The arguments continue about the pay of members of parliament, with cabinet ministers and backbenchers (of all the main parties) lining up to say they are going to pay the increase to charity, in self righteous declarations designed to appeal to voters. In fact, as IPSA points out, the award is revenue neutral as reductions in pension contributions and the removal from the expenses list of various items previously claimable, means that the bill to taxpayers will not increase.
Unfortunately all this hair shirt stuff is thought necessary not just because public sector workers have much lower pay increases, but because politicians are so reviled by the people that any money paid to them is begrudged. This prejudice is made worse by the recent death, caused by alcohol illness, of a much admired and respected parliamentarian, giving rise to all sorts of discussions about the stress on MPs with a good deal of wasted time in a Palace of Westminster awash with bars open all hours.
I wrote in 2009 that the way parliament functioned was completely unsuited to the modern world and was failing to meet the needs of the people it was organised to represent. I see no reason now to retract those thoughts; rather to reinforce them. My proposal then was that every constituency should have a Parliamentary Office, which would be the place of work of members of parliament, open always to the public, through which their local member would be able to look after their needs and champion their causes. Parliament would meet three or four times a year to learn about, approve of or reject the plans of the government, which would concentrate much more on governing by organisation and function and much less by endless streams of legislation. What seemed a good idea in 2009 seems, in the light of events, and even better one today.