MPs should have their pay-rise - Oh, and it's 2.2% not 11%

Having seen the almost uniformly negative coverage of this "11% MP pay rise" (even from MPs themselves) I feel that somebody has to stick up for them.

All the commentary I have seen has been along the lines of the rest of the country is suffering from austerity and public sector wage rises have been kept to 1% so WHY ON EARTH SHOULD MPs HAVE AN 11% PAY RISE??!!!

Well firstly the rise would not be 11%. At least not if you measure it fairly and in the same way that pay-rises are measured for everybody else, i.e. annually. The salary is currently £66,396 (since Apr this year). The proposal is to raise it to £74,000 in 2015. So this would be a rise of just under 5.6% per year from that baseline. But that isn't really fair either because between Apr 2009 and Apr 2013 MPs' salaries rose by 0.6% annually (when the historic average of the last decade has been more like 2.2%). And this current rise is at least partly designed to address this. So when you compare the Apr 2009 figure with the proposed 2015 one you get an average pay-rise of 2.2% across the 6 years. Which doesn't even keep pace with inflation.

"AH!" I hear you cry "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 1%?". But there's more dear irate capitalised fictional reader. IPSA are actually proposing quite radical changes to the structure of MPs' (historically very generous) pensions and also ironing out some expenses anomalies. So the cost to the taxpayer of this latest rise would actually be cost neutral. That's right, it won't cost us anything more. Not that you'd particularly have been aware of that judging by much of the coverage.

It's also worth noting that IPSA is an entirely independent body. Many MPs hate IPSA although most are reluctant to criticise them publicly. This is not a case of MPs with their snouts in the trough trying to diddle the taxpayer. It is an independent group who have scrutinised the current settlement and proposed some changes that will be entirely cost-neutral whilst addressing the fact that MPs' pay has been slipping back in the last few years. It sort of makes me wonder how we are ever going to get to a position where the politics can be taken out of this issue.

Perhaps the proposal to have rises linked to average wage increases is the answer although there are bound to be some sectors that suffer in the future even though the average is much better and hence relatively MPs will appear to be living high on the hog. There is probably no answer to this.

And I have to say that I am not really interested in what cabinet ministers like Phillip Hammond, David Cameron and Danny Alexander have to say on the subject as they all earn well over £100K anyway and in many cases are already very independently wealthy anyway. Just because they can afford to refuse a pay increase does not mean all other MPs should be pressured to do so too. We need to be very careful about this. If this sort of thing carries on and MPs are continually forced through political pressure to refuse successive pay rises we will eventually end up with even higher numbers of MPs from wealthy backgrounds which is not good for politics. We have seen a similar dynamic recently with the whole "expenses saints" phenomenon where MPs who do not claim any expenses at all are lauded. Of course they are all independently wealthy and can afford to pay the expenses themselves. This should not afford them better career prospects but sadly it does seem to be doing so.

In the meantime, can we please stop comparing apples with oranges? Putting the 11% MP figure alongside the 1% public sector figure is completely distorting and unfair. It would be much fairer to compare it to the 2.2% figure for the average rise over the last few years. And it would also only be just to acknowledge that it is cost neutral.

Anything else is simply bullying our MPs and I really do fear where that will ultimately lead.

MPs' pay - controversial view?

BBC Radio Wales had a phone in earlier today about MPs pay with particular reference to the 1.5% rise (c£1,000) that has been recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. There were the expected comments from the public about it being too much and comparing the almost £66,000 that MPs get with the wages of other groups like nurses and other workers.

Iain Dale had put himself up to try and defend the MPs. His position was basically that this had been determined by an external body and that the MPs are entitled to the rise on that basis. He also argued that MPs often work 80 or 90 hour weeks and that just because they might not be in parliament does not mean that they are not working. In his view, looked at like this, their salaries start to look much more justifiable.

Iain also suggested that some people have to take a pay cut in order to go into parliament. He even revealed that he would have had to had he been selected (and then elected) this time round.

As he was getting such a hard time from the callers, I couldn't resist phoning in myself. I actually agreed with some of what he was saying. My position is that I do think that the salary MPs are currently paid is about right. They do work very, very long hours and deserve a good salary for it (well most of them). I also think that a 1.5% pay rise is fair enough except that I think that as a one-off gesture given the state of the economy they should have turned it down this year. However my concern is that would set another precedent which would lead to MPs feeling obliged to turn down future pay rises too and within a few years the value of the salary would be quite seriously diminished. I did also point out that some MPs get a salary increase compared to before when they get into parliament!

However I do feel a bit like I am fighting a losing battle holding the view that their pay is fair. It seems lots of people (certainly those motivated to phone into radio shows!) are against it and to a large extent the MPs only have themselves to blame after all their expenses antics.

If you want to listen to the phone-in it is available below for the next 7 days. The phone-in starts just after the hour mark and my contribution starts around 1:24:00.