Long-term readers might recall that I used to advocate "A Workers' MP On A Worker's Wage", accepting only the national average salary for full-time work, which is significantly more than the pay of plenty of people living and working in central London.
Well, it was sympathetically explained to me that the full whack would be paid automatically into one's bank account no matter what, and that, even if one then gave away most of it, there was no chance of ever getting back the tax deducted at source from the income subsequently given away.
In any case, there is a very sound trade union principle called the rate for the job, to which of course I subscribe. And the rate for the job of an MP is the average wage in the public sector, at which it should be fixed by statute, just as that, in turn, should be fixed by statute at the average wage in the private sector.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Um, David, why don't you just pledge to take a little bit more than the national average salary, to compensate for the additional tax taken away? So that you are left with the post tax income of someone on the average wage.
ReplyDeleteI looked into that one. Same administrative nightmare, I'm afraid. Anyway, the problem is systemic. Lone gestures wouldn't make any difference.
ReplyDeleteHow would it be administratively difficult?
ReplyDelete1. Work out the tax liability for the national average salary.
2. Deduct that from the tax you have taken off ou at an MPs wage.
3. Add this remainder to the national average salary, and give the rest away.
And I can't believe that you, of all people, are complaining about lone gestures against systemic problems. The nature of protests, of new national movements, is that they start as lone gestures against systemic problems, no?
You have to pick your fights.
ReplyDeletePeople have tried to do this sort of thing in the past, and it hasn't worked.
But David, now you're changing your story. First of all you said it was too administraively difficult. I've shown you how its actually very simple.
ReplyDeleteNow you're complaining that it won't actually change anything. But surely that's an argument against any small movement or individual doing anything? That argument holds for many people of course - what's the point in me switching off my lights / going vegetarian etc etc- but surely a man who has run as an independent for local office, and is now starting his own political movememt, doesn't subscribe to that political philosophy?
The whole thing needs to be set in the context of the wholesale restructuring of public sector pay, and that in relation to private sector pay. In this instance, a "look at me" gesture would be a positively irresponsible distraction.
ReplyDeleteA distraction? How? Surely someone as high profile such as you doing this would raise the issue into wider debate.
ReplyDeleteI simply cannot fathom your wider political nous and strategy David, and as a (sympathetic) professional, I can tell you I would be worried if you were my client. Indidivudal events such as this prompt further discussion and debate, not distract from them. People are not excited by abstract, they are excited by specific events. A bold gesture. A strike in favour of the common man. It would be a defining event to start your political career. I would strongly advise you to discss further with your aides and consider making it your centrepiece.
If we could get a body of MPs in at once who would do it, then that would be a different matter. A lone individual who did this could only look foward to no other signatories to any amendment, EDM, &c for ever thereafter - he'd be a waste of even the salary that he claimed. Tough, but true.
ReplyDeleteReally? Do you think the first anti slavery campaigners in Parliament were really keen, but then stroked their beards and went "well hang on a minute lads - it may be a desirable goal, but we'll just look really stupid if we campaign for something no one else is going to do. Best leave it, eh?"
ReplyDeleteIf no one did anything because they were afraid they would lose popularity with their fellow MPs, then no change would ever happen. And that person would be no worse than the rest of the trough swillers. Worse, even, because he or she knew it was wrong, but didn't have the courage of their own convictions.
Seriously, David. You've stood and won local office as an independent. You've started your own political movement. Neither of these were on the back of a large organisational structure. Indeed, their raison d'etre was built in the teeth of opposition from such structures. And now, now, just before your greatest triumph, you recoil from this position in favour of a "well, I'd 'like' to do something, but you know its difficult, and I need to do lots of other things, and it would only be a symbolic gesture you know, and..."
Shame on you David. I thought you had principles. Principles that say - it matters not a jot whether this would be a lone gesture, or whether it would put some establishment noses out of joint. This is the Right thing to do, and I shall do it.
And if I could get two dozen other MPs to do it at the same time, then I would.
ReplyDeleteBut there are lots of other right things to do, across the full range of policy issues. There would be no point beginning one's time in Parliament by alienating everyone - absolutely everyone - who might agree with, or be persuadable on, some of those things. That would be a betrayal of the people dependent on the doing of them.
Something like this is on the agenda. But it cannot be very high on the agenda until many other issues have been addressed. It is simply a matter of priorities.
What if all the BPA candiadtes agreed to to do this?
ReplyDeleteThey wouldn't, and I wouldn't expect them to.
ReplyDeleteIt's wrong to make this a party issue in this way. The party issue should be legislation to fix MPs' salaries at the average public sector wager, and to fix that in turn at the average private sector wage. And that legislation would of course seek (even if not necessarily obtain) cross-party support.
Partisan gestures before that would out of place, and hugely counterproductive.
I have to say, I'm deeply saddened by that David. I'm afraid you've just lost my vote (in Bedford).
ReplyDeleteThis makes me pretty uncomfortable. I'm only a passive supporter of the BPA (first time poster), but I was taken with the boldness of your move. I may have to reconsider my position.
ReplyDeleteDavid, are you sure you won't reconsider? It's a very attractive proposition to put towards the electorate - something with which I could really see myself selling the BPA on the doorsteps. I fear voters will ask right off why the BPA leader won't do it, if it is party policy?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to consult. I can promise no more than that at this stage.
ReplyDeleteThat's good enough for me. I'm voting BPA!
ReplyDeleteNo sorry, consulting isn't enough. I need a firm commitment, otherwise my vote is gone.
ReplyDeleteA bit of a cop out David. I urge you to reconsider fully, and pledge yourself unreservedly to this policy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sally's earlier comments. This is a good thing to do, and you should do it. Please? For me?
ReplyDeleteWho are you considering it with? That might affect me, if I trust them.
ReplyDeleteI'm bitterly opposed to this move David. I amired you for your principles in changing your mind, and now you give in to sheer populism.
ReplyDeleteStill, I live in the Isle of Man, so I don't get a vote.
Poor David. I fear your votes will drift away unless you shore them up pretty quick. I am certainly not impressed.
ReplyDeleteThis has never been party policy. I discussed it here and elsewhere before there was a BPA.
ReplyDeleteA number of critical bloggers said that it was all that someone elected on the votes of anyone who voted for me was worth, which was the main factor in changing my mind.
And I repeat that other people have not become involved with the BPA on this understanding. If they had done, then there would be nothing to discuss. But they didn't.