THE gravy train rolls on, reaching ever-more sickening heights of greed, selfish gratification and disregard for the ever-deeper miasma of poverty that disfigures our country.

The latest figures show that the richest 10 per cent of the UK population, who already owned 52 per cent of UK wealth just before the 2008 crash, have become significantly richer since then because of the rise in value of financial assets, during a time when average incomes have fallen 8 per cent in real terms.

Britain now has two million dollar millionaires, if the value of equity in houses is included — up by almost a third since last year.
There are also now 44 billionaires in Britain, up from eight in 2000.

The individual excesses continue apace, only getting ever more outrageous.

British oil and gas company BG Group has just appointed a new chief executive, Helge Lund, previous boss of Norway’s Statoil company, with a £15 million “golden hello” and potential earnings of an additional £14m a year.

At the other end of the scale are 70 former NHS care workers for the disabled in Doncaster who have been on strike to resist the further crushing of wages and terms and conditions for the lowest paid.

Their jobs were outsourced, holidays cut and take-home pay cut by a third.

Care UK which won the contract and ousted them is owned by private equity firm Bridgepoint Capital and its chairman John Nash was recently made a peer after donating a quarter of a million pounds to the Tory Party.

So what should be done? The Labour Party has focused on seeking to raise the lowest wages by committing to an £8-an-hour minimum wage, though postponing this target till 2020 undermines much of its impact when it is so badly needed now.

But there is no clear strategy for tackling outlandish greed at the top.

Giving a binding vote to shareholders — the Vince Cable solution — won’t have much effect when shareholders are only concerned about their return on capital, not about the remuneration of the chief executive if he delivers those profits.

Guidelines from a high pay commission won’t cut much ice either if unaccompanied by sanctions.

There are only two mechanisms which are likely to be effective.

One is to introduce a maximum top-to-bottom ratio for salaries from the boardroom to cleaners on the shop floor, to be phased in over time.

In 1970 the ratio was 40:1 —  it is now 185:1.

A 10-year phase-in period should be set to reduce it back to 40:1 or preferably 25:1.

The second mechanism would be to give a say to employee representatives rather than shareholders.

If an enterprise council was set up in all large companies — say, those with more than 1,000 employees — composed of representatives of all the main grades of employment and meeting at least once a year, it could be tasked with reviewing progress on all aspects of the company’s activities, including assessing pay claims at all levels of the company right up to the top.

But these initiatives are only likely to be enforced if Labour appoints a minister with the specific brief to tackle inequality in all its forms. It would be a highly popular move.

Not so Total Recall

THE government’s Recall of MPs Bill, which was debated in the Commons last week, states that 10 per cent of constituency members (about 8,000 people) can trigger a ballot for a by-election if an MP has been given a jail sentence or if Parliament agrees to a recall petition on grounds of “serious wrongdoing” — though what constitutes that is not spelt out.

This is unacceptable for two reasons. First, the decision shouldn’t lie with Parliament but with the electors.

The government position is like saying: “You can only make a complaint against the police if the police agree to accept it.” If that were the rule, there would be public outrage.

Second, the Commons debate dodged the question of the main reason why MPs should be subject to recall. That is where MPs are patently failing to hold the government of the day to account, which is their raison d’etre for being elected there in the first place.

There are abundant examples where Parliament, and the MPs within it, are manifestly failing to hold the government to account in any effective way.

In terms of its own Bills, the main business of Parliament, the government has the committee stage, report stage and Lords’ amendments stage more or less stitched up, by virtue of its majority, if it is determined to take a hard line and reject amendments.

At report stage no explanatory statements on detailed amendments are offered, so many MPs don’t know what they’re voting for and simply follow their whips.

Lords’ amendments, which can be sensible and reasonable, are too often brushed aside in legislative “ping-pong” between Lords and Commons instead of being referred to a joint committee to try to reach a compromise.

Non-government business, such as motions chosen by the back-bench business committee which are often of passionate concern to many electors, are simply disregarded by the government — without any agreed authority whatsoever — even where it has lost the vote on the floor of the Commons.

Select committee reports, which are arguably the most important work of Parliament and offer trenchant analysis of government failures, are simply shelved instead of being debated and voted on in the Commons and if won on the vote, sent to the Lords for ratification and then implementation.

Private member’s Bills are also often of great concern to electors, but are at present procedurally marginalised by the whips and almost never given a serious chance of reaching the statute book unless cravenly subjected to government whim.

Setting up committees of inquiry when great matters of state arise, now exclusively vested in the PM, should also be the prerogative of Parliament.

MPs should be judged by how far they strip away these obstacles to democracy to open up the channels for the popular will to be reflected throughout the parliamentary process.

Parliament needs to get up off its knees — that’s how MPs should be judged and, if necessary, recalled.

Michael Meacher is Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton. For more of his writing visit www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog.