Tweet
Daryl Vaz has offered back five per cent of his salary. He was very conspicuously NOT joined by anyone else, and I began to wonder why.
Is the public aware that political parties automatically withdraw funds from the pay cheques of parliamentarians and councillors for housekeeping expenses? They do. Also, deductions are made for government pension and health insurance.
After the above, the take-home is about $250,000 per month, enough, certainly, to buy a few patties, but not a fortune. So unless Daryl has inherited wealth or some other access to funding, he will have to budget. Let's look at this salary in the politician lifestyle context, moving from unavoidable necessities to luxuries.
The 'cellie' is the most basic tool of modern political practice, more elemental than a brain, since every politician has a telephone. Surprisingly then, it is not subsidised. However, constituents generally expect to reach their representative whenever and wherever. In fact, most politicos have two or three phones going. If you don't have a phone, you're not in the game, and it's as simple as that. So it's reasonable to assume a bill of $35,000 for that alone, and that's almost definitely an underestimation.
Then there is 'de cyar'. There's the concession, of course, but the car payment is what makes the MP worry. You cannot drive around a 'patty pan' if you plan to become or remain an MP. Forget the commentariat ranting about putting MPs in smaller wheels. MP inna wheelbarrow? No, sah! The constituents don't appreciate you disrespecting them like that. So the car payment for a Prado, Pajero or some such similar vehicle is going to be significant, between $60K and $80K per month.
It's quite controversial as to whether 'de cyar' is more or less important than 'de clothes', but I'm going to assign the threads to a lesser status than the chariot based on the following research. If you step out of an expensive car looking shabby, it is possibly forgivable. Perhaps you're distracted by some great work. Or perhaps you are one of those few people who are forgiven because 'him nuh bizniz bout dem ting deh!'
DRESSING THE PART
But that's a very select group, and to gain admission you have to basically become a priest or a pastor of some sort. Only holy orders makes poor dressing a forgivable offence. The important thing is to signal that you CAN do better - IF you were so minded.
However, if you dress perfectly, but emerge from a mash-up ol' wagon, the likelihood is that you will appear as an ineffectual dandy. Worst of all is to be dressed too well as a politician on public transportation: now 'yuh jus ah showaff yuhself', which is to invite scorn and ridicule.
Dressing is not an inconsequential issue for the average MP. People take important cues from the robes, raiment, and footwear. Just think of barefooted Muta or the ever-sandaled Paul Burke. By flaunting their toes, they're announcing that 'dem nuh give a chit!'
But, by definition, the politician has to care about how he's perceived, and must allocate funding accordingly, say, on average, $30,000 per month. Don't even talk about dressing wives (or husbands). Politicians cannot afford those things.
It's not unlike my experience of being a young attorney in New York. It's known the world over that the inexperienced lawyer has to buy phenomenally expensive clothing so as to appear successful. Just as patients want the doctor who has performed the surgery a thousand times already, clients want a lawyer who is already successful, not one who is 'tryin' a ting'. This is why, for many years, I had to dress like a perfectly coiffed penguin. Now I can roll like Muta or Burkey.
Next up are 'donations', ranging from men who just 'beg yuh ah money', to real needy cases. Plus, the politician lives in secret dread of the start of the school year, when the number of needy jumps dramatically. The worst thing that can be said about a politician is that 'him mean yuh si!', so if he is to spend any time in the constituency at all, there has to be an ample budget for immediate response to requests.
Predictably, one reason the MP avoids the constituency is that he cannot afford to go there often. But averaging one visit a week, on the optimistic assumption that he can get away with spending only $10K to $12K, we have to budget another $50,000 for that.
GETTING AROUND
The gas of the parliamentarian is not paid. My inquiries tell me that for the country MP, it's about $30,000 per month, and can be worse. Parliament pays for a driver, but it's 'ongle show-off' why they don't take the driver money and spend it on gas.
So now there's roughly $25,000 left to spend on their own rent, groceries, utilities, school fees, and other miscellaneous items.
Regarding rent, the common pattern is for this part of the budget to be absorbed by the politico's wife or husband, making them, in essence, gigolos or kept women as the case may be.
Moving on, JPS and NWC bills are cause for terror to everyone who bothers to pay, including the MP. Naturally, if the MP must catch water and bridge light, it must never be known, as that, too, would offend our national sensibilities.
Regarding food, I wasn't at all surprised when, speaking eloquently at the last economic forum he was invited to in Montego Bay, Audley knew the price of sardines and chicken back so intimately. Squally!
But why not cancel the salaries altogether and be explicitly governed only by the independently wealthy or corporate sponsored?
I would only ask to have strict laws for MPs to show, like EPL players, their sponsors on their jerseys. For those with too many sponsors for the suit, tie, trousers and shoes, there's the Formula One system, where cars are covered with logos. Maybe we should start doing that now. If we don't pay them, we should at least know who does.
Back to Mr Vaz's offer! Calculating from the roughly $3 million that he's getting in hand annually, five per cent is $150,000 per annum, $12,000 monthly, or $3,000 (US$30) per week. Scoff if you want, but I like the symbolism and optics when the price of a bucket of KFC absorbs the national dialogue, as opposed to, say, the near miracle that the IMF conditionalities have been enacted without debilitating social unrest.
