Not only will politicians not take a backseat, as The Times had hoped they would over the Christmas period, but with the revelation of the rise in pay the Cabinet has worked out for its members and for the rest of the members of Parliament, the government has made sure the political class will dominate much of the table discussion over the festive period. The anger the rise has raised is palpable, reflecting a mood that should make politicians reflect a little about whether or not they are meeting the people’s expectations.

This newspaper has no qualms about ministers and MPs getting a decent salary. That is as it should be, even if the rate of the rise, as well as the payment of the honorarium in addition to the salary for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, may be considered by some as a bit on the high. There are two specific reasons for the anger: the manner in which the move has been made known and, naturally, its timing.

The people are not interested in the inter-party backfire the revelation has sparked. What they have found particularly galling is the remarkable insensitivity the government has shown. True, the additional payment of the honorarium to the salary of ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and the rise to all MPs, were decided upon in 2008 but the people have not been given an explanation of how the rise has been worked out.

Why should the people, who are forking out the money, have learned of the matter through an answer to a parliamentary question? This is definitely not the way the matter ought to have been tackled. It even looks as if the government was ashamed of letting the people know about it. And what about the timing? It is simply horrible. The announcement of what to the man in the street appears to be a very generous rise comes in the wake of a small allowance across the board to make up for the rise in the cost of living. Not only that, but it also comes at a time when the country is being pressed to cut its spending in order to bring down the deficit in government financing.

Is this the way to go about it? Most would say definitely not and the Labour leader, and other Labour MPs, have shrewdly taken political advantage by refusing the rise. But what does the move actually entail? It means that, in all, MPs will get an extra €4 million more in this legislature. They are to get a rise of 20 per cent, pushing their salary up to €26,771. This was decided upon in May 2008 and payment is backdated to March of the same year.

The Finance Minister gave as reason for allowing ministers and parliamentary secretaries to receive both their salary and the honorarium the fact that, while backbenchers usually kept their job outside Parliament, Cabinet members had to give up their private practice. The reason is, of course, open to debate; what is not perhaps is the extent of the rise for all MPs in the prevailing circumstances.

MPs, whose two-thirds pension, by the way, is uncapped, have often complained their remuneration is low considering their responsibilities and the sacrifices they make on behalf of their constituents. Again, there is no doubt the remuneration should be just, but then disenchantment with politics and politicians generally is growing, not diminishing.