Dead refugee kids should be allowed in, says Britain

3 09 2015

Refugee children who are photographed drowning in the Mediterranean should be allowed into Britain, it has emerged.

News of the shift in public opinion came after photos of a dead child washed up on a beach persuaded the British people that the army should not be sent in after all.

David White, a socially acceptable racist from Corby, said: “I was shocked by the photo of the dead kid on the beach. It didn’t look like a cockroach at all.

“If a child goes to the effort of being photographed after drowning in the Med, they clearly have a strong work ethic and aren’t coming here to claim benefits or blow things up. We should keep the living ones out but another part of the country should definitely take the dead ones in.”

Enough kids have now drowned to move the Overton window to tears. The window, which determines what actions are politically acceptable, recently shifted from “Keep Them Out” to  “do nothing” and has now progressed to “wring hands”.

Experts believe it could reach “do the barest minimum to make ourselves feel better” within days.

David Cameron is facing calls to act to stem the tide of self-conscious national introspection. Downing Street sources suggest the prime minister is seriously considering thinking about calling another summit to discuss what action other countries could take.

Tory strategists are currently studying YouGov polling data to see how best to respond to Europe’s worst humanitarian crisis since World War II.

In a heartfelt front page editorial this morning, The Sun said that while migrants in Calais are still filth, refugees crossing the Med are kind of ok if they give us an excuse to bomb Syria and Iraq.

Migration expert Sarah Smithson said: “There’s a definite shift in the mood. They have suddenly gone from being ‘migrants’ to ‘refugees’. If they play their cards right and keep dying visibly, they could reach ‘people’ status by next week.”

Labour are finished

8 05 2015

Time was when I thought the Tories were finished. Turns out you can fool most of the people most of the time when you’re in power. But the general election result was a catastrophe for Labour and, being in opposition, they will find it far harder to extricate themselves from what looks like a terminal crisis.

First, Scotland. It’s gone. It is impossible to see how Scottish Labour can overturn the new SNP hegemony – their membership is on the floor, their big hitters have been wiped out, and they are unable to define any purpose to their existence. Without Scotland, it’s virtually impossible for them to win an overall majority, except in a distant Blair-esque landslide.

As a result, any future Labour government would probably be reliant on SNP support, at least for as long as Scotland remains in the Union. Tory strategists believe that the scaremongering over a Labour-SNP tie-up helped swing decisive votes in their favour this week. It’s a fair bet they’ll run the same line again in any future election where this is on the cards.

Also, a Tory majority government can now drive through the cherished boundary changes that the Lib Dems vetoed in coalition. Those boundary changes will make the parliamentary arithmetic far more favourable to the Tories – even allowing for the fact that on Thursday it was the Conservatives, not Labour, that spread their vote more efficiently. Tory boundary changes would make it much easier for the Conservatives to stay in power.

And then we come to the lessons Labour will learn from this defeat. Ed Miliband had long been – and wrongly been – tagged as a “socialist” leader; he was certainly more left wing than Tony Blair. So, after the failure of his leadership, it is inevitable Labour will now shift back to the right – ditch the “welfare” and “deficit” tags, reach out to business, and most of all clamp down on immigration.

Ah, immigration. One look at the Con-Lab marginal results and the large spikes in Ukip support leap out. Ukip seem to have taken chunks of support from Labour in key seats in the Midlands, North West, Wales (where Labour performed disastrously) and in the South. Much of the Ukip vote is a protest vote, an expression of alienation – but much of it is based on concerns over immigration. If Labour decide they need these votes – far more than the Greens achieved – a tougher line on immigration is inevitable.

A shift to the right and a tough stance on immigrants will alienate many on the left of the political spectrum who held their nose just to vote for “Red Ed”. It would come just as the historic funding and membership links with the trade unions end. The ever shrinking coalition of voters assembled around Labour would fracture just as the party needed it to solidify and expand.

So where are Labour’s votes to come from? If they court the Ukip vote, they risk losing the ground they’ve made in multicultural London. If they emphasise austerity (their programme is already austerian) they risk losing their union support.

