Frank Field: MPs and voters... war is just beginning
A failure of political leadership compounds a dismal state of affairs over expenses
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
To believe that the Legg Inquiry would draw a line under the expenses fiasco must rank as one of the Prime Minister's most fatuous judgements. The most junior observer of the parliamentary scene knows that this saga is going to run right up to the General Election campaign. Worse still, it will continue to ricochet into the new Parliament.
The Tory Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, asked why his government was so regularly destabilised, remarked, "Events dear boy, events". The pathway between now and the general election is strewn with such expenses events.
Let's first take the Legg Inquiry. MPs have until Monday to question Sir Thomas Legg's conclusions. Some MPs are being asked to repay money because of arbitrary decisions which he has made retrospectively. Equally important are the many factual errors in Sir Thomas's auditing.
Legg will then send his report to the Commons Members' Estimate Committee, and those MPs who still feel aggrieved are likely to try and make representations to the Committee. That will only add to the series of grandstanding events.
Then, little appreciated, will be the reports of the Standard and Privileges Committee that is inquiring into some of the worst abuses. The Committee will need to produce a report, like they have done with Tony McNulty and Jacqui Smith, every couple of weeks if its backlog of cases is to be cleared before the general election.
Hard on the heels of the initial Legg findings comes the Kelly report on the future of MPs' expenses. Sir Christopher will publish his report on Wednesday – the eve of the gunpowder plot's anniversary. Sir Christopher has been schooled in what public service is about rising to the near apex of the civil service. Yet if the official leaks are an accurate guide of what is to come on Wednesday, Kelly will make it even more difficult to live a public life, split between Westminster and our constituencies.
Much more important, Kelly is unlikely to face the fundamental non-alignment of MPs' pay: where MPs believe they should be placed in the salary hierarchy and where, at the moment, most of our voters wish to place us. This is where the root of voters' incomprehension and anger lies.
Back in the early 1960s the sociologist W C Runciman wrote a seminal work entitled "Relative Deprivation and Social Justice". Runciman wanted to explain why, when some people were so very rich, it was that the vast majority of us made so few claims.
Runciman explained this paradox by bringing into play the idea of the "notch group" – the social group that are placed just above our own status. It was to this group which all of us made reference when considering whether other people's circumstances were fair or not. People did not look towards the top when making a judgement on the fairness or otherwise of our rewards hierarchy.
The media's unprecedented and sustained campaign against the appalling abuses by MPs of their expenses has shifted Runciman's "notch group". Now our rewards are firmly in the gaze of our constituents. They don't like what they see.
The distribution of income in this country is such that there is a huge tail towards the bottom end. And most of our constituents find themselves earning below and often well below the mean income. Viewed from where our constituents stand in the economic hierarchy, we as MPs have far too much of the cake.
The position looks very different if one is standing in the shoes of an MP. Most MPs are educated to inherit a middle-class job – their notch group are senior teachers, doctors, police officers, lawyers or journalists. MPs see their income in relation, to their friends and acquaintances who are similarly educated and who are part of the minority of the population with incomes above, and often well above, the mean.
The source of the new conflict will be between how MPs evaluate their worth and where many of our constituents place us when they undertake a similar analysis. MPs feel hard done by in that their rewards have not kept pace with other professional groups to which they naturally make a comparison.
In stark contrast is the judgement of our constituents, many of whom budget brilliantly on a household income of a third of what MPs take home. Kelly, it appears, will do nothing whatsoever to begin to reconcile what apparently are two irreconcilable positions.
Not to begin to reconcile them will result in continual turf warfare between voters and MPs stretching away into the far distant future. The results will be serious and go way beyond the personal sense of humiliation that most MPs now feel.
This dismal state of affairs is compounded by a total failure of political leadership. David Cameron has mesmerised the Prime Minister over this issue. Anything Cameron does Brown tries to do better. Each time he fails miserably.
The Commons is also in desperate need of an exceptional Speaker who has the courage to stand up to the hue and cry of the media. This crisis is now deeply damaging our democracy. Just as Speaker Lenthall defined his role in facing down the Monarch, so we now need a Speaker who has the courage, judgment and ability to be able to defend in the media the role of MPs while condemning the appalling and indefensible excesses of some.
