MPs earn plenty of cash – it’s time they joined the real world, says james bartholomew
|
 |
|
|
|
The suggestion by some MPs that they should have a big pay rise over the next two years has been greeted with popular disgust. But the disgust, though full-blooded, is not loud enough.
The basis for the MPs' claim is that the Senior Salaries Review Body decided four years ago that they should receive more money to bring them into line with head teachers, police superintendents and the directors of medium-sized companies. But the government blocked this. It was reported yesterday that some MPs want a 22 per cent rise to bring them up to the level they "should" be at already.
Ann Clwyd, leader of Labour's backbench MPs, and Michael Spicer, her Tory equivalent, apparently met last week to discuss a rise. Ms Clwyd has since said it is "bullshit" that they want 22 per cent. But these are not the
|
|
 |
 |
|
| MPs do not feel the fears of the rest of us with regard to pay and pensions |
|
|
|
first reports in the past week that MPs have been looking for a substantial increase. There is surely a fire beneath the smoke.
At gut level, many of us hate the idea of MPs getting more. The money they already receive - £59,000 - is more than twice average pay levels. In addition they have awarded themselves expenses and allowances which, among other things, often include paying the wife to do secretarial work. Then there are the trips abroad to "study tourism facilities in Florida and the Bahamas" or suchlike. Parliament is only in session for half the year anyway and although they will say they are busy for the rest of the time too, we don't really know. MPs' pay is not based on performance.
In any case, it is said that as much as 60 per cent of our laws are now made in Brussels, in which case MPs should be paid 
|
