MP's expenses

[The Doctor]

More thrilling details here:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8039108.stm

A few thoughts. Firstly, as much as I find a lot of the claims obscene and a waste of taxpayers money at the end of the day if it was done under rules of the time then criticism must be measured. MP's were taking advantage of the perks of the job. Story. End of.

But I do think it right that the system be completely overhauled and would rather expenses be dropped completely. For most people, they do a job, they get paid the going rate for the job and they manage their money as best as possible. The same should be the case for MP's. Pay them a good wage and that's it. And scrap any allowance for a second home. In the job market, if you're offered a job and it involves travel you either put up with it, decline the position, or move closer to your place of work. You don't get paid extra cash for a second home!

Times have moved on. Public spending is being crushed. By all means pay MP's a good strong wage. I'd like them to have a good strong wage: encourages them to work hard and when done well I have no doubt it's a complex and demanding job. But no silly perks on top, please. If they need extra money, they can take a second job. Same as anyone else.

-Ralph

[Andy Turnbull]

Couldn't put it better myself Ralph.

Andy

[dyrl]

I think public service ought to be just that - public service. MPs should not make any money from being an MP. If you can't afford to volunteer your time for the common good and run for and hold public office - don't run, just work.

If holding public office means having to sacrifice higher paying jobs for the duration of your work in public service - SACRIFCE THE HIGHER WAGES.

If you can only sacrifice so much and after a while have to go back to work... SO WHAT?

People shouldn't be MPs for life or for decades anyways. Others will take your place.

The whole system now is broken because it treats politics as a proffesion instead of as public service.

Also - get rid of MP office budgets. PR agents and all those other dastardly folks can work for free just like campaign volunteers. If they can't afford to work for free full time - so what?

All they do is manipulate public opinion and create sensations anyways.

If we have democracy - let's be serious about it. Being a politician doesn't need to be a paid job with a royal entourage of clerks and jerks running round every MP doing work which - in the end - is completely useless.

Heck - if we get rid of their office budgets - who knows? - maybe Members of Parliament will actually READ the laws they vote on before voting?

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I think your assessment is pretty well-balanced, Ralph. I disagree with you about the second jobs thing, though, because the best MPs spend all their time on their jobs, with only minimal time for outside interests (family included), for the duration of their term, and I would not want them to spend less time on working for their constituents because they had to earn money doing something else part of the time.

The other point is that there must be something in the system to make it fair for MPs who represent constituencies a long way from London. Pete may not be aware, but elected politicians in the UK have to represent a certain locality, whose people voted them to be their local MP and look out for their interests, and they also have to take part in debates and votes in Parliament, in London. This is very easy for MPs who were voted in in a London borough, but not so easy for an MP voted in to represent a constituency in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The system has to have some provision to enable those MPs to be able to afford to live part of the time in Scotland or Northern Ireland (presumably where their family is) and part of the time in London. Everyone agrees that the current system for this isn't working properly, but there is no consensus yet about what system should replace it.

Interesting to hear some MPs on the radio who are furious at finding out now what other MPs have been spending money on. There's one MP from Gloucestershire who has just been on who doesn't believe in second home, and just stays in a Travelodge when he goes to London. Such MPs are clearly really frustrated by the way the public will now inevitably assume they are all the same, with their snouts in the trough (as some of them obviously are).

Martin

[Cullen]

Totally agree with what you've said Ralph. Perhaps MPs from outside London should get a non-London weighting to their pay (i.e. get a bigger salary to cover the fact they have to travel). In my company people in the London office get paid more because 'London is more expensive' - perhaps it could work the other way around for once!

[Grand Moff Muffin]

You know, this whole thing could actually make the next election relatively interesting, because all the challengers, looking to displace current MPs, will know that this gravy train is now at an end, so voters would probably have greater confidence in them being in the race for the right reasons. Conversely, most of the current MPs will probably lose their seats, since they have all these expense revelations dragging them down. Only those current MPs who haven't milked the expenses system will be safe. So, the next election may see a bigger number of seats changing hands than any election in the past, because the challengers will all have this one big advantage that they've never had before - expenses outrage. And what makes it interesting is that it's not a party-political issue - it's difficult to see what the landscape will look like if so many MPs of all parties are overthrown.

