£20,000 Pay Rise For MPs? Ouch…

Posted: 20/05/2013 by The Political Idealist in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

It is perhaps inevitable that, where employees can set their own wages, their pay is likely to rise to artificially high levels. However, this does not explain why the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), set up to police our representatives after the expenses scandal, is (it has been leaked) planning to recommend that members receive a pay rise of between 15 and 30% on top of their salaries, albeit in exchange for modest reductions in their defined-benefit pensions. A recent survey of 100 members showed that they believed pay was too low, and would be likely to support any pay rise offered.

In what looks like shocking hypocrisy, the 650 individuals who overwhelmingly voted to freeze the pay and cut the pensions of every cleaner, nurse, teacher and public sector worker in the land, have complained that their remuneration is too low. I’m speechless. £65,000 is a salary higher than 97% of workers in this country, and these public servants want other workers on less than the Living Wage to endure a pay freeze while they get double-digit pay rises?

Surprisingly, I don’t agree with the left-wing notion that MPs should be paid no more than the national average wage. If pay levels are too low, then talented people would stay away. If our society values democratically elected representatives more than a supermarket manager, pay would have to reflect this. However, there ought to be a clear link between the success of our representatives in improving our lives and there financial rewards. Also, we must resolve the serious attitude problem that most MPs demonstrate with their disgustingly hypocritical views on public sector pay.

My suggestion is that MPs’ pay is linked to a Civil Service pay grade, which is in turn based on a multiple of the national average salary- somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 times. And perhaps if pension arrangements were downgraded to those which the Government is trying to inflict on public sector workers (Labour’s view on the matter isn’t so clear), they might better sympathise with the outcry made by the unions. To be fair, some MPs have expressed similar views to the effect that they’d oppose any pay rise until living standards are increasing for the general public. And though it’s a long shot, this group might persuade fellow members if evidence of public anger over the matter is presented to them. Please sign this e-Petition to help defeat this self-serving pay rise.

About these ads

£20,000 Pay Rise For MPs? Ouch…

Posted: 20/05/2013 by The Political Idealist in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

It is perhaps inevitable that, where employees can set their own wages, their pay is likely to rise to artificially high levels. However, this does not explain why the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), set up to police our representatives after the expenses scandal, is (it has been leaked) planning to recommend that members receive a pay rise of between 15 and 30% on top of their salaries, albeit in exchange for modest reductions in their defined-benefit pensions. A recent survey of 100 members showed that they believed pay was too low, and would be likely to support any pay rise offered. In what looks like shocking hypocrisy, the 650 individuals who overwhelmingly voted to freeze the pay and cut the pensions of every cleaner, nurse, teacher and public sector worker in the land, have complained that their remuneration is too low. I’m speechless. £65,000 is a salary higher than 97% of workers in this country, and these public servants want other workers on less than the Living Wage to endure a pay freeze while they get double-digit pay rises? Surprisingly, I don’t agree with the left-wing notion that MPs should be paid no more than the national average wage. If pay levels are too low, then talented people would stay away. If our society values democratically elected representatives more than a supermarket manager, pay would have to reflect this. However, there ought to be a clear link between the success of our representatives in improving our lives and there financial rewards. Also, we must resolve the serious attitude problem that most MPs demonstrate with their disgustingly hypocritical views on public sector pay. My suggestion is that MPs’ pay is linked to a Civil Service pay grade, which is in turn based on a multiple of the national average salary- somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 times. And perhaps if pension arrangements were downgraded to those which the Government is trying to inflict on public sector workers (Labour’s view on the matter isn’t so clear), they might better sympathise with the outcry made by the unions. To be fair, some MPs have expressed similar views to the effect that they’d oppose any pay rise until living standards are increasing for the general public. And though it’s a long shot, this group might persuade fellow members if evidence of public anger over the matter is presented to them. Please sign this e-Petition to help defeat this self-serving pay rise.

What If We Can’t Cut Any Further?

Posted: 19/05/2013 by The Political Idealist in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Hardship

By 2015, the austerity programme instituted by the Coalition government (and reluctantly accepted in part by the Labour Party) will have been rolling on for five years. As vast sums are slashed off departmental budgets, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find politically acceptable cuts to make. Indeed, as George Osborne plans a three year round of cuts post-2015, ministers have agreed a mere £1.1 billion in cuts- a fraction of the level that Osborne’s targets require. And the question is raised: ‘what if Britain reaches a point where no more cuts can be made?’