The centre of the political spectrum is fracturing as the centre of society fractures under the strain of our disintegrating economic model. It is becoming ever harder for Labour to triangulate its way towards a coalition of voters that will carry it to power – different parts of the population are looking for different things from different parties as the two-party binary fragments ahead of schedule.

The Tories can always fall back on self-interest and prejudice – there’s a ready market for both, and the Tories can deliver them far more credibly than Labour.

What can Labour offer? With its Scottish base obliterated and its old alliances crumbling, nothing more than permanent opposition.

We are headed for a very long period of unchallenged, unfettered, unrestrained Conservative rule.

Friendly fire

6 05 2015

The Guardian led this morning with an explosive list of benefit cuts proposed by civil servants at the Department for Work and Pensions last year.

The list of proposals is eye-watering. Abolishing statutory maternity pay, freezing benefits and limiting them by family size, yet more restrictions on which disabled people are considered “disabled”, ending major benefits for under-25s, even increasing the hated bedroom tax. They all feature on the leaked list.

The reaction from Labour supporters – actually, anyone who hates the Tories – has been outrage, but also a kind of “gotcha” glee in regard to the unspecified £10bn of welfare cuts the Conservatives plan to make in the next parliament (a further £2bn cuts have been specified, giving a £12bn total).

These people claim that this is how the Tories will achieve their £10bn unspecified cuts. Cat’s out of the bag. Tories caught red handed. So now we know. Etc.

They have clearly not read the article.

The Guardian reporters state it in the first line – the list was drawn up “in response to warnings that the next government would struggle to keep welfare spending below a legal cap of about £120bn a year.”

The report continues: “The documents make clear that some of the welfare money-saving options will be necessary because demand for benefits over the next five years is highly likely to exceed the cap limit by billions of pounds.”

In other words – the list was not in response to the Tory manifesto. The manifesto hadn’t even been written when the proposals were drawn up last spring.

So does that mean the Conservatives aren’t planning this? No – they almost certainly are. It’s what they do. The  questions instead revolve around Labour.

The welfare spending cap was voted into law in March 2014 as a Tory stunt to look tough on benefits. The law places a limit on how much the government can spend annually on benefits (except pensions and Jobseekers’ Allowance). The limit is set at around £120bn, as the Guardian reports.

The trouble is, the Tories’ savage welfare cuts have barely saved any actual money – our low-wage economy drives up tax credit claims, and dovetails with our housing crisis to drive up the Housing Benefit bill. So the DWP officials expect the welfare cap to be breached in the next few years.

But that’s ok – after all, Labour will get rid of the cap, right?


As the Guardian reports, Labour actually supported the cap. Only 13 Labour backbenchers voted against it, alongside the SNP, SDLP, Respect and Plaid (Caroline Lucas appears not to have turned up). And there is no commitment to repeal the cap in the Labour manifesto.

These proposals will be on the table no matter which party gets in.

Little wonder then, that Labour’s shadow DWP minister Rachel Reeves tied the plans directly to the Tory manifesto in her comments to the Guardian. If people think these proposals are part of the Tories’ £10bn benefit cuts, they will conclude that voting Labour will stop them from happening.

As we can see, nothing could be further from the truth.

One Labour MP who voted in favour of the cap, Sheila Gilmore, explained how it’d all be fine under a Labour government. Under the welfare cap, the government must either propose further benefit cuts, raise the cap or justify breaching the cap.

Gilmore wrote that: “Now of course what is proposed depends on which party is in government and whether they can command a majority for their preferred course of action … A Labour government could make different decisions, including explaining to the public at the time of the vote why spending more than the forecast is necessary.”

Oh really?

The Labour manifesto’s proposals on welfare are pitiful. With the exception of the bedroom tax, Labour is proposing to keep every single benefit cut implemented over the last five years – council tax benefit cuts, disability benefit cuts, tax credit restrictions. Only the bedroom tax and the tax credit freeze would be unwound. The individual benefit cap will be regionalised, so the whole country can share in the misery inflicted on single mothers in London.

In fact, in her comments to the Guardian Reeves boasts that Labour will “save £1bn by cutting housing benefit fraud and overpayments” – so expect more of the administrative bungling that usually accompanies such initiatives, with a few dodgy lie detectors thrown in.