The danger is that extremist parties will benefit, but it's hard to say.

Martin

[The Doctor]

It certainly will be more interesting. I do hope extremist parties do not benefit though. The thought of the likes of the BNP gaining more of a foothold is frightening.

-Ralph

[Deleted]

I don't think the BNP will ever win. Although they have quite a following with not only racists in this country but also people who believe that this country should only have British people in it and nobody else from any other country I don't think they have enough of a following to win.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8039273.stm

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn claimed only £147.78 for food from the allowance which allows MPs to claim up to about £24,000 a year.

So there is at least one cabinet minister who won't be losing any sleep over this. He seems to be in a minority though.

Martin

[The Doctor]

Sadly, yes.

I wish some MP's who have clearly milked the system would stop saying the system is wrong and needs to be changed...when they clearly had no issue with using it and appear to be only saying it now with the expenses issue becoming a matter of public record. It looks just a bit hypocritical. Yes, they have complied with the rules and so haven't actually done anything 'wrong', but they run the risk of looking very out of touch from the views of voters at a time of recession.

-Ralph

[dyrl]

they also have to take part in debates and votes in Parliament, in London. This is very easy for MPs who were voted in in a London borough, but not so easy for an MP voted in to represent a constituency in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

My solution to this problem is quite simple:

If the state were limited to its' proper, very narrow functions, rather than being omnipotent and regulating every thing about economic, social and political life, then it is quite concievable that parliament would have to meet only 4 or 5 times a year.

The problem, however, is that the state - in England as well as in most countries on Earth - is omnipotent and the public accepts a situation wherein parliament must pass laws which have thousands of pages and of which there are many.

A limited government over the United Kingdom would only have to meet a few times a year. I am sure that it would then be fine for each local constituency to decide for themselves how to finance the travel and lodging expenses of their representative, either through a local community tax for this purpose, through voluntary contributions, or perhaps the political party that won the ellection would finance travel and lodging from members fees?

There wouldn't have to be one "system" to solve this question - there could be multiple systems, decided upon differently by different constituencies.

I find it ironic that people fear "extremist" parties when they also support omnipotent state power. Whenever you allow the state to do everything, you risk that one day a party will gain power that will use the state to do very very bad things.

Pete

[Andy Turnbull]

Stephen Fry weighs in on the subject.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8045869.stm

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Stand by, the Telegraph claims it has saved the greatest expenses abuses till last, and these should be up on its website in the next few minutes (and tomorrow's paper).

Mind you, I'd like to see them publish the expenses of the Telegraph's top executives to see how well they fare in comparison to MPs. Theirs are also paid from the public purse (albeit the members of the public who buy the Telegraph).

Martin

[dyrl]

Mind you, I'd like to see them publish the expenses of the Telegraph's top executives to see how well they fare in comparison to MPs. Theirs are also paid from the public purse (albeit the members of the public who buy the Telegraph).

A.K.A - not the public purse, but rather voluntary consumers who chose to buy the Telegraph. Nobody forces them to buy it.

Private companies have no duty to reveal how they spend their moneies, nor should they have such a duty. The executives could well get trillions in expenses - if it bothers anybody then those people can stop buying the Telegraph and buy other papers...

I don't see how this compares to MPs expenses when people have no choice but to pay their taxes.

In fact, it's precisely because taxes are mandatory that the public has a right to demand accountability from government. Nobody (except maybe shareholders) has the right to demand accountability from private firms - since if you don't like their product or their business practices - you needn't bother buying from them...

Anyways - here's another idea for limiting the aforementioned expenses and abuses by MPs:

IF my old idea of having parliament meet only 4 or 5 times a year seems a bit too "outlandish" or "out dated" - then how about an ultra-modern solution?

Why can't parliamentary sessions be held over the internet?

Those members who can't afford to be in London all the time can just tele-conference with the rest of them via internet?

There's a ton of other possible and plausible ways to save on these expenses - but it all has to start with returning to public service as being something that people do for the common good and not as a profession - not as a substitute for a real job that brings in real income.

