Is IPSA going to let me starve?

by Alex Stakhanov
Friday, August 6th, 2010

The head of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s communications operation receives an annual salary of £85,000. I am a communications and research intern for a Member of Parliament and earn nothing. In fact, I will be soon be faced with the choice between starvation and eviction because the MP who engaged me in good faith cannot wade through IPSA’s layers of bureaucracy and provide me with a wage.

The plight of interns has been recognised by most of the candidates for the Labour leadership. Interns Aware has received backing from all but Ed Balls for its campaign for interns to be paid at least the national minimum wage. This is not an issue that the Labour Party or the wider labour movement should ignore. We are supposed to stand or fall on solidarity and working for an MP should not make anyone less worthy of that support. Of course, I am partially motivated by self-interest, but there are serious issues around IPSA and the wider access to politics.
IPSA was created as a knee-jerk response to public outrage. Bad legislation is something that can sometimes be repented at leisure, but this body is an abomination; bloated beyond control by its sense of moral self-importance. Tory blogger Iain Dale has brought a video to wider attention on his website. This shows Ken Osila, a member of the IPSA board, desperately trying to
justify IPSA’s inflated salaries and vast, bureaucratic machine. Labour created this and the party should now show the moral courage necessary to undo the harm it has caused.

The arguments around access to politics are well worn, but my experience is relevant and applicable. If internships are only accessible to one social group, what does this do for the representative nature of politics and political parties? Clearly, it restricts both and is inherently bad for democracy.

IPSA’s moral piety is unjustified. Far from defending democracy, the organisation is actually choking it and souring politics in Britain.

It has yet to be explained to me why there are adequate grounds to consider internships as different from other forms of apprenticeship. Making politics less professional does not engender some kind of mythic purity in the system. In fact, it is making politics amateurish that breeds corruption, stifles meritocracy and encourages exploitation. Although people who want politics to be less like a “normal” career may mean well, what that would bring about would be the opposite of what they intend. The system would not become fairer and more transparent, but the reverse.

Politics is in danger of becoming the province of the rich. That might suit the current Cabinet, but would be very bad for the rest of us. The system of parliamentary expenses has moved from one extreme to the other – from a chaotic vacuum to a bureaucratic nightmare. Labour must defend the sort of politics that is open to all and not get lost in the mood of the moment.

The only place you can read all of Tribune's articles as soon as they are published is in the magazine. To find out more about subscribing from as little as £19, click here.

About The Author

  • Paul Davies

    Dear intern,

    Give IPSA a call. It sounds as though you are suffering due to your MP’s incompetency rather than IPSA’s.

  • Paul Davies

    Dear intern,

    Give IPSA a call. It sounds as though you are suffering due to your MP’s incompetency rather than IPSA’s.

  • Tom

    Is incompetency a word?

    If you have a look at Ken Osila’s fantastically bizarre looking Restoration Partners (http://www.restoration-partners.com/vacancies.html) it’s quite clear he doesn’t consider interns worthy of scraping his shoes, personally choosing to describe them as “dogsbod[ies]“.

  • Tom

    Is incompetency a word?

    If you have a look at Ken Osila’s fantastically bizarre looking Restoration Partners (http://www.restoration-partners.com/vacancies.html) it’s quite clear he doesn’t consider interns worthy of scraping his shoes, personally choosing to describe them as “dogsbod[ies]“.

  • Dom

    The IPSA is clearly horrible and nasty to deal with. Good job. Possibly MPs will understand that creating more and more legislation and so adding bureaucracy to the lives of people is not a good thing.

    Also, Ed Balls has been advertising for unpaid staff: http://order-order.com/2010/07/30/shock-balls-breaks-promise/

    For a breakdown of the above post I suggest:

    http://theappallingstrangeness.blogspot.com/2010/08/whining-intern-wanker.html

  • Dom

    The IPSA is clearly horrible and nasty to deal with. Good job. Possibly MPs will understand that creating more and more legislation and so adding bureaucracy to the lives of people is not a good thing.

    Also, Ed Balls has been advertising for unpaid staff: http://order-order.com/2010/07/30/shock-balls-breaks-promise/

    For a breakdown of the above post I suggest:

    http://theappallingstrangeness.blogspot.com/2010/08/whining-intern-wanker.html

  • Common Sense

    I think the merit of the article stands or falls on the following sentence:

    “In fact, I will be soon be faced with the choice between starvation and eviction because the MP who engaged me in good faith cannot wade through IPSA’s layers of bureaucracy and provide me with a wage.”

    IPSA says that they will only fund interns if “if the intern has been given a contract of employment which complies with a standard contract drawn up by IPSA.” That seems fair enough to me. If that hasn’t happened then is is the MP’s fault that you haven’t been paid. You say the MP enaged you in ‘good faith’. Blind faith appears to have been closer to the mark.

    By the way, Tom, ‘incompetency’ is a word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incompetency

  • Common Sense

    I think the merit of the article stands or falls on the following sentence:

    “In fact, I will be soon be faced with the choice between starvation and eviction because the MP who engaged me in good faith cannot wade through IPSA’s layers of bureaucracy and provide me with a wage.”

    IPSA says that they will only fund interns if “if the intern has been given a contract of employment which complies with a standard contract drawn up by IPSA.” That seems fair enough to me. If that hasn’t happened then is is the MP’s fault that you haven’t been paid. You say the MP enaged you in ‘good faith’. Blind faith appears to have been closer to the mark.

    By the way, Tom, ‘incompetency’ is a word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incompetency

  • Tom

    So it is. I’d have gone for incompetence.