At present, the budget deficit stands at £120 billion. Despite the draconian spending cuts inflicted, particularly on local government services, we continue to borrow at four-fifths of the rate that we did in 2010. This is due to the effect premature fiscal contraction has had in slowing- or rather, eliminating- economic growth. Unfortunately, it is fully possible that the next government will inherit a deficit of £100 billion due to Osborne’s determination to pursue his failed monetarist economic policy. It is here that our political leaders are presented with three unpalatable courses of action, with each one shaping the country for decades to come.

Firstly, there is the option to continue ‘Plan A’. Allowing for lost output as a result of the spending cuts, this would mean a reduction in the size of the state of about one-quarter. ‘Ring fencing’ around the NHS and education benefits would not be sustainable, and in fact the very existence of the NHS would be in doubt. Poverty and unemployment levels would continue to rise, and the country would stagnate economically and socially.

Secondly, use of the tried and tested Keynesian fiscal stimulus could be used. The issue here lies in the fact that, as the Coalition will have virtually doubled the National Debt, the risk is that there’d be limited room for manoeuvre on borrowing. Like France, Britain would have the problem that it wants to borrow to invest, but can only raise limited funds to do this. Stimulus that is too limited in scope will fail- unless it is cleverly targeted.

Alternatively, a policy of raising tax rates could be initiated. After all, taxation around the world has been at artificially low levels over the past decade (by post-war standards). For example, the basic rate of Income Tax when Margaret Thatcher left office was 27%. Today, it is just 20%. No doubt this option is politically toxic, but if the choice became as fundamental as one between charging for NHS treatment or paying more National Insurance, the latter seems a lot more palatable.

However, raising tax is just as effective at reducing consumer demand, the bedrock upon which productivity is built, as cutting spending. That is, unless tax rises are introduced gradually and focussed where it will not impact the general public. In other words, we are talking about people and organisation which have large amounts of money but are unlikely to spend it.

So what would an economic policy that respects a cuts-ceiling look like? It would feature a stimulus package together with tax rises imposed on the well-off, who are likely to invest a high proportion of their incomes rather than spend it. We’d see a large public works programme, with vast new housing, renewable energy and transport developments. We’d see public sector savings that are made in physical resources, not labour. And yes, we’d see higher personal taxation once the economy is growing.

We’re in for a lot of pain, whichever course we take.

Related articles

Euthanasia and suicide

Posted: 17/05/2013 by The Political Idealist in Uncategorized
0

Reblogged from madmuso's Blog:

"Suicidal ideation" is a term used by mental health professionals to describe a preoccupation with death by suicide. Anyone who has experienced severe depression will be all too familiar with these thoughts. However suicide is not just the preserve of the depressed and the legality and morality of assisted suicide has been on the news again recently. Euthanasia is a subject that seems to polarise people.

Read more… 807 more words

A very moving and persuasive article.

HS2: Still The Way Forward?

Posted: 16/05/2013 by The Political Idealist in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2

Britain has been neglecting its railways since the time of the Beeching Report half a century ago. Compared to France’s TGV and also Deutsche Bahn, both of which are owned by their respective governments, our rail system is the most expensive, the most crowded and the most limited in terms of span and speed. High speed rail routes are just one manifestation of transport policies which effectively promote sustainable and efficient travel.

By contrast, the UK has done little to reduce our dependency on cars. With the closure of branch lines in the 1960s, much of the country is dependent on buses for public transport… And this is riddled with many problems of itself. Returning to trains, we have the shocking situation in which a short link between central London and the Eurotunnel via Kent represents the entire high speed rail (HSR) network in the country. In fact, I agree with the claim that London-centric economic activity is inevitable where transport links to our regional centres are flimsy and slow at best. If nothing else, all road based transport out of London is painfully slow due to intense congestion on every possible route.

That is why I gave a cautious welcome to the HS2 proposals, that would eventually see routes from London to Birmingham (supposedly to be complete by 2027) and from there routes to both Manchester to the west and Leeds to the east. Though ideally we’d see links to Bristol (probably through to Wales), and also to Edinburgh too in the long run, it seemed like a good start. It would become possible to live in Birmingham and commute to London in just 40 minutes, due to speeds of up to 250 mph. Manchester will be a mere 68 minutes from London. It would have once sounded like the stuff of science fiction, and the importance of it should not be underestimated.

