Whining Intern Wanker

Any article that carries the title "Is IPSA going to let me starve?" is clearly going to be hysterical, self-serving nonsense. And the question is very easy to answer - no, IPSA won't let you starve, you whining intern shithead. The only person who will let you starve is yourself - by not getting some gainful employment.

But, as always, let's break down the rest of the article to truly see what freeform nonsense this idiot is spouting:

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.

Well, one of you is overpaid, but the head of a communications operation is always going to earn more than someone who works as, effectively, an MP's bitch. You might not like it, but that is life.

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.

There's a question of value here. The MP could wade through the layers of bureaucracy and get you a wage. However, the MP doesn't see enough value in what you do to do so. Therefore, you are effectively redundant. And you know what happens to those who are effectively redundant? They get another job. Which is what I suggest the author of this article does.

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.

I, like many others, am also motivated by self-interest. And that self-interest makes me reluctant to allow MPs to spunk money up the wall with precious little oversight.

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.

Ha! Sounds a lot like the Labour party to me.

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.

Whereas this article is the work of someone desperately trying to justify a salary out of naked self-interest. What's supposed to be the news here? That people try to justify what they do and the money they receive? Of course they fucking do. And the fact that they do it doesn't automatically invalidate their point.

Labour created this and the party should now show the moral courage necessary to undo the harm it has caused.

In terms of admitting the harm it caused, Labour should prioritise a number of things to show contrition about before it gets to IPSA. Like, say, the Iraq war and the decimation of civil liberties during its tenure in office.

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.

Why is it bad for democracy that some self-important little shite can't be paid in return for doing busy work for an MP? Interns are not vital for democracy. In fact, if anything, they are pretty damaging to genuine democracy, as they assist in the creation of a professional political class that has no experience of real-life, and have only worked with the increasingly inward looking and self-regarding political system of this country.

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

Shite. IPSA may be a bloated bureaucracy (which is hardly surprising as it was created by another bloated bureaucracy) but it is a response to the souring of politics in Britain by greedy MPs with a determination to put their hands in the till. And there is nothing undemocratic about IPSA because an MP is not prepared to jump through the hoops necessary to get payment for an intern. If anything, the fault (if there is one) lies with the MP, not the system.

It has yet to be explained to me why there are adequate grounds to consider internships as different from other forms of apprenticeship.

It probably has been explained to you, but you refuse to see it because naked self-interest dictates that you cannot acknowledge the validity of the argument against your line of work.

Making politics less professional does not engender some kind of mythic purity in the system.

No, but as we've seen, a professional political class is far from pure either. Furthermore, said class develops a clear disconnection from the people it is meant to serve and ends up with an unhealthy sense of entitlement.

In fact, it is making politics amateurish that breeds corruption, stifles meritocracy and encourages exploitation.

Really? Prove this. Because it sounds like bollocks to me.

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.

So having more normal people in politics would make the system less fair and less transparent. Again, precisely how is this the case? And how is it anything other than a completely unsupported, deeply biased assertion? As it stands, the creation of a professional political class actually makes politics less fair and less transparent. We're ending up with a self-perpetuating oligarchy rather than a genuine democracy.

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.

Oh, for God's sake, not the age old bollocks about the Tories wanting only the wealthy in politics. It is, with the greatest respect, shite. And also misses the point that those running for Labour leader are also not short of funds. In part because, in the case of Balls for example, they exploited the expenses system. And at the moment politics is increasingly becoming the preserve of those who have done nothing other than politics for their entire career. Which is just as unhealthy and unrepresentative as making politics the province of the rich.

The system of parliamentary expenses has moved from one extreme to the other – from a chaotic vacuum to a bureaucratic nightmare.

Bureaucratic nightmare? Excellent - this means MPs are finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and getting to understand what it is like for the people in almost all their dealings with the state.

Labour must defend the sort of politics that is open to all and not get lost in the mood of the moment.

Labour has shown itself that it has no interest in politics open to all - it will only consider listening to those who agree without questions with what they say and do. Labour party politics is not about openness - it is about closing down debate and as such is fundamentally undemocratic.