Dear Every Person Who Thinks It’s Clever to Advocate Politicians’ Pay Rises,
Alasdair McDonnell’s comments started a sideshow of a debate in the media about the notion of MLA pay rises, with a number of people coming out essentially in favour. We should not be fooled! Let us look at some of the arguments…
1. Paying MLAs more would get us better MLAs. To which I present to you: TDs in the Republic of Ireland. Paid far more, are they really a step above? Seriously?! Paying MLAs more would only make internal selection processes even more vicious and personal, thus in fact driving the people we want away.
2. They don’t get paid as much as MSPs. You bet they don’t! MSPs represent nearly three times as many people each!
3. They haven’t had a pay rise for ages. Nor have lots of people; and in fact, they have had a rise in kind, with Office Cost Allowance dramatically increased by Peter Hain prior to the 2007 restoration.
4. They can be kicked out at short notice. Not that short – the next election isn’t due until 2015, and of course they’ll likely switch that (rightly, in fact) to 2016. Should they lose their seat, they get a settlement. All of that is hardly going to result in “grinding poverty”!
MLAs are paid almost exactly double the average private sector wage, complete with job security to 2015-16. Given the lack of legislation coming forward anyway, there is simply no case for a pay rise – and don’t let any supposedly “clever” people tell you otherwise!
Yours aye,
Ian Parsley
Ian, an uncharacteristically immature argument from you in reference to your sarcastic use of ‘clever’. Casting doubt on the intellect of those who disagree with you isn’t your usual style.
To address your points:
1. For my part, that has never been part of the argument. I have argued it is irrelevant. The purpose of a pay review of this kind isn’t to assess the competence of the incumbents nor is it to promote an incentive for productivity. It is solely to assess whether the level of pay matches that of the role. Do the current crop warrant their level of pay? No. But to use your point; we most likely won’t fix it by increasing their pay but we certainly won’t fix it by keeping it at a low level either.
I’m not sure what the evidence is for your claim that it would make internal selection battles more vicious and personal and drive away the people we want. Has it done so in Westminster? Or Scotland?
2. This point I have no problem with. I argued that any pay review should have taken place in conjunction with a review of the number of MLA’s per constituency.
3.Again, slightly irrelevant and I haven’t seen anyone using that in the argument (obviously you have though). I will say that the office cost allowance doesn’t go all that far in the smaller parties though and the decent MLA’s wouldn’t use it for anything other than entirely noble purposes.
4. This is where I have some small sympathy for the current crop of MLA’s. Most of them haven’t the skills or experience to jump into another career at a similar level of pay & benefits (a situation quite unlike that of most MP’s) because most of them are earning well above their level already. Let’s not kid ourselves that the 40 odd grand they get a year is a small sum but it’s nowhere near compensatory enough for a career that is in perpetual uncertainty. Professionals at a certain level know roughly what they will be doing for the next 30 years and that security is invaluable. It is only right that we try and address that somehow.
What’s next in the Green Party’s bag of tricks, Ed? Taxpayer-funded subsidies for Premier League footballers on the grounds they couldn’t expect to earn that in any other walk of life and their career could be cut short by injury?!
Hi Ed,
I’m slightly confused by your responses
1) “It is solely to assess whether the level of pay matches that of the role.” Sorry I don’t understand what this means?
“we most likely won’t fix it by increasing their pay but we certainly won’t fix it by keeping it at a low level either” So what you’re saying is that there will probably be no benefit in raising MLA salaries?
4) Why should the voters accept career politicians? Would it not be better to have MLAs that are more representative of the general population i.e. working people that have a “sabbatical”?
No, because clearly Premier League footballers are neither a) unlikely to have trouble paying the mortgage should their employment end or b) Public Servants.
Well this interesting, and as an interested party I would think 2 points are overlooked …
1. Reducing the number of MLA’s as will happen may mean more work justifying a small but modest pay raise. If such things happen elsewhere in the private sector.
2. Seeing what you get for the average industrial wage possibly they require greater incentive, or better quality.
Anyway, McDonnell has towed the SDLP line in the end, he’ll put this mistake behind him.
On number 2, again, in my post, I entirely disagree. TDs are paid vast amounts more – you think they provide better quality?
I’m not even sure about number 1 of course – in England one MP covers all the work of 7 full-time legislators here!