Furthermore, who amongst the next generation, with the range of qualities necessary to be a good MP, is going to step into this political maelstrom? Here, beyond the thrill of baiting MPs, lies the deadly threat to our democracy.
Political parties will always be able to attract more than enough placemen. But democracy can only prosper in the longer run if some of the best of each generation take public office. As the current debate charges on, devouring an increasing number of souls on its way, my guess is that the quality of MPs will have fallen even lower when the public marks the next House of Commons.
Frank Field is Labour MP for Birkenhead; www.frankfield.co.uk
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
MPs should have an expenses policy modelled on the way Civil Servants or business people are paid, taking due account of the fact that MPs are working in two places. So they should be deemed as resident in their constituency and get expenses when working at Westminster. They should never get a mortgage allowance for a second home, it should always be hotels or rented apartments. I personally would happily see MPs salaries rise to around 100,000 a year, but only if the numbers of MPs was reduced to 400 or less.
However the root problem we have is that Parliament is perceived now as worthless. MPs are mostly just placemen hoping for preferment into ministerial roles. We need to separate Legislature form Executive and require all ministers to come from outside Parliament, but scrutinised by, and if need be rejected by, Parliamentary committees.
Like yourself, I would agree with a reduction in the number of MPs, compared to the US, we are massively over governed at the national level and around 400 would be my goal too, however writing up some thoughts on my own blog in mid October, the following extract may be thought provoking, or not:
"The Size of the Cull
What we could really do with is a cull that reduces the numbers to around 400-450 but when you stop and think about it for a moment, a problem arises. If you redraw the boundaries, obviously you end up with bigger constituencies but you also end up with a more diverse electorate. Today, many will complain that because they live in a constituency that is dominated historically by say the Labour party and they are Conservative or LibDem, their vote counts for nothing, with larger constituencies the situation will get worse.
This may mean that we need to look at whether to replace First Past the Post with some sort of PR arrangement with perhaps two MPs being returned from each constituency which doesn’t really help in reducing costs unless… If we want a fully elected second chamber, perhaps the “first elected” goes to the Commons, the “second” to the Lords ? "
In fact there are broader issues to all of that such as should we move the UK to a Federal System with Westminster being the English Parliament 2 days a week and the Federal or UK Parliament for 3 with Welsh, Irish and Scottish local Parliament or Assembly members being elected to both ? None of these things will be easy because of the miss-match of population (tax base), density between England and the Celtic nations but interesting and they all impinge upon elected representatives and their costs.
might be a few less anti- benefits moaners; for housing they could get housing benefit; now that WOULD be fun
www.charlieedwards.blog.co.uk
If you look at the demise of Party Membership right across the board and all political parties you might realise that the world has rather moved on. Whereas once upon a time political parties could rely on "Class" to define their support, not so today, it is now a multi-polar political scene.
On some issues a voter maybe "conservative" on others more "liberal or socialist", more than ever people are concerned with their sectional interests which will change over time. When they want to buy their first house, they couldn't care a f**t about building on the Green Belt until, living in the last house to be built there, they will fight to the death to prevent further development that spolis their "view" of open fields.
As people with young children, schools are their top priority but for retired people and when they become retired people, health and social services, the funding of which may detract from what the first group needs.
Politics is the "Art of the Possible" and let me assure you, whether you like it or not and however much you may personally despise them, very high quality politicians will be required to "negotiate" the fair division of resources between all these various "special interest groups" all proclaiming "THEIR RIGHTS".
By all means call them the "Whores of Babylon" if that makes you feel better but high quality politicians will be required more, not less in the future if only to deal with the likes of you.
Out with the lot of you. You have totally lost contact with the real world.
Enough said.
How can it be that so many people earn more than the Prime Minister, and that we pay our MPs so poorly?
The curve of the distribution of salaries in this country should attract more attention. I believe it is corrosive of society that a few earn enormous salaries, and it is worth asking ‘why?’. I don’t agree with the argument that it is solely market forces at work. Partial monopolies, high barriers to entry and weak shareholder involvement are examples where the force of markets is weakened.