Unfortunately, the National Audit Office has just released a report saying that many of the claims made by the Coalition about the benefits of the scheme have little evidence to support them. The 100,000 new jobs the scheme is supposed to create could well be created anyway; there will be a £3 billion funding gap; and there is little margin for error in the timetable. Nevertheless, the project is still likely to provide good value for money, avoiding to the report. Now is a good time to ask if we we wish to continue development even if economic benefits are limited.

We're Failing: 1.65 Million US Households Live On Less Than $2 Per Day

Posted: 15/05/2013 by The Political Idealist in Uncategorized
0

Reblogged from The Cassandra Files:

Click to visit the original post

It's remarkable that as the global incidence of extreme poverty has been cut in half since 1990, the rate here in the greatest nation on earth has doubled. Stunningly, the latest research reveals that in 2011, "1.65 million U.S. households fell below the $2 a day per person threshold in a given month. Those households included 3.55 million children, and accounted for 4.3 percent of all non-elderly households with children."

Read more… 507 more words

The IRS Scandal: A British Perspective

Posted: 14/05/2013 by The Political Idealist in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
8

In Britain, we have heard little about a major news story in the United States, one that is responsible for a certain degree of political damage for the generally scandal-free Obama administration.

The Internal Revenue Service (the Federal government’s equivalent of our HMRC) has admitted that in 2011-12, it singled out political organisations applying for tax-free status for further investigation if they had the words ‘Tea Party’ or ‘Patriot’ in the name. There is no question that this was ordered by top politicians in the government, but it is known that senior officials in the IRS were aware of the policy. President Obama has codenamed their actions, emphasising his belief that the IRS must operate with absolute integrity and political neutrality.

I have no doubt that parallels being drawn with Watergate have no basis in the truth. However, I would say that this is significantly more likely to happen in the United States because they lack the politically neutral machinery of government that is so valuable in minimising corruption and biassed decision making. To explain my point, allow me to compare the European and American models. In Europe, we find a small number of ministers commanding a neutral Civil Service, which follows their instructions to the best of its ability. The judiciary, elections administration and secret services operate with little or no political input at all. Officials are generally secure in their jobs, and accept that a change of government may mean a total reversal of policies they were enacting.

By contrast, top officials in the American government are appointed by the elected administration, and so civil servants are dependent on whichever political party is in power. The President appoints judges to the highest of courts, undermining the impartiality of the institution. Most absurdly of all, vote counting is done by representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties, under the command of election boards run by politicians. It is the latter two practices which ensured George W Bush secured the Presidency in 2000 despite the fact that Al Gore won the election (A stain on America’s democratic record that will shame the country for ever).

My point is that if you lack political neutrality in government administration, it is inevitable that opposition parties will end up at a disadvantage. That’s why I’m proud of the British Civil Service. It receives a bad press: the public still see Sir Humphrey-style inefficiency, manipulation and overpayment as seen in Yes Minister. That doesn’t represent the modern Civil Service. And remember, our democracy would be a lot poorer without it.

Help for Reformed Prisoners

Posted: 09/05/2013 by The Political Idealist in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2

When it comes to law and order, social liberals often have problems putting forward sensible, evidence-based polices for fear of being dismissed as ‘soft’ on criminals. Such is the case around the world, and there are a number of causes that it could be attributed to, such as the influence of reactionary tabloid media. Unfortunately, it isn’t as simple as that- and we’d do better to just pursue reforms rather than complain.

Nevertheless, there is one matter on which the majority of British voters and politicians are agreed: there is too little support for prisoners when their sentence finishes. Indeed, these people often leave with nothing but a couple of banknotes in their pocket, the clothes they’re standing in, and directions to the nearest Salvation Army hostel. After all, if prisoners have no income, they cannot continue paying a mortgage or rent. Very few employers will go near a recent criminal, and by their nature ‘ex-cons’ are likely to lack a high level of education, making jobs even more unreachable.

Is it any wonder that, faced with unemployment and homelessness, these people are likely to resort to criminal activity? With no real safety net to help them on the outside, prisoners will struggle to cope with a world which doesn’t regard them as equal citizens.

There is a fundamental argument over the nature of prison: should its emphasis be on punishment or rehabilitation? It seems to me that it would be counterproductive to merely punish prisoners, as it simply perpetuates a cycle of reoffending which not only destroys the life of the people concerned, but also costs society through the preventable crimes that take place and the large sum of public money that is spent on prison places. Alternatively, we could work in partnership with individuals to allow them to repay their debt to the country in a meaningful way, as productive workers both before and after their release.