After the election, the anti-welfare hysteria and propaganda among the media and the public that has marked the last six years will not subside. There is no evidence from Labour’s manifesto or its endless rhetoric about “working people” that a Labour government would “explain to the public” why raising the welfare cap was necessary.

Gilmore also claimed that Labour would bring the welfare bill down by reducing demand for benefits – increasing people’s wages, lowering their housing costs and living costs.

Is there any evidence they would achieve this? Again, no. They would cap rents and energy bills at current levels – but current levels are already too high. Their house-building programme is vague. They are proposing a minimal increase in the minimum wage and a bit of tweaking on casualised jobs and the Living Wage.

There is no commitment to bringing housing costs down, energy costs down, increasing council housing supply, or evening out the skewed bargaining relationship between employers and workers. In short, there is little that would actually bring the welfare bill down.

So, faced with a breached welfare spending cap, Labour can be expected to simply push through more welfare cuts. And that means the DWP list – which is far more brutal than even the savagery we have seen in the last five years – applies just as much to Labour as it does to the Tories.

Friendly fire – the same bullets, but shot with a smile.

Scotland, the rematch

30 10 2014

So it turns out the independence referendum was actually a two-legged affair…

The collapse of Scottish Labour has drawn headlines in the last week; their ineffectual leader has resigned, and their Westminster poll ratings are collapsing at the hands of the SNP, following the line set at Holyrood in 2011.

A poll today has the SNP on 52% in Scotland’s Westminster voting intentions, with Labour down to 23% – in 2010 Labour scored 42% with the SNP below 20%. If those results were replicated at next year’s general election on a uniform swing across Scotland, Labour would be left with at best four and at worst just one MP in the country they have dominated politically for decades. The SNP would have between 54 and 57 of the country’s 59 MPs, turning Scotland into virtually a one-party state. There is absolutely no precedent in British political history for such a dramatic collapse.

Any such outcome would make a Tory-led government almost certain after the general election. Which is why it is unlikely to happen.

It is inevitable that Labour’s remaining world-weary troops will trudge around Scotland next year with the simple line “Vote Yellow, Get Blue”. Despite Labour’s despondency, that message will have an effect. Massive SNP (the yellow party) gains would almost certainly take the Tories ahead of Labour at Westminster, regardless of Labour gains south of the border.

Much of the SNP’s rapid growth came towards the end of the independence referendum campaign and in the aftermath, as Labour’s Scottish heartlands deserted the party over its alliance with the hated Tories in the No campaign. Are those same voters going to cast their ballots in a manner that is likely to see a Tory-led government at Westminster? Really? Whatever arguments one could make about a Tory government devolving powers more quickly than a Labour one, if hatred of the Tories is as visceral in Scotland as we are led to believe, that sort of detail is unlikely to count.

The SNP’s problem here is that, beyond the (powerful) symbolism of a vote against Westminster, there isn’t actually a lot that a vote for the SNP would achieve. SNP MPs don’t vote in Westminster on matters decided for Scotland at Holyrood – Westminster’s place in Scottish politics is a denuded one. Their role would be in agreeing a coalition (or a “confidence and supply” deal) in exchange for more powers for Scotland.

But during the election campaign, Labour is bound to demand of the SNP – “Will you rule out propping up a Tory government?” If the SNP says no or ducks the question, Labour can cry “Vote Yellow, Get Blue”. But if the SNP says yes – if they rule out a deal with the Conservatives – that would massively reduce their bargaining power in any post-election coalition talks with Labour, as the SNP would have put their credibility on the line by ruling out talks with the Tories.

It’s basically the same sort of bind the Lib Dems found themselves in after Cleggmania – both main parties claimed a vote for the Lib Dems would lead to a coalition with the other.

Labour could, of course, still royally screw everything up, as is their habit. Electing Jim Murphy as their Scottish leader – the demand from the Westminster elite – would be to entrust in an out-and-out Blairite the job of winning back Labour’s core vote from an SNP that is seen as standing on the left. It would be like standing Margaret Thatcher in a mining constituency.

