There was an article on PM on Radio 4 tonight about how an anonymous survey of MPs had found that they thought they should have a pay rise of - wait for it - 32%!! Amazingly, nearly every MP the programme contacted for an interview to discuss this story was too busy to talk (whereas they normally inflict their views on us at every opportunity).
However, one MP did agree to talk. This guy, a Tory MP as it happens, (although I'm sure plenty of Labour MPs were also in favour of a pay rise) actually had me spluttering and shouting at the radio with the assertion that many MPs were becoming increasingly "poor" and that it was terrible that they might not have been able to afford the presents their children wanted this Christmas.
Let's just point this out here: MPs earn in excess of £64,000 p.a. which, of course, excludes the generous package of expenses that covers virtually all of their day-to-day costs. "Poor"?
He then went on to explain that many MPs are qualified doctors and they could be earning a lot more by practicing medicine (well get back to treating patients or give back the costs of your medical training!) or had left industry to enter Parliament. Fine, I have no doubt they could have been making a whole heap more as straight out capitalists, but no-one made them become an MP. Using their own free will, they chose that particular path and, presumably, also bothered to check what salary came with the job, so they knew what to expect.
The kicker came for me when he said that at £64,000, an MP's salary was no better than the headmaster or headmistress of a junior school. If that is the case, I know which one deserves that level of pay AND should get the pay rise (and it's not the one who goes to "work" in the House of Commons!).
Somebody needs to give this guy a talk on just exactly what "public service" means.
Thursday, 10 January 2013
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
R.I.P.
Today, the Guardian carried an obituary of The Welfare State. As the Coalition continued their blunderbuss assault on the weak, the marginalised, the disabled and anyone else who is "not one of us" with their capping benefit rises at 1%, the Guardian's piece saw it as just about the last nail in Welfare's coffin. It may not quite be all over for Beveridge's brilliant design, but it is looking like a very, very precarious 'support' for those who require assistance in their time of need. More and more will begin to fall through the cracks in the fractured provision that is arising from the work of the wrecking crew currently in power.
It is lazy to accept that the George Osborne and Daily Mail view - a group of feckless, work-shy spongers and ne'er-do-wells - represents the 'norm' amongst benefit recipients. As with any grouping, it is far from homogenous and for every 'scrounger' that the DM unearths or Osborne vilifies, there are ten, fifty, a hundred people who want to work but are unable to find a job in the current market. As you may have noticed, we are in a (double- or treble-dip) recession.
The Welfare system probably had people who realised the potential for exploiting it for their own ends right from day one. However, the majority of people at that time could remember the hardships of slum housing, of having to spend the food money in order to pay for a visit by the doctor or having the barest of financial support when they were out of work. They were grateful for the support provided by the new system and chose not to abuse what it had to offer because they understood that to swindle it was, in effect, to steal from their neighbours, families in exactly the same position as themselves.
The things that are really dying as the Welfare State staggers, suffering death by a thousand cuts, are community, a sense of belonging, the knowledge that those of us in work should support those who are temporarily without a job, the humility to put society's welfare ahead of our individual need because we believe that a strong society benefits all, not just the few. Margaret Thatcher famously once said that there was no such thing as 'society'. She was wrong when she said that, but her heirs are hell-bent on ensuring that it comes to pass. As we cut the ties between each other and turn in on ourselves and look solely to tend to our own needs, so we play into the hands of those in power: divide and rule.
As we move away from a Welfare State and embrace a US-style everyone-for-theselves approach to life, we will be waving goodbye to so much more than the command economy anachronism the Daily Mail sees. We will be laying to rest something that once helped bind us together. It is ironic that the Mail constantly runs pieces whose subtexts lament the passing of Olde England whilst all the time hammering away at the very institutions that once defined us as 'great'. R.I.P. indeed.
Edit: Spookily, this piece in the Guardian says pretty much what I have been fumbling to say in the above http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/08/welfare-problem-real-scroungers-greedy
It is lazy to accept that the George Osborne and Daily Mail view - a group of feckless, work-shy spongers and ne'er-do-wells - represents the 'norm' amongst benefit recipients. As with any grouping, it is far from homogenous and for every 'scrounger' that the DM unearths or Osborne vilifies, there are ten, fifty, a hundred people who want to work but are unable to find a job in the current market. As you may have noticed, we are in a (double- or treble-dip) recession.