As such - the way I see it - this is all really a side issue. The opposition is going to use this against the labor government during the elections - but (as usual) it won't really want to change the status quo because - after all - the opposition isn't opposed to the perks as such - it's just opposed to the other party getting them.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

The Internet/teleconferencing idea may well become more of a reality over time.

I have a problem with the rest of your argument though, Pete, for the following reasons. You say going into politics should be something people do for altruistic reasons, to serve the people, rather than for financial gain. I agree with that up to a point, because I only want politicians whose primary motivation is to do a good job for the people they serve.

BUT

I only want journalists whose primary motivation is to do a good job for the people they serve.

I only want teachers whose primary motivation is to do a good job for the people they serve.

I only want doctors, soldiers, lawyers, policemen, social workers, bankers, scientific researchers, etc., etc. whose primary motivation is to do a good job for the people they serve.

These are all positions of responsibility and influence, who are serving the public (whether or not they are in the public or private sector), and who can screw things up for us if they are corrupt, incompetent, or simply motivated by nothing but personal financial gain.

If our law-makers should work for free, or for wages no higher than the lowest Government clerk, so as to ensure they are in it purely to serve, perhaps a general should be paid no more than an infantryman - to ensure that there is no financial motivation for rising up the ranks. The editor of a major newspaper should be paid no more than his secretary, to ensure that he only worked his socks off to get to the top because he wanted to provide the public with a responsible, high-integrity, high-quality news service, and not because of the money. Doctors should earn no more than the minimum wage, because we only want doctors whose sole motivation is saving their patients. And so on.

Maybe in an ideal world, where human beings were far more noble than they are in this world, such a system would work, and everyone would be willing to work hard, to the limits of their talents, for the good of their fellow people, for no more money than they would have got if they put their feet up and did the absolute minimum. But we don't. We live in a world where human beings are a mixture of both self-serving and wanting to do good - as is being seen now with our politicians, who have happily claimed thousands in expenses when it was all kept hush-hush, but these are also the same politicians who passed the Freedom of Information Act that was going to release all this information in a few months time, and which makes the Telegraph's publishing of them legal, and the same politicians who are hurt by the accusations, and some of whom are now choosing to pay back tens of thousands of pounds.

I asked the question, how do these people compare with those top executives working for a newspaper in the private sector? You said I shouldn't demand an answer to that question because the newspaper executives work in the private sector and should not be subject to the same transparency. I would query that, since I consider journalists to be as influential as politicians, perhaps more so, with influence going beyond those who buy their papers, and they also provide a service - or do harm - to the public, despite being in the private sector.

But at the moment, MPs are the ones being judged, because ordinary people, who have no opportunity to be so greedy, compare themselves with them, and see the MPs are terribly self-serving. The people are imagining that this is a particularly corrupt profession, populated by scum, and of course they would not act like that if having that temptation put in front of them. Maybe true, maybe not. One way to get part of an answer as to whether it's true would be to be able to compare the MPs' expense greediness with positions of comparable greed potential in other professions - such as journalism or banking - but we can't because they are not subject to freedom of information. We can only guess. You might argue that it's irrelevant, that MPs should be held to a higher standard, and that it's no excuse even if every human being at the top of other professions acts in the same self-serving way - politicians should be different, purely working for altruistic reasons. I could argue the same wish for top journalists and bankers, because the public are equally dependent on them. But in all cases, public and private sector, are there enough good, competent people out there who would be willing and able to do the job for free / a minimum wage? I've never met one.

Me, I work in the public sector, doing a public service. It's my career. It requires a person with certain qualifications to do it. I couldn't afford to do the job for free. I'm lucky enough to earn as much money as I ever hope to earn. Although my bosses suggest I should go on some leadership programme or civil service fast stream, I have no ambition to do so - I enjoy the work I do, just managing myself, just working 37 hours a week. Although I work where I do, and to the best of my ability, because I believe in protecting the environment for the public (while colleagues of mine have left to earn more money in the private sector, that's not for me), I choose not to work any harder than I do now, nor to seek to rise up the ladder, to grab more power and influence to do more good (and more money). I've reached a point of balance between altruism and laziness - my job is interesting and rewarding, and I think I'l stop here until I get bored. So I'm glad there are ambitious people out there to do what I don't have the stomach to do - to work 60+ hours a week, to face the public vote and the media spotlight to get to the really influential jobs - and to have all those qualities _and_ do it for the same or less money than what I'm earning...? It's a hell of a lot to ask of a flawed human being.

But still, today's expenses revelations are stomach-churning, and kick all the rotten ones out at the next election, is what I say.

Martin

[dyrl]

Well, you obviously raise a very important point about motivation, efficiency and public and private sector work. However, you completely ignore what, in the economics profession, is known as "Public Choice" theory.

Naturally, as you might expect from me, I'm going to point out that economics works differently insofar as the private sector vs. the public sector is concerned.

The basic difference is this: in the private sector, all transactions between individuals are voluntary. As such, it really doesn't matter what a journalist or doctor is motivated by - it only matters if they are satisfying the demand of the market. They can (and usually are) motivated - as you say- by a mix of idealism and self-interest. Usually we do the things we do partially out of interest, partially out of necessity. But motivation is - from the point of view of pure economic efficiency - always going to be a subjective matter. What is important - the key to understanding how the private sector works is this:

No one can ever make one penny unless he or she is serving the needs and desires of the market - of customers, consumers and what not.

On the other hand - the public sector works very differently. The public sector is always financed through coercion, not voluntarism. People do not have a choice about paying their taxes and the state has a monopoly on the creation of money - so people don't even have a choice about what kind of money to use (although, granted, technically they can choose between currencies).

In any event - this is precisely why it IS important in the public sector that public servants are motivated by a desire to serve the common good - because they WILL be paid independent of what they do. There are usually work guarantees, union protections, civil servant unions, work contracts - all making it all but impossible to fire people. What's more - since there is no relationship between the work of the public sector and the income of the public sector (because tax revenues flow through coercion independent of whether the public sector "really" "serves" anyone or not) - then it is IMPOSSIBLE for public sector managers to acquire the reality-based metrics necessary to judge whether or not their particular office is working to maximum efficiency.

Therefore, in the public sector, even IF everyone were motivated by angelic reasons, economics would make it impossible for them to work at optimum capacity because under conditions where income is not dependent on the quality and quantity of output, the problem of economic calculation rears its' ugly head and it is not possible to allocate resources in the best possible way. There is a lack of proper information that only free market conditions can give us access to.

This is why; while noting that of course public servants should only be motivated by the desire to do good, I also harp on how important it is to limit what the state can do - because in reality, independent of motivation - it can never do good; at the very best it can do less harm than usual.

Naturally, in the "real" world - I prefer public servants and states that do less harm than they are capable of. Nevertheless, one must never make the mistake of forgeting the perfect while supporting the good or half-way decent.

Finally - I disagree about journalists having any more of a specific responsibility than the rest of us. Ultimately, they are citizens who are equal to other citizens. I have never liked this notion of the "Fourth Estate" and of journalists as some kind of "defenders of democracy" because the whole thing smells of elitism - a kind of elitism that says to people "oh - don't worry about being well informed - some one else will do that for you and sum it all up in a simple article you can read on the metro"

If democracy is to function half-way decently, people shouldn't be in the habit of reading newspapers, but rather should read books and go out of their way to educate themselves about issues.

Journalists are usually completely unqualified to write about the subjects they take up. Journalists cover economic issues not knowing anything about economics, journalists cover scientific issues not knowing a whit about science.

Journalists are usually not educated in critical thought or the liberal arts, so they don't even know where to start.

Result?

The majority of journalists merely re-print government public announcements, which themselves are usually crafted by public relations firms anyways.

Thankfully, the market is responding and newspaper sales are plummeting as the years go by. The internet is booming as a medium for intelligent public analysis and newspapers have - in order to survive- taken to become more like tabloids.

Personally - I actually prefer this trend. I'd much rather open a newspaper and read about celebrities getting drunk and divorced than open a newspaper and read another thoughtless piece about politics that is shallow and lacks cognizance of issues. For that, one can turn to numerous spaces on the internet where people of various persuasions are quick to report and comment on the latest goings-on...

In closing, I'd get back to the main point - namely that due to the way the public sector is financed (coercive taxation rather than voluntary purchases), it lacks the incentives as well as the calculus to be effective - all the more reason why it ought to be limited, and all the more reason why it is necessary that people who work in the public sector are humble and patriotic. Meanwhile, people working in the private sector can be greedy, can lie to their dear mums, can be alcoholics, can be womanizers, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers, roritarians, baptist fundamentalists, Islamic extremists - doesn't matter - the only way they will ever make money in the long term is by serving the interest of their customers. If they fail to do that - they will be out of business.

The market, thereby, has a wonderful habit of moderating extreme behavior and rewarding moderation and attention to the needs of others. The public sector, due to its' structure, has no such benefits.

If we're going to want to have a democratic government, we'd better have citizens up to the task. However, I am pessimistic.

Naturally - I really - in my heart of hearts - DON'T blame the MPs for taking all those expenses.

Look at the typical political rally - and what do you find? Why, thousands and thousands of people demanding from their politicians that the state provide them with free health care, free education, free roads, free baby sitting for the tots, free money, free television...

If the people themselves are so crass as to essentially transform democratic politics into a battle for free stuff at the expense of others, for the state to give them things for free... then can we really blame the MPs for engaging in behavior that their constituents engage in every ellection cycle?

Pete

[blueshift]

I agree that obviously MPs need expenses for actual costs incurred, but swimming pools? Really?

There was an MP on tv the other day whining about his salary of £64,000. That's a number most of the population will never even dream of getting. I can't fathom that amount not being enough.

[The Doctor]

It's only not enough if you are accustomed to a lifestyle which requires more cash to fund it.

I see the first MP resignation has happened this morning. I say 'first' because I doubt he will be the only one. It's been interesting to watch David Cameron basically hit the button saying 'I am the next Prime Minister'. Compare his swift reaction to MP's expenses: essentially pay it back or piss off and compare it to Brown mumbling about things maybe getting down in a nebulous way in an undefined future. I'm not a big fan of the Conservative Party and I am as unimpressed with MP's conduct from that party as from others but Cameron knows how to milk it for maximum effect. He is a very clever man, whether you like his politics or not.

I find it interesting to respond to Matin's point as to whether people would be willing to work for free/minimum wage for the good of others. I have to admit I'm not in that camp. I chucked my job of five years assisting individuals with mental health problems with housing and benefits issues because I wanted to progress and I wanted to earn more money (social care does not paid well) because I thought I was good enough to deserve it. However, the end result was unemployment for (at least) a year. I do bitterly regret being greedy. My prime motivation was financial.

I did counselling for a while but jacked it in because I was not prepared to work for free (actually, in the UK, you have to PAY to work for free!). I thought I deserved better. The result being I can't even get job interviews anymore.

I did briefly consider doing some type of volunteering and made enquiries but found the response at the local centre for such things to be lacklustre. They quite clearly were not in any way interested in using me. And I wasn't asking for 1 penny. So that has soured me. I will never again work for free. Or pay to work for free.

I like to think I'm liberal, that I want the best for my fellow man. And a lot of the time I do. But I have to admit I have the same self-serving interests as many other people. I will not work for free and I can barely stomach working for minimum wage, because I think I am better than that. So when I look at the MP expenses situation, yes I am disgusted by it...but to a certain extent I can understand the mindset that says : "I'm really good. I can claim this money. I deserve that. There is no moral issue." To be honest, if I was parachuted into a job tomorrow that had such dubious perks attached, would I take advantage of them? I like to think I wouldn't, but in current circumstances I'm not sure I could stop myself. That does not make me feel good about myself, but it's true.

-Ralph

[Grand Moff Muffin]

May 14, 2009 9:11:22 GMT dyrl said:

The internet is booming as a medium for intelligent public analysis

* has uncontrolled coughing fit *

Agree about the unwarranted job security in the civil service though (which MPs obviously don't share). I'm not a member of a union and have no wish for them to campaign on my behalf, and I think I should be as easy to sack as anyone in the private sector if I do a poor job - or if my job becomes surplus to requirements.

Martin

[The Doctor]

It gets worse!

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8053084.stm

I like * how someone is "entirely relaxed" about having the public pay for his bookcase.

-Ralph

*deep sarcasm

[Deleted]

I like the way how the leaders of the respective parties are throwing the book at MP's for these expenses when they are doing exactly the same themselves. The phrase 'the pot calling the kettle black' comes to mind here.

[Bogatan]

Overall I feel less bothered than other people I know, though I think it's good its come to light. It's a big loop hole that should be shrunk and it might show some of the bigger abusers in a new light.

My worry is that groups like the BNP are going to benefit. Their Party political advert was really quite sinister, particularly the PC minority comment. True intentions hidden in plain sight. I can see plenty over looking it to vote that way just as a vote against the current system.

Andy

[The Doctor]

I have to say, though, Westminister politics has not been this gripping in years!

-Ralph

[Grand Moff Muffin]

An interesting perspective from an MP.

Also, a very good range of opinions expressed on last night's Question Time, which was entirely devoted to the subject matter of this thread. Highly recommended.

Should we have a general election in a matter of weeks, because the people have lost confidence in the current Parliament, or would it be better for the country to wait until all the facts have been absorbed and analysed, the crooks sorted from the innocent, and emotions aren't ruling minds? It seems to me both positions have strong arguments behind them.

Maybe something like six months to the election would be preferable to one or twelve. What do you all think?

Martin

[blueshift]

'Interesting' indeed. I felt physically sick listening to her whining on about how it was okay because everyone used it as an allowance rather than expenses, so therefore it was okay.

[Andy Turnbull]

It would be a Tory whining about how it's unfair to be picked on for putting their noses in the trough.

Andy

[The Doctor]

I had a job interview this week. I was told by a trusted advisor that I could get a £100 grant to get a suit for it. I said no, as I had a suit already and would wear that. The response was incredulity: I was entitled to it, I should claim it. It was genuinely meant well. But I felt that it would be morally amiss to claim money to buy a swanky suit when I did not require it for the purpose it was meant for and could use for other occassions. No-one would have known, but it would have felt fraudulent, even if it technically wasn't. So I said no.

Sometimes, just because you can claim for something doesn't mean you should, if you don't actually need it.

Does that make me a paragon of virtue, though? Does it bollocks. If asked on a different day I might have thought: "Bugger it! Why the hell not? The money is there, the rules say I can have it.". So while I feel revulsion at much of what MP's have been claiming for with public money, I can understand why so many of them did so. They were encouraged to claim for things they felt were within the rules and were told were within the rules. Can we all honestly say we would not have been tempted to 'indulge' ourselves? Not ever? I can't say I would never have done so. Not a nice thought, but true.

-Ralph

[kayevcee]

I bet you wouldn't have claimed one and a half grand for an ornament for your duck pond, though.

-Nick

[The Doctor]

I dunno. I really like ducks.

And when will the media interview those ducks, hmmm? I want to know their side of the story!

-Ralph

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I wish you had claimed for the suit, Ralph, as I like my taxes to go on redistribution of wealth, and that won't happen if corrupt MPs take everything they can, while those trying to find their way out of unemployment turn stuff down.

My food and taxi expenses amount to between 10 and 20 pounds a month. I could avoid that burden on the tax-payer if I took a lunch from home to eat in my hotel room, and walked or got a bus home when I get off the train late in the evening, or absorbed the costs myself (just as I could reduce the burden on the tax-payer by taking a unilateral pay cut). But because I am inconvenienced by being taken away from home outside contracted office hours, I feel no qualms about claiming those expenses. I doubt the newspapers would be interested. But I can see how it could be the top end of a slippery slope into corruption. I could justify myself by saying I give time and money to charity which much more than outweigh the amount I claim in expenses, but that's my choice and not the tax-payer's. Then again, the tax-payer doesn't micro-manage my salary either, so hey-ho.

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of a suicide. A former South Korean leader being investigated for corruption has apparently killed himself. And we have several hundred MPs all being tarred with this brush. Mind you, an hour after the Nadine Dorries interview, Radio 4 read out a selection of e-mail responses from listeners, and one of them said, "Don't they realise that many of us would like to see the road lined with MPs swinging from lamp-posts?" That sickened me more than the MP's out-of-touch-with-reality comments.

'Course, no-one seems to care enough to take to the streets in protest on this one, so I think they're safe from physical lynching.

Martin