But Labour is insulated by enormous majorities in its Scottish Westminster seats – 30%, 40%, even 50% majorities, the kind of majorities that have never been overturned in general elections, and barely ever in by-elections. The seats where the SNP is closest to Labour are more middle class seats, seats that voted No, with voters Labour might hope to hold on to. Chuck in the “incumbency bonus” of left-wing Labour MPs such as Katy Clark and Mark Lazarowicz, and the picture becomes even more muddled.

And whilst tactical voting for Labour by Conservatives to keep the SNP out is unlikely – tactical voting being very much a thing of habit – should the returning Alex Salmond start dropping hints about a second independence referendum as part of a coalition deal, don’t rule it out.

More likely than the SNP winning 90% of Scottish seats next year, is the SNP coming within three or four percent of winning 90% of Scottish seats next year. It is easy to see the SNP repeating the legacy of the SDP in 1983 – getting close far more often than close enough.

Which would help Ed Miliband stagger the last few steps to Downing Street, but is of absolutely no use to Labour long-term.

2015 is set to be the last hurrah of the two-party binary, and the last toot on Labour’s rusting trumpet. Even if the SNP surge blows itself out over fears of a second Cameron administration, Labour’s austerity government, with its unpopular leader, mutinous front bench, and dwindling union funds, would find themselves with the SNP, Ukip, Greens and the Tories all perfectly poised to pounce in 2020 – the SNP sweeping through Scotland, Ukip driving its tanks through northern towns, the Tories carving up Middle England and the Greens nabbing the youth vote. If Labour is even able to hang on to power until 2020, that is.

In fact, as the Labour Party enters its final death throes – sacrificed at the altar of its own austerity amidst economic meltdown as Britain’s personal debt drags it beneath the waves – it is easy to see both the prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer losing their seats at the election after next; Ed Miliband to Ukip, Ed Balls to the Conservatives.

Fear and loathing of the Tories should get Labour over the line next year. But a party that loses its principles becomes nothing more than a hollow shell of powerlust. Labour now exists for nothing more than its own existence. And a party that exists for the sake of its existence does not exist for long.

Ian Paisley is dead in the water

12 09 2014

Ian Paisley is dead. That much you’ll probably already know. And we can now expect a stampede of commentators hailing his remarkable transition from appalling bigot who stood in the way of peace to appalling bigot who enabled it.

And this will be a lie.

Ian Paisley did not “enable” peace. He stood in its way at every turn as leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. His demand was “peace on our terms”, and peace on our terms is a declaration of war.

I remember shortly after Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997, he held a meeting at Downing Street for Northern Ireland’s political leaders. A peace process had taken root under Blair’s predecessor John Major, but it had fallen apart amid rows over IRA weapons decommissioning and the fraught issue of Orange Order marches. An IRA ceasefire had been called but collapsed. Northern Ireland was once more at war.

Those Orange Order marches in the mid-90s were symbolic, especially the march at Drumcree. Drumcree was the annual flashpoint back then. In 1995 Paisley and his arch rival, Ulster Unionist Party leader David Trimble, marched shoulder to shoulder in defence of the loyalist hardliners of the Orange brigade.

That unionist unity didn’t last. The Downing Street meeting in 1997 opened a schism between Trimble and Paisley. Paisley emerged onto the steps of 10 Downing Street and bellowed that the peace process was “dead in the water”.  Trimble, by contrast, tentatively entered multi-party talks later that year.

For almost the next decade Paisley tried to block any progress in Northern Ireland. He opposed the Good Friday Agreement. He opposed power sharing. He opposed police reform. He opposed compromises on marches. He refused to accept that the IRA was decommissioning weapons. After Dr No and Senator No, Paisley became The Reverend No.

Meanwhile David Trimble signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, became Northern Ireland’s First Minister, and despite huge political pressure from both Paisley and his own UUP, he backed away from pulling the plug on the peace process in the face of ongoing low-level IRA violence.

Unionists came to despise him. He survived two UUP leadership challenges and had three MPs resign the party whip. Power-sharing broke down and the Stormont parliament did not sit for five years.

Whilst Trimble was in the wars in search of peace, Paisley was gathering his troops. UUP support collapsed amidst unionist discontent with the stalling peace process. In 2005, with Stormont still suspended, Paisley’s DUP trounced Trimble’s UUP at the general election – Trimble even lost his seat in parliament. Flattened by this earthquake and hated by his own side, Trimble quit as party leader and stepped down from frontline politics.

