Following the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
(IPSA) report which has begun a consultation process on MPs’ pay and benefits,
there have inevitably been questions over the level of that pay over the years,
and how it has compared to others. For the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and
his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, it has also been an opportunity for spin
and dishonesty.
Compare the Fawkes figures ...
“Are MPs Worth Three Times What They Were?”
asks the Fawkes blog, before displaying a chart of routine fraudulence with the
payoff line “In the mid-seventies MPs
were paid in line with average wages, now they are triple average wages. Why?”.
They were? Strangely, the chart that Andrew Sparrow of the deeply subversive Guardian had
included in his live blog looked rather different.
... with the Guardian ones
The chart in question, titled “MPs’ annual pay as multiple of UK average earnings 1911-2011” shows
that at no point since just after World War 1 has that pay fallen below two
times average earnings, though it also shows that, just after the mid-70s – the
starting point for the Fawkes chart – it came close to it. The two analyses
cannot both be right. Or can they?
Look again at the Fawkes blog, and the title of the chart: “MPs’ salaries vs average household wages,
1977-2015”. Note the use of the word “Household”.
This is how Staines and his pals have massaged the figures to favour their
typically dishonest proposition: this only holds if (a) an MP is the only
earner in his or her household, and (b) there is only one earner in every other
household.
If, as the Guardian
chart shows, MPs’ pay in 1977 was just over two times average earnings, those
MPs were not “paid in line with average
wages”. The Great Guido has been caught telling porkies once more: over the
years, the average number of earners per household has clearly declined.
Perhaps Staines and his pals would care to blame the House of Commons for this
development.
And, when they’re through with that one, maybe they could
explain why their chart is missing two data points for the “average household wages” series, or just
admit that the only reason they’ve included them for MPs’ pay is to make those
MPs look bad (plus the last data point common to both series does not show MPs’
pay three times average household
wages, but around 2.2 times – more dishonesty).
So, once again, The Great Guido is full value for that 4%
positive trust rating. Like his pals at the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance, the
fiddling becomes so much easier to spot once you’ve rumbled the SOBs.
But nice try Fawkes folks – pity about the porkies. Another fine mess, once again.
Salary Expectation is established with a motive to help expatriates access the cost of living information.
ReplyDeletesalary Report