Thursday, 10 January 2013

What it means to be poor: by an MP

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment