Grumbles from the Pulpit: One Law on Pay for Politicians

 The proposition, put forward by the Privileges and Procedures Committee, outlines how:  

• Though States members can still set the framework for how their pay is decided – i.e. the independent body – they will have no say on the actual decision of what their pay is.
• Members’ pay should be linked to an index.
• An independent body or person should be commissioned to review the system each Assembly term.
• That the law that keeps all States Members' pay equal should be repealed, so the independent reviewer can consider different options for different States Members

One law on pay for politicians... another for the public sector.

So why can't public sector pay be also linked to that index. That way politicians will not have any say in that either!

At the moment, politicians pay is recommended by an "independent" panel - all of whom are chosen to sit on the panel by the States.

As far as I am aware, Unions, teachers, nurses, etc are not involved in that panel, but only those people whose status, both economic and political, could be described as privileged. That's what happens when the States choose the panel!

Any independent body should be widely representative of all sectors of society, not narrowly confined to "the great and the good", who are insulated from experience at the coal face, working long hours for relatively little pay.

It seems to me that if politicians pay goes up, the public sector should go up likewise. As it stands, the SEB has in recent years ignored any calls for independent arbitration, simply laying down the law.

Different Pay Grades: Empowering Patronage and Privilege

There has also been angling for different rates of pay for some time, so that Ministers could receive more, and the Chief Minister more, as well as heads of Scrutiny.

In a small island, where the Chief Minister has powers of dismissal, this would be a charter which would enable patronage and privilege in a way that simply does not exist in (for instance), the UK, where there are far more backbenchers than members of the government.

If we are not careful, this could lead to a more presidential approach to leadership, with powers of patronage to sack and demote any critics and promote their supporters, backed up by the fact that demotion means loss of pay. It will be a step closer to an "elective dictatorship".

We have seen a lot of contempt for the electorate in the past year, and this I fear would only make matters worse.

Readers might like to consider Anthony King's remarks in ‘The British Prime Ministership in the Age of the Career Politician’, and consider how better pay and privilege given by a Chief Minister would affect the States:

The great majority of British politicians [nowadays] are career politicians. They eat, breathe and sleep politics. Most of them passionately want to be ministers; or, if they are already ministers, they want to be promoted in the ministerial hierarchy, and they certainly do not want to be demoted, shunted sideways or dismissed. It follows that the prime minister of the day is in an exceedingly powerful position. He or she is the monopoly supplier of a good, ministerial office, which is in … short supply and for which there is an enormous demand. He or she can exploit this monopoly position to influence the behaviour of backbenchers who want to be ministers and of ministers who want to be promoted and not to be dismissed … The career politician’s ambition is the ambitious prime minister’s opportunity.