  • Tom

    So it is. I’d have gone for incompetence.

  • Paul Davies

    Dear intern,

    Your contract can be downloaded from the IPSA website, address is below. Print it off, get your (incompetent) MP to sign it, and you can then claim your expenses.

    http://www.ipsa-home.org.uk/docs/Model%20Volunteer%20Intern%20Agreement.docx

    Job done. You could have done this in the time it took you to write the article.

  • Paul Davies

    Dear intern,

    Your contract can be downloaded from the IPSA website, address is below. Print it off, get your (incompetent) MP to sign it, and you can then claim your expenses.

    http://www.ipsa-home.org.uk/docs/Model%20Volunteer%20Intern%20Agreement.docx

    Job done. You could have done this in the time it took you to write the article.

  • http://www.ipsa-is-wrong.com Joe Egerton

    The danger in ‘Common sense’s’ approach is that IPSA is acquiring increasing power in the political system through such mechanisms. The independence of MPs is really important – they sacked Chamberlain before he lost the war and let Hitler ride down the Mall in triumph; they sacked Margaret Thatcher; a mounting baqckbench revolt heralded the departure of Tony Blair.

    I should also mention that the NAO is not going to conduct an early review of IPSA, so that approach that has caused this complaint will not be examined – see my blog, http://www.ipas-is-wrong.com

  • http://www.ipsa-is-wrong.com Joe Egerton

    The danger in ‘Common sense’s’ approach is that IPSA is acquiring increasing power in the political system through such mechanisms. The independence of MPs is really important – they sacked Chamberlain before he lost the war and let Hitler ride down the Mall in triumph; they sacked Margaret Thatcher; a mounting baqckbench revolt heralded the departure of Tony Blair.

    I should also mention that the NAO is not going to conduct an early review of IPSA, so that approach that has caused this complaint will not be examined – see my blog, http://www.ipas-is-wrong.com

  • Robert

    Then go out get a job working like the rest of us, I use to play football loved it, even had the chance of playing semi professional once, but I earned a living on building sites, had to give up playing football to make a living. like everything else in life stop moaning get a job in the real world.

  • Robert

    Then go out get a job working like the rest of us, I use to play football loved it, even had the chance of playing semi professional once, but I earned a living on building sites, had to give up playing football to make a living. like everything else in life stop moaning get a job in the real world.

  • Common Sense

    I agree that IPSA are acquiring increased powers in the political system and I agree that the independence of MPs is important. But there are two problems with Joe’s argument. First, Joe overstates the independence that MPs enjoy in practice. A combination of the first-past-the-post system that usually at least inflates the popularity of the largest party in terms of votes gained means that the largest party’s vote normally (admittedly not in this election) secures an absolute majority that is not reflective of their share of the vote. That in turn means the party machine is more powerful than is warranted and the independence of MPs is already compromised unless enough of the MPs gang up together to override the party leadership (or, of course, abolish the IPSA). In that respect IPSA’s rules have nothing to do with the independence of MPs, and if that lack of independence is a valid concern, then other solutions exist to correct that that have nothing to do with IPSA.
    The second problem is that IPSA’s rise politically comes from a low base – it didn’t exist a year ago. In that vacuum, most MPs abused the then existing expenses system in some way or another. One of the most infamous examples was the diversion of public money to the MP Derek Conway’s family on the pretence that they worked for him. A more common abuse is that people were employed by MPs without job descriptions or any control on what they were doing for the MP (or not doing for the MP as the case may be). The Fees Office tried to put in some controls, but a combination of official incompetence and intransigence by MPs meant that those controls were not properly enforced. IPSA’s only fault here is in introducing a simple and obvious control for the employment of staff and enforcing it properly.
    This is not about reducing the independence of MPs but simply about putting in some basic controls on the expenditure of public money. MPs are free to use the services of as many interns as they like, but if they want to pay them out of public funds, IPSA is entitled to at least approve the job description before paying those salaries.

  • Common Sense

    I agree that IPSA are acquiring increased powers in the political system and I agree that the independence of MPs is important. But there are two problems with Joe’s argument. First, Joe overstates the independence that MPs enjoy in practice. A combination of the first-past-the-post system that usually at least inflates the popularity of the largest party in terms of votes gained means that the largest party’s vote normally (admittedly not in this election) secures an absolute majority that is not reflective of their share of the vote. That in turn means the party machine is more powerful than is warranted and the independence of MPs is already compromised unless enough of the MPs gang up together to override the party leadership (or, of course, abolish the IPSA). In that respect IPSA’s rules have nothing to do with the independence of MPs, and if that lack of independence is a valid concern, then other solutions exist to correct that that have nothing to do with IPSA.
    The second problem is that IPSA’s rise politically comes from a low base – it didn’t exist a year ago. In that vacuum, most MPs abused the then existing expenses system in some way or another. One of the most infamous examples was the diversion of public money to the MP Derek Conway’s family on the pretence that they worked for him. A more common abuse is that people were employed by MPs without job descriptions or any control on what they were doing for the MP (or not doing for the MP as the case may be). The Fees Office tried to put in some controls, but a combination of official incompetence and intransigence by MPs meant that those controls were not properly enforced. IPSA’s only fault here is in introducing a simple and obvious control for the employment of staff and enforcing it properly.
    This is not about reducing the independence of MPs but simply about putting in some basic controls on the expenditure of public money. MPs are free to use the services of as many interns as they like, but if they want to pay them out of public funds, IPSA is entitled to at least approve the job description before paying those salaries.