And so with Trimble and the UUP out of the way and the DUP well head in Northern Irish polls, Paisley started his remarkable and not-at-all cynical “transformation”. In 2006, with the First Minister’s chair there for the taking, he changed his mind – on everything. Power-sharing was not the death of unionism after all; Sinn Fein were not terrorists in suits.  It’s remarkable how things look different when you need them to.

Paisley signed up to the 2006 St Andrew’s Agreement that paved the way for fresh elections and the resumption of the Stormont parliament. Predictably, the DUP – having built its political strength from opposing power-sharing and the peace process – came out well in front, and Paisley hardly batted an eyelid as he took power alongside Sinn Fein. He and Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness got on so well they became known as the ‘Chuckle Brothers’. At least someone found it funny.

And so the man who had risked everything for the peace process, lost everything – and the man who had risked nothing by opposing it, reaped its rewards. Don’t tell that story to your children.

There are very few politicians I have any time for. But if there’s one thing I do respect, it’s taking personal risks to do the right thing – particularly in facing down one’s own side.

There are any number of bones you can pick throughout David Trimble’s career – as a conservative-minded politician from the oppressing side in a long-term conflict, it’s inevitable.

But as fawning eulogies glut their way across the press, it’s worth keeping in mind that Northern Ireland would have been in a far better state without Ian Paisley, but would never have reached peace without the forgotten David Trimble.

Austerity outstays its welcome

9 06 2014

Anyone watching media coverage of the recent spate of elections, or indeed the news more generally, could be forgiven for thinking that austerity never happened. I don’t think the BBC’s coverage of the local elections once mentioned the gutting of local government funding that has taken place since the banking crisis; the results were only to be discussed in terms of national politics – namely, what this means for the general election.

But austerity is a thing. It has been a thing for many years now. And all main political parties are committed to keeping it a thing for many years to come.

The Conservatives have made their position clearest so far. George Osborne has pledged to engineer a budget surplus by 2020 – which hardly anyone believes is possible – and so the welfare system will be dismantled further, local councils will be bled dry, and the NHS will wither on the vine. None of this is news, in any sense of the word.

What did catch my eye was part of the undercard of Lord Ashcroft’s opinion poll a fortnight ago. The headline act in Ashcroft’s weekly polls is always the voting scorecard – Labour v Tories – but this particular edition also featured a question on attitudes to austerity. The response was completely ignored by the media – but not by Lord Ashcroft himself, who understood its significance:

‘… 41% agreed with the statement “the national economy is not yet fully fixed, so we will need to continue with austerity and cuts in government spending over the next five years.” Nearly seven in ten Tories and a majority of Lib Dems thought so, as did one fifth of Labour supporters.

But a quarter of voters overall, including a quarter of those who said they would vote Conservative in an election tomorrow, felt that the medicine – though necessary – has already worked and the treatment can stop. They agreed that “while a period of austerity was needed to fix the national economy, we don’t need another five years of cuts of government spending”.

Meanwhile a further one third of the electorate, including nearly half of Labour voters, believed instead that “austerity and cuts in government spending were never really needed to fix the national economy, it was just used as an excuse to cut public services.” UKIP voters were among the most sceptical or cynical about the government’s deficit reduction policy, with 41% believing austerity was a cover for cuts in public services. Swing voters, too, will need convincing.

More than six in ten thought austerity could end; these were divided evenly between those who thought the policy had served its purpose and those who did not believe it was needed in the first place.’

What does this mean?

The Tories have long feared that economic recovery would undermine the case for further cuts – if headline growth figures are returning to health, why administer more of the “medicine”? Add that to the third of the electorate who always regarded austerity as a scam, and you have a majority against wielding the axe for another five years. Those supporting more cuts make up the biggest single bloc of opinion – but they are ultimately in a minority.

Note also that UKIP supporters are among the most sceptical of all about the need for more austerity. In one sense that’s not surprising – UKIP have the most working class voter base of any party. And let’s not kid ourselves – just because UKIP supporters don’t want more austerity doesn’t mean they don’t back welfare cuts, as these are seen as much in terms of “morality” as fiscal necessity.

