The London Evening Standard, the Metropolitan Police, and Executive Pay

A leading article

This evening, the London Evening Standard ran a page 2 article on the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, who has chosen voluntarily to take a £40,000 pay cut compared to her predecessor.

An editorial comment praised this move, and encouraged those on top end salaries to ‘follow Ms Dick’s fine example.’

With policing budgets under pressure, this is a welcome indication that Ms Dick is in touch with reality. In many sectors the gap between executive and average pay is rising for no good reason.

Putting their money where their mouth is?

Given that the London Evening Standard’s incoming editor, George Osborne reportedly already earns in excess of £1.5 million per year (Politics and greed: seeking integrity and justice, 27th March 2017), I wonder whether he will follow his columnist’s advice and Ms Dick’s fine example?

March 27, 2017

Politics and greed: seeking integrity and justice

Politics and greed

In May this year, George Osborne, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and MP for Tatton in Cheshire, will take up a sixth job as editor of the London Evening Standard.

Although it is reportedly common for sitting MPs to hold other jobs, I struggle to see how he can take on this new role with any sense of integrity. Mr Osborne, reportedly, already has four other jobs besides representing his constituency[1]:

He is an advisor to the American fund management firm Blackrock, for which he is reportedly paid £650,000 a year for one day a week’s work;
He is a speaker at the Washington Speaker’s Bureau, through which he apparently earned £800,000 in 15 speaking engagements last year;
He is a fellow at the US think tank, McCain Institute, from which he receives a £120,000 annual stipend;
He is chairman of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership.

Time, money and conflicts of interest

As an ordinary mortal who struggles to fit all my work commitments into the time available, I find it hard to understand how Mr Osborne can possibly do justice to representing his constituency with all those other roles competing for his time. Even if the other roles only take up a small proportion of his time, surely editing a daily newspaper cannot just be fitted into his spare time.

Last week the Economist reported that since being ejected from the treasury in July, Mr Osborne has taken part in just 6 debates in Parliament and has yet to submit a written question.[2]

As MP for Tatton, Mr Osborne represents 85,000 people. As chairman of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, he is meant to be promoting the development and interests of the North of England. In contrast, as editor of a London newspaper, he will have a powerful voice in the capital. It is hard to see how this will not cause any conflict of interest. When called on to vote on parliamentary debates will he vote according to his paper’s position, in the interests of the northern powerhouse, to represent his constituents, following his party’s whip, or will he vote primarily in his own interests?

Which brings us to the sickening greed of someone who can accept remuneration of £12,500 per day as an advisor, or charge an average £53,000 for an after-dinner speech. For the year ending 5 April 2015, median gross earnings for full-time employees in the UK were £27,600. While I support MPs receiving appropriate remuneration for the work they do, and I don’t have a problem with them taking on extra roles if they can manage them without compromising their primary role, I do have concerns about the validity of someone representing their constituency, while earning, in one after-dinner speech, nearly twice what their average constituent will earn in a year.

Seeking integrity: the Green Party’s candidate for West Midlands’ mayor

Reeling from the sickening reality of such obscene payments, it came as a breath of fresh air to read the pledges of the Green Party’s candidate for West Midlands’ mayor, James Burn.

In May this year, the West Midlands will elect its first ever mayor.

James Burn, currently leader of the opposition on Solihull council, and the Green party candidate has pledged, if he is elected, to refuse the majority of the proposed £100,000 salary, accepting instead the average wage of the West Midlands, of £29,000. The remainder he has pledged to donate to charity and local start-ups.

As a local councillor, James has been consistent in standing up for social justice and ethical principles[3]:

He played a key role in Birmingham’s first Living Wage campaign;
He has continued to call for Solihull Council to pay a living wage instead of giving big pay rises to directors;
He is supporting investment in the least well off areas of the West Midlands;
He is an unpaid board member for the Advanced credit union, an ethical community bank covering Solihull and North East Birmingham;
He has served as a volunteer for a wide range of charities.

In addition to his personal pledge in relation to the mayoral salary, James has also pledged to set up a public forum with representatives from across the community to hold the mayor to account. Currently the arrangements include one small committee, chosen by the authority and meeting four times a year.

Integrity in Politics: going for Green not for greed

The contrast between these two politicians couldn’t be starker. And when it comes to our own democracy, whether in Parliament, or in our local combined authority, I would much rather be represented by someone who is clearly committed to social justice, to promoting well-being, to protecting our environment, and who isn’t afraid to live out their principles.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/17/george-osborne-named-new-evening-standard-editor-newspaper

[2] Economist, 23.3.17: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21719523-thats-not-oddest-part-time-career-mp-others-have-worked-playboy-or

[3] http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-mayor-candidate-james-12568183

March 20, 2016

George Osborne’s Budget: more reasons to be angry

A report from the Resolution Foundation has estimated that the UK Chancellor’s raising of the higher rate income tax threshold in this year’s budget will boost incomes for higher rate taxpayers by £200 per year.

At the same time, his increase in the personal tax allowance will raise incomes for basic rate taxpayers by just £60 per year.

When you look at the changes by distribution of household income, these inequalities are even more stark, with the poorest 10% of UK households receiving less than £10 per year extra, while the richest 10% (myself included) will receive an average of around £270 per year extra.

Distributional impact of income tax threshold changes in April 2017

But it gets worse.

When you take into account other changes to benefits and taxes, the Resolution Foundation calculate that by 2020-21, households in the bottom half of the income distribution will be £375 worse off, while those in the top half will be £235 better off.

How can this be right?

Having had a few days now to reflect on this budget, I am appalled by the preferential treatment of the rich:

As a high earner with a secure job, I will gain by an extra £2,615 of my salary being taxed at a lower rate;
As someone who can afford to save, I could invest in shares and pay less tax when I sell those shares for a profit;
I could give up to £4,000 per year to each of my children to put into a new lifetime ISA, to which the government will add £1 of tax payers’ money to every £4 they save;
When Esther and Joe move away from home later this year, we could rent out the extra rooms through AirBnB and earn up to £1,000 per year tax-free.

Meanwhile, the chancellor has announced that he will cut £4.4 billion from benefits for disabled people. Apparently this means that 200,000 disabled people who are dependent on personal independence payments for help in personal care will lose out on these benefits, while a further 400,000 will see them cut.

If the health of our nation is measured, even in part, by how we treat the poorest and most vulnerable of our neighbours, it seems to me that we are sadly lacking at present.

But let justice roll on like a river,

righteousness like a never-failing stream!

Amos 5:24