The Welfare system probably had people who realised the potential for exploiting it for their own ends right from day one. However, the majority of people at that time could remember the hardships of slum housing, of having to spend the food money in order to pay for a visit by the doctor or having the barest of financial support when they were out of work. They were grateful for the support provided by the new system and chose not to abuse what it had to offer because they understood that to swindle it was, in effect, to steal from their neighbours, families in exactly the same position as themselves.
The things that are really dying as the Welfare State staggers, suffering death by a thousand cuts, are community, a sense of belonging, the knowledge that those of us in work should support those who are temporarily without a job, the humility to put society's welfare ahead of our individual need because we believe that a strong society benefits all, not just the few. Margaret Thatcher famously once said that there was no such thing as 'society'. She was wrong when she said that, but her heirs are hell-bent on ensuring that it comes to pass. As we cut the ties between each other and turn in on ourselves and look solely to tend to our own needs, so we play into the hands of those in power: divide and rule.
As we move away from a Welfare State and embrace a US-style everyone-for-theselves approach to life, we will be waving goodbye to so much more than the command economy anachronism the Daily Mail sees. We will be laying to rest something that once helped bind us together. It is ironic that the Mail constantly runs pieces whose subtexts lament the passing of Olde England whilst all the time hammering away at the very institutions that once defined us as 'great'. R.I.P. indeed.
Edit: Spookily, this piece in the Guardian says pretty much what I have been fumbling to say in the above http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/08/welfare-problem-real-scroungers-greedy
Monday, 7 January 2013
Comparing apples and pears
A week or so back, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) waded in with some figures to support the Coalition's recently-announced war on scroungers and skivers as George Osborne termed them or, more neutrally, people in receipt of benefits. The headline figures were that benefits, rising in line with inflation had, over five years, gone up by 20% whereas private sector salaries had gone up by an average of only 12% over the same period.
Leaving aside the fact that the average pay rise for public sector workers wasn't mentioned anywhere (a big fat 0% for two years now), what appears to be an outrageous imbalance against the "hard-working middle classes", actually appears a bit differently if you stop to think about it. A 20% increase vs. a 12% increase is only as vastly unfair as the Government would have us believe if it is applied to the same starting figure. However, if you take a very small figure and increase it by 20% it remains a pretty small figure. By comparison, taking a relatively large figure and adding 12% to it leaves the gap between the small figure and the large figure pretty much untouched.
Taking a single person on a salary of £34,000 p.a, that equates to around £28,800 take home or £553 per week. That 12% rise equates to around £59 per week. In comparison, a single jobseeker aged over 25 gets £71 per week, so their 20% increase equates to £12 per week. Now, I'm not going to say that the additional £59 pounds per week for the employed person is undeserved or mere bunce: many people in these times of austerity are living close to the edge financially. But that additional £12 per week makes a massive difference when you starting point is so low to begin with.
I'm not about to get into the "undeserving" vs. the "deserving" unemployed person argument here, but I just thought it should be pointed out that when one is looking to compare apples with something, it is probably best to find some other apples, otherwise your comparison is meaningless. However, I suspect that a level statistical playing field was the last thing on the minds of the DWP when they concocted that comparison. What was that quote about "lies, damned lies and statistics"?
Leaving aside the fact that the average pay rise for public sector workers wasn't mentioned anywhere (a big fat 0% for two years now), what appears to be an outrageous imbalance against the "hard-working middle classes", actually appears a bit differently if you stop to think about it. A 20% increase vs. a 12% increase is only as vastly unfair as the Government would have us believe if it is applied to the same starting figure. However, if you take a very small figure and increase it by 20% it remains a pretty small figure. By comparison, taking a relatively large figure and adding 12% to it leaves the gap between the small figure and the large figure pretty much untouched.
Taking a single person on a salary of £34,000 p.a, that equates to around £28,800 take home or £553 per week. That 12% rise equates to around £59 per week. In comparison, a single jobseeker aged over 25 gets £71 per week, so their 20% increase equates to £12 per week. Now, I'm not going to say that the additional £59 pounds per week for the employed person is undeserved or mere bunce: many people in these times of austerity are living close to the edge financially. But that additional £12 per week makes a massive difference when you starting point is so low to begin with.
I'm not about to get into the "undeserving" vs. the "deserving" unemployed person argument here, but I just thought it should be pointed out that when one is looking to compare apples with something, it is probably best to find some other apples, otherwise your comparison is meaningless. However, I suspect that a level statistical playing field was the last thing on the minds of the DWP when they concocted that comparison. What was that quote about "lies, damned lies and statistics"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)