Being in opposition in politics is frustrating, as I discovered during my first 18 years as Blackburn MP. It's about what you say, and little else.

Being in power and taking decisions from a range of often unpalatable choices is harder, as I think the new coalition running the Blackburn with Darwen council is discovering.

It's rare for me ever to receive a submission as a minister saying "you can either do this, low cost, popular, or do that, high cost, unpopular".

Were I to, it would take a milli-second to decide.

The "equal pay" saga - highlighted by the Lancashire Telegraph's stories of how Graham Brunton, the long-serving mayor's attendant, is stated to lose £5,000 of his £25,000 salary - well illustrates my point.

Equal pay between men and women who are doing similar jobs is a principle about which no one these days could or should possibly argue.

I say "similar jobs" for a reason. Giving equal pay for men and women doing exactly the same jobs is not an issue. (It was once - teachers even in the same school on the same grade used to get lower pay because they were women.

That wasn't changed till after the war.) The problem however arises where the jobs are comparable ones in terms of skill and effort, but where, for historical reasons, men have tended to predominate in one area, women in another.

Refuse collectors, and dinner ladies for example.

So there's been a legal requirement on employers to sort this out, and local and national agreements going back ten years to provide the framework for doing so.

Trades unions have taken legal actions to gain back-pay, and some "no win, no fee" lawyers have not only sued councils but have started to sue trades unions for allegedly agreeing to deals which were still discriminatory.

It's a quagmire.

It would be wonderful if the kind of restructuring which inevitably has to follow such agreements and changes in the law could be carried out without any pain.

We do not live in that world.

So the fact that there will be some "losers" as well as "winners" is an inevitable consequence of any such regrading exercise.

Blackburn with Darwen Council say that they have managed to avoid some of the pitfalls into which other councils have fallen.

However, although the scope for exercising a discretion may be limited, it is not absent altogether.

And here, on the information I've been able to study so far, I do take issue with the council.

My concern is about the impact on the low paid.

I'm very well paid from my jobs as MP and a minster.

All of us tend to spend what we earn.

If I were to lose £5,000 a year for no reason connected with my performance in my jobs I'd be pretty annoyed.

But I could manage - I've a big cushion underneath me.

But if I were earning £25,000 and lost £5,000 I'd be both angry and anxious about how I was going to make ends meet.

The Telegraph's many blogs - and direct information I've received - show this is by no means the only example.

Including someone on £15,000 being cut to £12,000.

It's not just the impact on the individuals which worries me, but the impact on morale and therefore the service to the public.

I'm sure this is not intentional but it is a signal that low pay is not the concern it should be.

I'm aware that the council have said they will try to minimise the impact.

So what would I do if this landed on my plate? First I would ascertain just what extra cash was available (It's surprising what this can sometimes unearth).

Then, if it were humanly possible, even if it did cost a little more, I'd regrade those right at the bottom so that the impact was much less, and allow a longer period for protected pay than the 15 months currently planned.

Though this is not easy, I hope the council will now look at this very carefully.