Monkeying Around

Here's an interesting article on MPs' pay which appeared in The Observer last Sunday and takes aim at Gordon Brown, David Miliband and George Galloway - to name but a few of Westminster's honourable members who are posted 'missing' from the House of Commons on a regular basis. 

Now I think there is a reasonable case to be made for raising MPs' pay - though I doubt a whopping great increase to £86,250 a year could be justified under present circumstances.

Also if MPs pay is to be increased then why don't they pay for it themselves by reducing their numbers from the overblown 650 who sit in the House of Commons at the moment - to something more sensible. 

Only last week MPs threw out a proposal to cut their numbers to 600 - by equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies - so maybe that's a figure to keep in mind if and when the issue of pay is being considered seriously.

But there's nothing to stop MPs having a job description - in fact I would draw one up myself for free - and I'm sure I could call upon lots of others to support such a public spirited act. 

The only thing stopping MPs having a job description - is the reluctance of MPs to be held to account - the more vague and less clear thing are the better for them or some of them at least -  the ones who swan about pretending the electorate holds MPs to account every 4 or 5 years.

Now in one sense that's true because the voters do have the final say - ultimately - but from a common sense standpoint this argument is plain daft.

Because I can't see anything wrong with MPs being required to sign up to a job description which requires their presence in Parliament, for example, or in their constituencies - for a minimum amount of time every week, month or year.

What other jobs do you know where some folks can swan around simply doing their own thing - with a decent salary, generous pension and sizeable office expenses - all paid for out of the public purse.

If voters had a power of recall - the ability to trigger another election - that would impose a discipline that doesn't exist at present - as would the various political parties all signing up to minimum standards of service and behaviour that can be expected of MPs.

Yes, pay MPs more. But only if they then up their act

Parliamentarians spoil their own chances of getting a higher salary with their moonlighting and absenteeism

By Catherine Bennett 

Say what you like about reality TV shows: when politicians are involved, the public can at least be sure, for the duration of the programme, that they are still with us. Just a glimpse of Gordon Brown in the jungle, or pretending to be a cat with, say, David Miliband, would give the lie to rumours, scarcely allayed by his annual appearance in the Commons, that the former prime minister is now working full time for a respected firm of Kirkcaldy undertakers, with the stated aim of "finally having some fun".

As for the elusive Miliband, some visual evidence that he, too, has a purpose in life beyond overseas and business commitments, would encourage hopes that, regardless of his speaking record, he has not become too haughty for domestic politics and might even, with the right promotion, be persuaded to get involved.

Sure, television has its risks: some of us were slow to applaud Nadine Dorries last year, when she took an unauthorised break from slagging off her colleagues; and, back in 2006, some East Enders were dissatisfied with their Labour MP George Galloway's cat improvisation on Big Brother, when he licked pretend cream from the hands of Rula Lenska. Some took to the streets with a petition: "We believe this egotistical action shows a shameful lack of respect for the people of this constituency."

Nationally, however, Galloway has never been a more compelling presence than during his cat-miming days, even last year when, as a champion of Julian Assange, he produced a home movie explaining why, in his opinion, the founder of Wikileaks could not be guilty of rape. "I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion," he explained, confirming a view that many convicted rapists will have instinctively felt, but never had the confidence to express.

In fact, busy with sexual politics and foreign affairs – and, no doubt, the needs of his Bradford West constituency – Galloway's appearances in the House of Commons are so rare that merely the sight of him getting to his feet in PMQs last week prompted shouts from regulars of "Never heard of him", "He's never here" and "Who's he?" The answer to the last question is provided by the Comment show on Iranian-owned Press TV, the programme "that invites viewers to engage in a lively debate with British MP George Galloway on the most pressing challenges facing our world". Although fellow politicians have, of course, appeared on Press TV, including Ken Livingstone and the expenses-fiddling MP Derek Conway, both gave up the day job before helping bring the UK "an Iranian perspective on the news".

In the Commons, Galloway's question about the government's approach to Islamist extremists – which it effectively supports in Syria, hopes to suppress in Mali – only demonstrated what a useful contribution he might make if he turned up. Four times a year is really not enough to hear from one of the few, independent voices in Westminster, particularly one, such as Galloway, familiar with the meaning of "adumbrate". If nothing else, more frequent contributions by the Respect party's solitary MP might set an example to other notable absentees, whose sudden visibility might then advance the case, popular with MPs but still making little headway with the public, that politicians deserve a pay rise of more than a third, from the current £65,738 to £86,250.

Pre-empting the recommendations of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), which is still consulting on pay, the Speaker, John Bercow, was reported last week, to have urged wealthy party leaders not to attempt block any proposed increases, as previously. "I do think," the Daily Telegraph quoted him saying, "there is some historical resentment that party leaders who either had a higher salary by virtue of their office or who have had access to other sources of finance... have been very quick to tell ordinary MPs what they should and shouldn't be paid."

Although a Guardian online poll asked readers only if they supported the largest proposed wage increase of 32% (86% were against), the new consultation from Ipsa, along with hundreds of online comments, adds to a strong impression that where MPs are concerned, a large majority of the public would consider any remuneration and diet superior to Fantine's in Les Misérables to be an outrageous doss. Many people, Ipsa reports, "still view MPs and Parliament through the lens of the expenses scandal". More important, it decided, people have no idea what MPs actually do. "Addressing that knowledge deficit is an important prerequisite to winning public support for changes to MPs' remuneration." Think of David Miliband's routine. Does the public have any idea how gruelling it is to spend a day as senior global adviser to Oxford Analytica (£6,000 excl VAT)?

Assuming the public is willing to overlook the A&;E-style signs Ipsa had to put up, "warning those attending our induction workshops that aggression towards our staff would not be tolerated", would closer acquaintance with MPs be likely to arouse much sympathy? With its passive acceptance of Westminster exceptionalism, the Ipsa report will surely change some minds.

As one of the 11% who supports an increase to £86,250, partly to attract the well-qualified, partly because politics matter and job status is apt to be measured by salary, even I was almost converted, by the Ipsa consultation, into favouring a savage pay cut until such time as MPs accept the obligations, as well as the advantages, of a top public sector post. For now, says Ipsa, explaining its opposition to the three-quarters of their respondents who favoured direct public sector comparators, such as the salary of a headteacher, such proposals are inappropriate. "The job of an MP is unique and it has no agreed job description." Could it not devise one, to help determine pay? "We agree, but is not within Ipsa's power to determine a job description for MPs, nor would it be appropriate for us to do so."

Only parliamentarians themselves, perhaps led by the fearless Bercow and the large number of decent MPs we might call strivers, can explain to baffled civilians why they, unlike every other public servant, should not be deterred from moonlighting and bullying, absenteeism and nepotism.

Ipsa, dedicated to restoring public trust, is clear that any issue with the unsupervised distribution of coveted jobs to an MP's immediate relations merely signals an extreme knowledge deficit. "We resisted calls," says its report, "to ban the employment by MPs of family members on the grounds that there was little documented evidence of abuse, the employees in question provided trusted support and often good value for money, and it was common practice amongst British businesses."

By extension, anyone naive enough to question the hostility to accounting, the contempt for public opinion and the demented shrieking that characterises PMQs, should reflect that these parliamentary attributes, too, are common practice in British fairgrounds, British banks and British zoos.

People complain that Gordon Brown never goes into work. Well, no more do most monkeys.