Yesterday’s Queen’s Speech featured a bill that would see private companies entrusted with the task of supervising people for at least 12 months after their release. The businesses will be paid more if reoffending rates for their ‘cases’ is lower than a set target. Though this is helpful, it’s nowhere near sufficient. Yes, regular visits will be of value, but they are no substitute for the basic financial and physical security of a job and a home, which these companies will only help people to seek. Furthermore, the Coalition has displayed its obsession with outsourcing with the plans, raising questions about how well service users’ interests are going to be served. If the way Serco manages bin collections is anything to go by, the service will be all but useless.

Offenders must be provided with transitional employment, education and housing until they have a reasonable chance of meeting these needs themselves. However, if there is emphasis on ‘giving back’ to society, these things should not be simply handed to them. Instead, I refer readers to an article I wrote last year called ‘Call Centres in Prisons? Not Such a Bad Idea?‘

In that article, I suggested that prisoners should be required to work standard office hours. So as not to undercut law-abiding citizens, the Minimum Wage should be paid, however the bulk of wages should be deducted for two National Support Funds: one for victims of crime, and the other for offender rehabilitation. The rehabilitation fund should work with both public and private sectors to provide all the transitional needs outlined above to anybody who has contributed throughout their sentence. Specialised developments consisting of housing, places of work and other facilities could be built, providing a sheltered ‘stepping stone’ from prison to independence. I don’t know the numbers, but its possible that such a fund could require little taxpayer subsidy.

This is the best way that a fresh start can be given to those who have done their time, and want to move on from mistakes made in the past.

Size 10 or Nothing!

Posted: 08/05/2013 by The Political Idealist in Uncategorized
0

Reblogged from Moll News World:

Click to visit the original post

Michael Jeffries (CEO Abercrombie & Fitch)

~ Photo By David Turner

Abercrombie & Fitch only cater for ladies who are no more than size 10 because they don't specialise in "fat" women wear. For the men, you can breathe, they have XL and XXL in order to "appeal to large athletes"(Lewis in Elite's Daily feature on Abercrombie & Fitch, May 2013).

Read more… 1,022 more words

Wow! A Fair Change to Welfare*

Posted: 07/05/2013 by The Political Idealist in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

*Almost.

Like the majority of people I know, I always open the newspaper with a sense of foreboding. What has the Coalition messed up today? And the chances are that another employer has folded, the environment is enduring worse damage, and there’s another war going on somewhere. However, I’m generally not one for becoming depressed at the state of the world, as there is a lot of good news that we don’t talk about so much. And occasionally, even the Conservative Party will draw up a policy that is borderline acceptable. Knowing how to react to this is, as I’m sure you’ll appreciate, difficult for me. I shall explain what has happened.

The old age pension is the oldest and second most important component of the welfare state, after the National Health Service. Contrary to scare stories which I gather are spread liberally over in the United States, both work. Admittedly, the state pension is horribly modest, but with top-up benefits in place we can guarantee a basic income for the elderly. The concept behind it is sound: the more years’ National Insurance (usually equivalent to an 11% income tax) you pay, the larger the pension you receive in retirement. Employers are required to make similar contributions, with the result that the Treasury has a large fund which part funds the support in place for anybody who has contributed over their working life.

The trouble is, the state pension goes to people who haven’t contributed. I’m not talking about those who’ve had their National Insurance contributions made for them, such as the disabled: I’ll leave it to a nasty tabloid rag to make snide implications. I’m not even talking about the small group of immigrants who sometimes milk the system (reports of which are hideously exaggerated, by the way). No, I’m talking about the families in which a British expat automatically entitles their foreign national spouse to an allowance of up to £66 per week based solely on the expat’s NI contributions.

In effect, people who have never so much as set foot on UK soil, let alone pay anything in National Insurance, are able to claim £3432 a year. That’s not huge. But it does add up to as much as £400 million per annum at a national level, which is over half the cost of fraud in the pensions budget. The upcoming Queen’s Speech features a measure to redefine state pension criteria, so that payouts will be based only on the NI contributions of the claimant. The move can only affect new claimants, and will affect many more UK-domiciled couples than one would expect if we listened to the Government’s rhetoric. I have only one issue with this: women are likely to disappointed as they are more likely to take time off work to care for young children or disabled relatives, and will therefore not pay NI in those years.

It’s unfortunate that our society hasn’t developed to the point that stay-at-home dads aren’t a rarity, but we have to base the system on social reality. The solution lies in the existing system of National Insurance credits, where the state ‘pays’ an individual’s contributions on their behalf. There’d be nothing to worry about were the Conservatives not itching to reduce these…

Older Entries