But it is striking that at a time when leading politicians are falling over themselves to beat up on immigrants and benefit claimants out of a supposed need to court the UKIP vote, all three main parties will not so much as hint at deviating from the austerity line.

Why is this? Well, for many frontbench politicians, it is simply what they entered politics to do – the Tories to destroy the social state, the Lib Dem “orange bookers” to marketise it, and Labourites to replace it with unregulated charities.

In addition, nobody near the Labour leadership is willing to risk the ire of the markets, the financial sector or the right wing press by facing down the austerity agenda.

On top of that, you have the 41 percent who backed further austerity in Lord Ashcroft’s poll – many of them Tories, likely to be middle class, and likely to be located at least in part in the southern battleground seats that, whilst now largely irrelevant, remain firmly at the root of political calculations. Labour daren’t ditch austerity and sacrifice some quixotic stab at winning Surrey votes. Immigration and welfare, by contrast, are seens as easy targets that unite haters everywhere.

Put all that together and you get the status quo – three parties committed to delivering what most people don’t want.

MPs’ pay – stating the bleeding obvious

9 12 2013

A few quick words on MPs’ pay.

First, the body that recommended the pay rise may be politically neutral, but it is not ‘independent’ in its views on what we might call ‘public sector executive pay’. Why not? Because the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is made up of public sector executives.

Have a look at the board members – here they are. We have an ex-MP, a judge, two former NHS executives and two former quango bigwigs. Those latter four share the career paths of those who spent the best part of the 2000s trousering huge salaries, usually on the basis that they were running large organisations, had considerable responsibilities, and could earn so much more in the private sector.

Pretty much the same arguments regularly wheeled out in favour of MPs earning treble the average wage, then. The pay at IPSA’s not too shabby either.

There’s a line going around that ‘people’ wanted an independent body to determine MPs’ pay, rather than have MPs vote for their own pay rises. This is not strictly true. What most people wanted, as I recall, was an end to MPs getting inflation-busting pay rises well above those of the population at large, as well as their infamously lax expenses regime. MPs had in the past voted themselves a hefty raise – so an independent body was the response. But it’s been stuffed full of suits who are naturally sympathetic to inflation-busting pay rises – and so, once again, we have MPs getting inflation-busting pay rises. There is no public inconsistency here – people, generally, are opposed to this sort of thing no matter what manoeuvring is used to bring it about.

Whilst I accept some of the rationale for ‘competitive’ public sector executive pay (within reason), I think MPs should be paid the average wage of their constituents – same goes for elected trade union officials. I think that MPs should know how their constituents live – how else can they reasonably advocate and legislate on their behalf? If that provides them with an inadequate standard of living – well, that’s telling them something quite pertinent, isn’t it…

I do accept that there are counter-arguments to that. It would favour MPs who had considerable assets, savings, inherited wealth, for whom the low MP’s salary would simply mean dipping into their personal reserves. Meanwhile, those MPs without such financial backing would be signing up for a certain level of hardship; many would therefore be deterred.

But that doesn’t mean salaries have to be three times the average. I’ve seen a few arguments being trotted out in favour of the pay rise, usually enunciated by the kind of people who make great play of being ‘reasonable’ and ‘moderate’ – and to use the technical term, they’re bollocks.

First, high MPs’ pay does not ‘attract the best people’. We do not have anything like the best people – for the most part, we have a pretty low standard of MP. Anyone claiming that we are attracting the best people needs to find a pretty good explanation for the state of parliament in recent years.

Second, and related – the reason we are not getting the right calibre of MP is not because pay is too low. This is tied in to the idea that MPs’ salaries need to be competitive with those of top headteachers, police chiefs, hospital consultants, public sector executives and corporate leaders – otherwise, we’ll fail to attract people with ‘real life’ experience and will be limited to our current crop of universally derided professional politicians.

Which is odd – because professional politicians are a relatively new phenomenon. Go back sixty or seventy years, and MPs’ pay was much lower – in real terms – than it is today or will be from 2015. In 1946 MPs were paid a basic salary of £1,000, which is roughly £35,500 in today’s prices. And yet the House of Commons was replete with former soldiers (distinguished ones, not Iain Duncan Smith), corporate leaders, ex-miners and blue collar workers – people from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences, not fast-tracked advisers and apparatchiks.

