Why are some cabinet ministers fuming? Why are some members of the shadow cabinet departing this summer? Why is Menzies Campbell not standing to be leader of the Liberal Democrats? No doubt there are all sorts of factors that contribute to the occasional upsurge of anger from a minister, and plenty of reasons to explain why senior members of William Hague's army are making a hasty exit. As for Campbell, he will have given consideration to his chances of winning the leadership contest against the front-runner, Charles Kennedy.
But there is also another answer to the opening three questions, which can be summed up in one word: money. Put bluntly, we do not spend enough on politics in Britain, while making excessive demands on under-resourced and underpaid politicians. The reality of most politicians' lives is the opposite of the acquisitive caricatures portrayed in newspapers. Most talented politicians could be on bigger salaries in other fields and enjoy far better resources as well.
Some cabinet ministers are angry that, for the third year running, they may not get the full pay increase to which they are entitled. The Iron Chancellor imposed a pay-freeze on them after the election, and they did not do much better 12 months ago. Admittedly their income of around £94,000, including their MP's salary, is way beyond most voters' dreams. Even so, the figure is much lower than salaries earned by leading industrialists with fewer responsibilities and pressures. What is more, many cabinet members do not earn such a salary for very long. Some are in and out after a year or so. Most do not make it beyond one parliamentary term.
Although cabinet ministers deserve their full recommended pay-rise of 4.31 per cent, they have less cause for complaint than those who toil in opposition. Take the case of the Liberal Democrat leader. He earns no more than a back-bench MP, around £47,000, and does not qualify for an official car. The day before Campbell announced he was not fighting the leadership contest, one of his close allies told me of the silly consequences arising from our political parsimony. An example:the Lib Dem leader does not get an official car, unlike ministers and the leader of the opposition. When he gets invited to official functions at Buckingham Palace or elsewhere with other senior politicians, he has to take a taxi or drive there himself. I am sure it was only a minor factor, but if the job was properly rewarded and resourced, Campbell might have been more tempted to stand for the leadership. As it is, Kennedy is about to get a job that will greatly increase his workload and pressures without raising his pay. In Kennedy's case, he will actually lose money, as he will have to forgo those lucrative television appearances with Paul Merton and Ian Hislop. The leader of the third party should be paid more than a back-bench MP. (Memo to Kennedy: although you won't be able to appear in such programmes as Have I Got News for You if you win, please don't lose or hide your sense of the ridiculous. Don't pretend to be a reassuring bank manager, as Neil Kinnock did when he underwent a misguided metamorphosis as Labour Party leader.)
I have even more sympathy for the shadow cabinet. Yes, I have sympathy for John Redwood, Michael Howard, Sir Norman Fowler and all the others who had probably grown complacent with power and now find themselves with one assistant and a dodgy photocopier. With the exception of the leader of the opposition and the shadow chief whip, opposition frontbenchers do not earn more than their MP's salary. In the case of the current shadow cabinet, some members earn additional money elsewhere. But that is not the point. The job of opposing the government is demanding and important. It should be rewarded accordingly. The prospect of power at some future date should not be seen as a reward in itself - especially as there is absolutely no guarantee that the glories of ministerial office will one day descend on those who perform the arduous, thankless task of opposition. Ask the many Labour politicians who had the misfortune to peak in the early to mid-eighties. More to the point, ask any current member of Hague's front-bench team, most of whom have no idea when the Conservatives will win a general election again.
But the pressing issue for the shadow cabinet is less about pay and more about resources.
In fairness to the government, with ministerial memories still fresh of what life in opposition can be like, it is proposing to provide more funding for Hague's team, with an additional £4 million being made available. I applaud this act of political generosity, but it is the minimum required. The modern demands of an ever-expanding media alone make the job of opposition much harder than it was 20 years ago.
I applaud also Tony Blair's generosity to himself in increasing the resources in Downing Street. It is remarkable, amid all the allegations of control freakery, how small the prime ministerial staff is compared with those in the Whitehall departments. One member of the No 10 Policy Unit, for example, shadows four huge policy areas: home affairs, genetically modified foods, agriculture and rural policy. If you take rural policy alone, there are more than 100 officials in other departments working on this specialism. Nor is there any news information or library facility in Downing Street.
I am thinking of starting a campaign which will probably attract one of the smallest memberships in the country. Its slogan will be: "Pay politicians more." Any takers? There should be: we get politics on the cheap and are all the worse for it.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