The fact is that the salary of one person influences the salaries of others nearby (above and below) in the organisation. It is the top people who usually decide the top salaries in the organisation, and thus there is a measure of self interest at work.
Steps should be taken to counter this. Higher rate income tax is problematic.
The Government should introduce a tax (in effect a new category of Employers National Insurance Contributions) of (say) 100% on any salaries/bonuses exceeding (say) £500K. At the same time the Prime Minister’s salary should be increased to the £500K level, and Ministers and MPs’ salaries adjusted accordingly.
Information about salaries paid in excess of the Prime Minister’s should be placed in the public domain.
Employees, and companies not paying any employees over £500K, would pay no extra tax.
Since it would be an extension of the existing system, it should be simple to implement.
The low level of salaries we pay to our elected representatives and the high salaries paid to others, is a real scandal, not least because it was the precursor of the MPs’ expenses scandal.
Excessive salaries and bonuses for some are corrosive of society, and represent a bubble that needs to be gently deflated, but it is time to pay our elected representatives properly.
I agree with dmurphy. MPs salaries and allowances should be set in line with civil servants. Grade 7 perhaps rising to grade 6 for junior posts such as PPS. Expenses then should be exactly the same as civil servants, rent allowance if posted away from home or overnight allowance for those not entitled to rent allowance but who are forced to stay late.
As to family members working for MPs, would it be allowed in the civil service? No, neither should it in the Commons.
MPs apparently "on the take" may not be appealing but at least they are showing signs of life, people following procedures and Rule Books never do, it is against their nature and our Parliament will end up little better than the Town Hall and "Heritage Site" Brussels wants it to be.
I am pretty convinced that there was originally a link between MP's salaries and Principal (now grade 7) civil servants. This should be restored.
Besides which and long before this "scandal", I have never thought the "status and pay" of being an MP was in anyway attractive to encourage high quality candidates. If you haven't read it, may I recommend Jeremy Paxman's "The Political Animal" first publish in 2002, both interesting and often very funny.
I have little time for all the furore over MP's Expenses because I think it is mainly driven by other things and is largely a "stick to beat with", it is not rational. We all know that all the various "Allowances" were given along with a "Nod and a Wink" simply because various Prime Ministers lacked the guts to put the MPs salaries up. Like linking to Civil Service pay grades, it "wouldn't look right." Just how right does this current mess look ?
Some years ago someone asked me seriously if I would go into politics as a career, my answer was unhesitating, NO ! The reason being that even then, an MP and his family, were firmly in the spotlight with every flaw, imperfection and any scrapes their kids got into splashed across the front page for a financial pittance and very little respect.
I'm not saying that every MP should be paid the same as Johnathan Ross (even he shouldn't be paid that), but we really do need to sit down and think through what sort of income an MP should get. As I've written elsewhere, I wouldn't give them any allowances, just a lump sum every month on a self employed basis - sort it out with the Revenue.
Paying a lot of money does not guarantee quality, Fred Goodwin anyone ? The proof that loads of money does not produce good architecture or even good taste can be proved by driving down Bishops Avenue in Hampstead. However and going back to the Napoleonic Wars, the Spithead Mutiny, the Purser's Pound and the corrupt kickbacks that went all the way to the top, the chap bought in to sort it out was paid 500k pa then as a salary - to be above bribery.
The main problem with this whole issue is that people have caught a bad dose of "Gordon Brownitus" which is a condition whereby people get deeply involved in every detail so that in the end, they can't see the wood for the trees.
I must admit to falling about with laughter over Duck Houses, Moat Cleaning and bags of manure, hilarious, totally eccentric, totally English, if they had been Italian they would have at the very least got away with something of a high cash value ! We really are so amateur in these matters. But whilst these things were rather Gilbert and Sullivan, I was less impressed with the "Jaqui Smith type moves".
If over these past 30 years or so, the various Prime Ministers had had the guts to pay MPs properly and openly a clearly defined package, we wouldn't be having this huff, puff and bluster today. Legg, Kelly, Brown and the current Speaker are all useless because they will not reform this properly once and for all, they will buckle down to public opinion and as a consequence we will end up back in the 1950's where the only people in the House were wealthy or, represented "special interests" such as Trade Unions and in today's version, why not Merchant Banks, BAE, Harrods (oops we have done that one already !).
I am not interested in what an MP spends his or hers income on, it is irrelevant. The major change that comes out of this is that the House has lost it's right as a Sovereign Body to self regulate itself on payments to its Members and although Constitutionally you could ponder the implications, this is not a totally bad thing. Moving forward and to reform this for pretty much all time, we need to put MPs in the same position as anyone else in that their total income falls under the inspection of the Taxman.
The benefits of this are obvious, all the same rules apply to them as to the rest of us. "So you are claiming that a flat you share in London with your sister is your main residence and that the house in the Midlands where you husband and family live, is your secondary residence ? No, I don't think so Madam and can you explain what your husband who you pay 40k pa does for this wage ? "
Put them on the same footing and let the Revenue "police" them. It is perfectly obvious that talking about this allowance or that is daft and a total waste of time, why not take what they cost us right now and pay it to them in a monthly payment -gross under a self employed arrangement and forbid them ever to incorporate as a limited company. By the time you tot everything up, it is likely that the all in sum for the average MP will likely be around £400,000 pa - eye watering but, we are already paying it so let's be smart and make it all accountable for and potentially taxable.
The point is this, today pretty much anybody with a real interest and the personal drive, could get themselves elected as an MP whether for a political party or as an Independent and that is what we need to retain not, rich kids and people on the "take" which it once was. Let us ensure the gross amount per MP is correct, under paying people is never a smart move if you expect them to behave properly.
On the other hand, keep on moaning and whining and set it all up for within the decade following a leaked email from a Bank or Trade Union, "instructing" their sponsored MP how to vote. Of course, it will then be revealed that MP "X" is living in a luxury fully serviced penthouse flat in the West End paid for by their "sponsor" and on which they pay a peppercorn rent, which will then lead to revelations concerning the personal arrangements of others. Heigh Ho, here we go again, just not smart.
Why don't we combine the best of America, Athens and the Chartists? I mean, put the Government out of the Commons so that the Commons is no longer dominated by the Government. Then, jury like, fill the Commons with 650 people chosen by lot. They could be assigned to constituencies or chosen from single or multi-member constituencies. People like lotteries. At one stroke, the hold of the parties would be destroyed. 'Representation issues' (too few women etc. in Parliament) would be at an end. We would have a Commons capable of holding the Government to account and, I imagine, keen to do so. If the Government were out of line with the wishes of the majority of the people, the Commons would tell them so and refuse to pass their bills.
Now don't tell me that MPs need to be chosen from the clever people, as only clever people can hold the Government to account. Look how well our Commons fulfils that role.
Start again.........the only way.
30 October 2009, Daily Telegraph......."Sir Christopher Kelly received pleas from 17 MPs who did not want him to ban them from employing relatives."........and Peter Bone is one of the 17.
Mrs Bone receives £40,000 p.a. .......Mr Bone announced at the 1995 Tory Party Conference that he pays his employees 87p per hour.
Mr Bone would like 1p per day per constituent as he has written in his Public Standards Paper: "Members of Parliament - Are they worth a penny a day?"
Please read and consider if Mr Bone's salary should be 1p per day per constituent (£286,817 p.a.) or 1p per day per actual vote for him (£82,760 p.a.) .......a difference of £204,057 p.a. In 2007-8 his salary and expenses were £221,960.
In this paper Mr Bone proposes:
"a base income of current annual salary
plus total of all the existing allowances claimed
plus the cost of pensions contributions provided by the Government.
Added to this basic amount would be:
travel costs as calculated at present
the cost of centrally provided stationary and postage
the cost of centrally provided IT support
the cost of centrally provided telephone and internet connections
any other centrally provided costs
Added to this income would be special responsibility payments - Minister, Whip, etc.
This would then give the MP's total gross income."
"The MP would be able to pay out of his or her gross income any costs relating to his duties as an MP. The only consideration being that they were wholly and necessarily incurred in respect of their Parliamentary duties."
"The net income after costs would then be the MP's earnings and would be subject to tax in the normal way."
"My system provides an incentive for efficient spending because it is the net income that becomes the MP's earnings. The more they save, the more they earn."
So, he is proposing that MPs' gross salaries be greatly increased to over £220,000, their much reduced costs incurred as an MP being deducted and the MP keeping the rest.
Who is he more concerned about? Certainly not his constituents.
Here is the Paper, please read it and think.........
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/Libr
You can spend your time examining "things that you object to personally" or you can take a wider view and most certainly beyond Peter Bone who obviously, you don't like. However, in one key respect he is correct, all payments should be gross and therefore potentially, taxable.
Your silly mistake is to equate "Gross Income" with "Salary", bet you have never held too many equities, that would really confuse you.
Also- "So, he is proposing that MPs' gross salaries be greatly increased to over £220,000, their much reduced costs incurred as an MP being deducted and the MP keeping the rest."
Yes and No, you really don't get out too often do you ?
I suspect that if you took the gross amount that each MP currently costs us and excluding office space at Westminster, it would be around 400K pa for each. My view would be to peg this sum as a multiple of average earnings and keep that ratio in the future, automatically both up and down. I would pay the MP as self employed with no possibility of "incorporation" the gross amount on a monthly basis and expect them to justify to the Revenue the "gross to nett" income.
Unlike you, I couldn't give a 'monkeys' whether by employing his wife, kids and the family Goldfish, he ends up with a taxable income of 220k, he will pay tax and NIC on that. Pay the idiots the gross, subject them to the exact same rules as everyone else, problem solved and "End Of".
Lib Dems including their leader have pointed out a correlation between over-claiming on expenses and safe seats. The implication is that MPs in safe seats are less accountable in general and in particular have not counted their expenses as carefully.
A Channel 4 online assessment of Clegg's claim cavilled that a correlation does not prove a cause. As if we needed them to tell us that. And give a 2 out of 5 rating as a consequence.
It says more about this news program's aversion to the new than it says about Nick Clegg.
For Clegg and the Lib Dems are doing something genuionely new here: in effect, denying to the mainstream media that safe seats are an act of God, that the British can never do more than grumble about like the weather.
It is perfectly reasonable to claim lax expenses claims may well be linked to the lack of accountability inherent in safe seats. We may not be able to prove it but it is a logical consequence of a belief in
democracy at all. And suggests certain jaded journalists dont much believe in democracy beyond the stale two-party rudiments of one, that is so alienating the public as to be testing the safe seat system to destruction.
Maybe if you did your research properly and read his paper before making your comments you would see that these figures are Mr Bone's (except for the number of votes he received and the figure that would result if he received 1p per day per vote) so blame him if you're not happy with his arithmetic.
Mr Bone: "If every one of my constituents paid me just 1 pence a day that would equate to £286,817 (£78,580 x 365/100). That figure is higher than the combination of my salary and all of my expenses that were published last year – i.e. £221,960 (£63291 + £158,669)."
You: Also- "So, he is proposing that MPs' gross salaries be greatly increased to over £220,000, their much reduced costs incurred as an MP being deducted and the MP keeping the rest."
This amount was taken from Mr Bone's figures as above, considering it to be an average for most MPs'. The much reduced costs a result of "efficient spending", presumably not as high as expenses already claimed as this would result in a lower income for the MP. Therefore, you have to consider if all the expenses previously claimed were higher than they could have been.
Mr Bone: "My system provides an incentive for efficient spending because it is the net income that becomes the Member of Parliament’s earnings. The more they save the more they earn."
I do not care whether Mr Bone employs his wife or not.......but I do object to his hypocrisy though........£40,000 to employ his wife when the government pays, 87p per hour (in 1995) for an employee when he pays. At the Tory Party Conference 1995, when speaking against the minimum wage, he announced that he paid an employee 87p per hour.
All the information is detailed in the public domain........do your research properly and you will find it.