actually think about it.The management of the MPs' expenses row has been so catastrophic that if you look at it too closely, it will make you afraid of the way MPs manage everything else. After the initial scandal, they made a great show of surrendering their fate to Ipsa (the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority), who duly filed their recommendations, which were that salaries should go up to £74,000. Like so many things, it's an unpopular view until you actually think about it.
Leaving aside what they're worth and whether, simply by taking office, they are inherently valueless people who should actually be paid much less, they have been historically too cowardly to award themselves pay rises, preferring the backdoor pay rise of their bizarrely generous expenses system. Since their expenses would now be expected to become more conventional – Ipsa reasoned – then not to award them a raise would amount to a significant cut. Ipsa also reckoned that they were, generally, of a level of qualification and experience that £74,000 would be a fair, even modest, salary.Leaving aside what they're worth and whether, simply by taking office, they are inherently valueless people who should actually be paid much less, they have been historically too cowardly to award themselves pay rises, preferring the backdoor pay rise of their bizarrely generous expenses system. Since their expenses would now be expected to become more conventional – Ipsa reasoned – then not to award them a raise would amount to a significant cut. Ipsa also reckoned that they were, generally, of a level of qualification and experience that £74,000 would be a fair, even modest, salary.
MPs then fell over themselves to be the first to say they couldn't possibly accept such a salary, that they would give it to charity, that it was inappropriate, absurd; and that's the kind of craven behaviour we've come to expect. Why listen to the independent panel you've commissioned yourself for this precise purpose, when you can score a cheap point or curry some favour instead? What's galling is how much this nonsense is costing – expenses have, predictably, gone up by £9m in a year, as they compensate themselves like mad for the pay rise they've valiantly promised not to take.MPs then fell over themselves to be the first to say they couldn't possibly accept such a salary, that they would give it to charity, that it was inappropriate, absurd; and that's the kind of craven behaviour we've come to expect. Why listen to the independent panel you've commissioned yourself for this precise purpose, when you can score a cheap point or curry some favour instead? What's galling is how much this nonsense is costing – expenses have, predictably, gone up by £9m in a year, as they compensate themselves like mad for the pay rise they've valiantly promised not to take.
And contained within it is the much more significant corruption whereby they employ their own families; the rules have been tightened a bit so they can't employ all their children, but this is to miss the principle.And contained within it is the much more significant corruption whereby they employ their own families; the rules have been tightened a bit so they can't employ all their children, but this is to miss the principle.
PAs to MPs are employed by the state – as such, that post must be offered on an equal opportunity basis. Not because the equality duty says so, but because that's the proper thing to do. MPs, too ashamed to argue for their own salary, will nevertheless happily put it to the country that their wife is the only viable person for the job of secretary, because they sometimes have to travel on a Sunday or entertain on a Tuesday evening.PAs to MPs are employed by the state – as such, that post must be offered on an equal opportunity basis. Not because the equality duty says so, but because that's the proper thing to do. MPs, too ashamed to argue for their own salary, will nevertheless happily put it to the country that their wife is the only viable person for the job of secretary, because they sometimes have to travel on a Sunday or entertain on a Tuesday evening.
There's a lack of courage here, certainly, a lack of transparency, and a lack of forethought; but most of all, there's no moral compass. You could sum up their position as "I want to. Why shouldn't I?"There's a lack of courage here, certainly, a lack of transparency, and a lack of forethought; but most of all, there's no moral compass. You could sum up their position as "I want to. Why shouldn't I?"
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.