Monday, 9 December 2013

IPSA is anything but 'Independent'

Pedants refrained from pointing out that yesterday's post was technically inaccurate; they could have commented that technically, it's not MPs who are awarding themselves an 11% increase but a completely independent detached body called the IPSA. That no-one did so probably means that mercifully few if any of you are fooled by this fiction. 

There's nothing in the least independent about Ian Kennedy's IPSA. At the heart of the Whitehall Big State, it is a body thoroughly committed to maintaining the status quo of the dying big three parties at any cost, committed to turning them into the permanent Parties of State using tax funding in the absence of popular support, committed to resisting any change in Parliament and to keeping outsiders out, and committed to keeping MPs well fed, boozed, fat and contented, with a cornucopia of junior ministerial posts, fat wedge, exclusive privileges and above all a sense of innate greatness. IPSA is committed to the cancer at the heart of the Rotten Parliament - that MPs are 'special'; a fiction that MPs are all too ready themselves to believe.    

So before they settled on 11% they asked MPs how much they really wanted. You can imagine the result. MPs, deluded by the nonsense of their 'specialness', demanded three-figure percentage increases. Kennedy could have asked the public instead, but people such as Kennedy are completely uninterested in public opinion. Good God, if his committee actually paid attention to what the public were saying (splutter!) it may actually be independent.

You've only got to look at the Whitehall club of membership of Kennedy's 'Independent' body to see the fiction. It's a million miles away from the QT audience who jeered and ridiculed Pickles when he tried to suggest that MPs were 'special'. And as the Mail reports, the pay commission members have never had to balance a household budget between one payday and the next.

So thank you for your common sense. And if the Commons is stupid enough to take more than 1% then every MP who votes for it deserves the tumbrils coming for them.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank God for YouTube; it's the permanent mirror that we can hold up to these bastards to remind them (and us) just how ugly they are!

English Pensioner said...

It's also worth looking at the salaries paid to IPSA. In due course they will be given rises to ensure parity with MPs.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why MPs can't be covered by the same terms and conditions as the Civil Service.

Their expense claims could easily be handled by a major department of state, like the MOD, which is used to processing claims for service around the world.

Of course they might not like the ethic that, 'there is no lower limit to fraud. Any fraud is a breach of trust and will result in instant dismissal'.

Mike Spilligan said...

If any one body, without any conflict of interest (which doesn't apply to IPSA) actually had any authority, it should demand a cut in the numbers of MPs - a little over 11% seems about right. That sometimes worked well in the early stages of unionised wage negotiations.
I have a bundle of newspapers from 2001 to 2004. We had almost exactly the same problems then as we have now - immigration, the euro (currency), economic stabilty and all the etceteras you can think of. Yet 650 wasters have sat in the HoC for a dozen years since then (and attending fewer days each year) and no one asks them to prove their effectiveness.
IPSA costs about £2m a year to run which in itself is nonsense. The company I worked for over many years (engineering, etc)had about 500 employees "on expenses" but it cost almost nothing to approve / reject on a monthly basis - strict sanctions were the answer.

Anonymous said...

English Pensioner said...

"ensure parity with MPs." - you're kidding, they're already earning more than the MP's - hence their desire to bung the MP's a good-un...