Is the public aware that political parties automatically withdraw funds from the pay cheques of parliamentarians and councillors for housekeeping expenses? They do. Also, deductions are made for government pension and health insurance.
After the above, the take-home is about $250,000 per month, enough, certainly, to buy a few patties, but not a fortune. So unless Daryl has inherited wealth or some other access to funding, he will have to budget. Let's look at this salary in the politician lifestyle context, moving from unavoidable necessities to luxuries.
The 'cellie' is the most basic tool of modern political practice, more elemental than a brain, since every politician has a telephone. Surprisingly then, it is not subsidised. However, constituents generally expect to reach their representative whenever and wherever. In fact, most politicos have two or three phones going. If you don't have a phone, you're not in the game, and it's as simple as that. So it's reasonable to assume a bill of $35,000 for that alone, and that's almost definitely an underestimation.
Then there is 'de cyar'. There's the concession, of course, but the car payment is what makes the MP worry. You cannot drive around a 'patty pan' if you plan to become or remain an MP. Forget the commentariat ranting about putting MPs in smaller wheels. MP inna wheelbarrow? No, sah! The constituents don't appreciate you disrespecting them like that. So the car payment for a Prado, Pajero or some such similar vehicle is going to be significant, between $60K and $80K per month.
It's quite controversial as to whether 'de cyar' is more or less important than 'de clothes', but I'm going to assign the threads to a lesser status than the chariot based on the following research. If you step out of an expensive car looking shabby, it is possibly forgivable. Perhaps you're distracted by some great work. Or perhaps you are one of those few people who are forgiven because 'him nuh bizniz bout dem ting deh!'
DRESSING THE PART
But that's a very select group, and to gain admission you have to basically become a priest or a pastor of some sort. Only holy orders makes poor dressing a forgivable offence. The important thing is to signal that you CAN do better - IF you were so minded.
However, if you dress perfectly, but emerge from a mash-up ol' wagon, the likelihood is that you will appear as an ineffectual dandy. Worst of all is to be dressed too well as a politician on public transportation: now 'yuh jus ah showaff yuhself', which is to invite scorn and ridicule.
Dressing is not an inconsequential issue for the average MP. People take important cues from the robes, raiment, and footwear. Just think of barefooted Muta or the ever-sandaled Paul Burke. By flaunting their toes, they're announcing that 'dem nuh give a chit!'
But, by definition, the politician has to care about how he's perceived, and must allocate funding accordingly, say, on average, $30,000 per month. Don't even talk about dressing wives (or husbands). Politicians cannot afford those things.
It's not unlike my experience of being a young attorney in New York. It's known the world over that the inexperienced lawyer has to buy phenomenally expensive clothing so as to appear successful. Just as patients want the doctor who has performed the surgery a thousand times already, clients want a lawyer who is already successful, not one who is 'tryin' a ting'. This is why, for many years, I had to dress like a perfectly coiffed penguin. Now I can roll like Muta or Burkey.
Next up are 'donations', ranging from men who just 'beg yuh ah money', to real needy cases. Plus, the politician lives in secret dread of the start of the school year, when the number of needy jumps dramatically. The worst thing that can be said about a politician is that 'him mean yuh si!', so if he is to spend any time in the constituency at all, there has to be an ample budget for immediate response to requests.
Predictably, one reason the MP avoids the constituency is that he cannot afford to go there often. But averaging one visit a week, on the optimistic assumption that he can get away with spending only $10K to $12K, we have to budget another $50,000 for that.
GETTING AROUND
The gas of the parliamentarian is not paid. My inquiries tell me that for the country MP, it's about $30,000 per month, and can be worse. Parliament pays for a driver, but it's 'ongle show-off' why they don't take the driver money and spend it on gas.
So now there's roughly $25,000 left to spend on their own rent, groceries, utilities, school fees, and other miscellaneous items.
Regarding rent, the common pattern is for this part of the budget to be absorbed by the politico's wife or husband, making them, in essence, gigolos or kept women as the case may be.
Moving on, JPS and NWC bills are cause for terror to everyone who bothers to pay, including the MP. Naturally, if the MP must catch water and bridge light, it must never be known, as that, too, would offend our national sensibilities.
Regarding food, I wasn't at all surprised when, speaking eloquently at the last economic forum he was invited to in Montego Bay, Audley knew the price of sardines and chicken back so intimately. Squally!
But why not cancel the salaries altogether and be explicitly governed only by the independently wealthy or corporate sponsored?
I would only ask to have strict laws for MPs to show, like EPL players, their sponsors on their jerseys. For those with too many sponsors for the suit, tie, trousers and shoes, there's the Formula One system, where cars are covered with logos. Maybe we should start doing that now. If we don't pay them, we should at least know who does.
Back to Mr Vaz's offer! Calculating from the roughly $3 million that he's getting in hand annually, five per cent is $150,000 per annum, $12,000 monthly, or $3,000 (US$30) per week. Scoff if you want, but I like the symbolism and optics when the price of a bucket of KFC absorbs the national dialogue, as opposed to, say, the near miracle that the IMF conditionalities have been enacted without debilitating social unrest.
Comment