The reason we have a professional political class, and the reason we don’t attract candidates from a wide background of experiences, is nothing to do with supposedly low pay and everything to do with party machines. The ever-growing centralism of the Conservative and Labour parties, combined with freakish party discipline, has meant that only obsessives who have spent years plotting their political careers have had a realistic chance of being selected to stand for parliament. Open primaries have nudged the door ajar, but the tolerance of constituency party autonomy and backbench dissent that once marked British democracy is now long forgotten – parties want the type of people who will toe the party line, and select candidates via processes that favour those who’ve been positioning themselves for years.

This blocks out the 99% of the population with better things to do than spend ten years plotting a route to Westminster far more effectively than a salary miles above the national average but still, supposedly, too low.

The final argument that needs addressing is that of the hard-working MP. They work so hard that they deserve to be paid more – so the line goes. I don’t doubt that MPs work hard – they do. Hours are long, constituents’ needs are never-ending, and no doubt there’s always a ribbon that needs cutting on a Saturday afternoon. It is a hard job, a tiring job, and a thankless job to boot.

It is also one of the most privileged jobs in the country.

Perhaps MPs forget, as they troop off to the lobbies at the sound of a late night division bell, that the job they are doing is one that millions of people around the country would give their right arms to do if they had the chance – if they could do so without having to run the reflexive gauntlet of party machines and grease their way up political ladders.

Instead they – we – are reduced to ranting in the pub or on social media, waving our arms at the TV news or just rolling our eyes and muttering, ‘they’re all useless’.

MPs are paid a healthy salary, but the real remuneration is in power. There are 650 MPs who get to decide on legislation – a vote denied to every single other person in this country. Sure, the corruption of our political system has invited hordes of lobbyists, financiers, FTSE directors and think tank wonks to formulate policy and law in advance – but the vote is in the Commons, and the voters are MPs. Individually they may not have the power to swing a vote, but collectively they do, and they could do so whenever they wished were they not so wilfully bound to party loyalty and personal ambitions.

The hard-working constituency MP is often virtue hiding vice. A hard-working MP is often busy helping constituents who have fallen foul of benefit cuts or the withdrawal of local services that are the direct result of the very policies that the very same MP voted for. Traipsing around the constituency fixing roofs and mending fences is a salve to the conscience of MPs who know they have sold out their constituents in Westminster, but still want to convince themselves they are ‘doing good’.

For example, I’m told that Francis Maude, one of the fiercest Tory frontbenchers, has been relentless in helping his Sussex constituents who are having their adult care funding withdrawn by the local council. Very good of him – but of course, if it wasn’t for the savage local government funding cuts he helped formulate and drive through, the situation wouldn’t arise in the first place.

MPs who spend hours, days, weeks, months sifting through constituency casework around rejected benefits claims and withdrawn social care funding should not bleat about deserving higher pay. They should first examine their own voting records and see whether they have been the ones who have increased their own workload. Did they vote for benefits cuts or conditionality? Then that’ll be why their constituents have lost their benefits. Did they vote through local government funding cuts? Well, that’ll be why adult care funding is being withdrawn. And opposition MPs don’t get off the hook – what manifesto did they stand on? Would that manifesto have had the same results?

There is a horrible culture of entitlement among the wealthy and the rich. In the private sector this usually equates to the notion that they are ‘wealth creators’; in the public sector it is usually based on the conviction that they could earn far more in the private sector; but when you reach the charitable sector and MPs, it is based on the idea that they are ‘doing good’ and should not be financially disadvantaged for it.

But most MPs are not doing good. They have collectively created the most discredited and despised parliament in memory. They vote in ways that worsen the lives of millions of people, and then claim that the time they spend helping those people manage the consequences justifies a pay rise – a claim that is downright offensive.

I said at the start this would be a few quick words. Now at the end, it clearly is not. But the hardworking MP deserving an inflation-busting pay rise is a myth that needs taking down properly.

And if any current MP doesn’t want to do it for their current salary – let me know, because I will.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers