Technology1 min ago
Shami Chakrabarti
Said on 'Any Questions',tonight, that MPs were 'forced' to fiddle their expenses because of poor wages. She went on to say that they should get their 11% pay rise so they don't 'have' to fiddle their expenses again.
Anyone agree?
Anyone agree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Svejk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I didn't hear it. I'd be surprised if she did put it as bluntly as that but if she did say exactly that then she was plainly wrong. Another point is that people misuse the word 'fiddle'- many such expense claims are within the rules. Expenses are bound to be high when we expect MPs to attend the House of Commons until late at night and still attend surgeries in their local area. Some clearly push the rules to the limits or bend the rules though, and even though there may have been connivance in the past I am sure the climate has changed and it should be stopped.
The government and MPs have only themselves to blame though for this mess. They put this review body in place so that MPs no longer had to vote on their own pay. They froze salaries in 2010 for 5 years and said the independent body's findings would be implemented after the election in 2015. So by the time of the review the 11% figure looks huge, but really it just represents 2% a year. Nevertheless that's more than many of us have got after several years of wage freezes. The body has also proposed cuts to pensions and other benefits which cancel out the pay rise, but that point seems to be overlooked.
They should have thought of this when they set up the body.
I don't know how they'll get out of this mess
The government and MPs have only themselves to blame though for this mess. They put this review body in place so that MPs no longer had to vote on their own pay. They froze salaries in 2010 for 5 years and said the independent body's findings would be implemented after the election in 2015. So by the time of the review the 11% figure looks huge, but really it just represents 2% a year. Nevertheless that's more than many of us have got after several years of wage freezes. The body has also proposed cuts to pensions and other benefits which cancel out the pay rise, but that point seems to be overlooked.
They should have thought of this when they set up the body.
I don't know how they'll get out of this mess
The bit about the rise being a spread from 2010 to 2015 is news to me. Similarly, the part about it being a trade-off with pension and other perks being reduced or taken away I have only just gleaned, from this thread (thanks).
I realise we live in a sound-bite age but how come the press insist on editing out crucial details in order to create the shock-factor?
If our attention and energy is being drawn to what turn out to be non-stories, on a regular basis, what is our attention being diverted away from?
I realise we live in a sound-bite age but how come the press insist on editing out crucial details in order to create the shock-factor?
If our attention and energy is being drawn to what turn out to be non-stories, on a regular basis, what is our attention being diverted away from?
I like Shami. I find myself in agreement with her most of the time.
On this particular issue though I think she is wrong on the specific matter that the expenses scandal justifies offering MPs a pay rise.
She is however, perfectly correct when she says that essentially MPs were given the nod for years by successive governments, to creatively use their expenses and allowances, rather than award pay rises which would either infuriate the public or the civil service or both.
Not that this justifies the current ridiculous award intention by IPSA either :)
On this particular issue though I think she is wrong on the specific matter that the expenses scandal justifies offering MPs a pay rise.
She is however, perfectly correct when she says that essentially MPs were given the nod for years by successive governments, to creatively use their expenses and allowances, rather than award pay rises which would either infuriate the public or the civil service or both.
Not that this justifies the current ridiculous award intention by IPSA either :)
MP's salaries have always been linked to (Senior) Civil Servant's pay and conditions code.
Now you know why no-one in the MP's payroll section dared to blab about it.
In fact, I'm not sure where they would stand, with regard to the Official Secrets Act. Which further calls into question how it was ever leaked.
Such things are almost always done out of spite though.
Now you know why no-one in the MP's payroll section dared to blab about it.
In fact, I'm not sure where they would stand, with regard to the Official Secrets Act. Which further calls into question how it was ever leaked.
Such things are almost always done out of spite though.
