I will admit to not being fully in the loop about all of the benefits they can claim. I believe though that the pay review also acknowledged that some of the so called benefits would be removed as a result of an increased salary. I could be way wide of the mark of course. You are absolutely right that their generous package is not exactly in line with that seen in other branches of government service.
Please don't take all of this to mean that I sympathise with MPs in any way and that I don't still hold them in the lowest regard as a proffession. I don't like them any more than the next man and I agree wholeheartedly that the allowances scheme is not exactly well aligned with what we have to put up with but we do very different jobs.
Of course I would love to have the same allowances that they get and I would love to be paid more. As awesome as I am though and as important as my job is I understand that I don't shoulder the same level of responsibility as an MP. I am also something of a realist.
Where I see them seriously lacking though is in leadership. On the whole I don't think they understand that this is a vital part of their job. To act as a voice (and therefore a leader) for many thousands of people.
I can see why it annoys people though. If they are allowed to have a truly independent pay review then so should every department. If they can disagree with the AFPRB and apply restrictions then why can't they do the same to their own? This is the bit that angers me far more than the amount of money they get paid.
Good leaders would accept poor pay as the price to pay for being a leader. They would then understand that the British public might hold them in slightly higher regard if they felt we were all in it together.
If the pay review body had acknowledged that they were underpaid and said that the pay rise would come once the government is operating with a budget surplus then I think that would have been the best solution for all concerned. It may even act as some sort of motivation do do the job right.
BV
