The MPs Expenses Culture
May 9th, 2009 | 
Author: 
To be honest I’m already totally bored with this story and the general public reaction to it which is a mixture of outrage and payback after all the pomposity of politicians like Brown the Broken Moral Compass, Harmon the Totally Arrogant and…I’m sure you get the point but there is a delicious irony in catching them “At It”.
I suspect that a contributing factor to the public outrage is that we are not too sure that they are doing anything worthwhile and really we should have a clear out via a General Election.
Some Common Sense
However some common sense is required here and in particular an attitude shared between here and the USA that underpaying politicians is somehow virtuous – it isn’t. The author of this article does make some good points and anyone who has gone through a divorce where you want your ex to stay in the family home with the children whilst you end up in a bedsit has a direct experience of the two homes one salary problem especially where your income is average.
Personally I would go for the substantial uplift in salary to say £100,000 and the abolition of all the allowances, all they would get is tax deductibility for the running costs on the second home but no furnishing or repair allowances, whether they rent or buy would be their problem.
In Return
However I would want something in return namely the abolition of the current final salary pension scheme and it replaced with a money purchase arrangement so that when they leave Parliament they take their pension pot with them and will not be a charge on the public purse in the future. The second thing would be for a reduction in the number of MPs down from 646 to 500 by the end of the next Parliament.
Also as Parliament only passes 20% of the Laws with some 80% being imposed by Brussels, I would like to see them justify getting paid 100% of salary rather than the 20% they seem entitled to.
Caused by Historical Inaction
I agree that Parliament has got itself into this position by not being transparent and automatically implementing the pay increases as they fell due. What therefore happened was an expenses culture being built up to compensate them and MPs coming to see it as their right but in the cold light of day seems rather corrupt. I do not believe MPs are corrupt but this makes them look petty and venial, we the public need to put this right so that we can see exactly what is going on.
There have been occasions when Cabinet Ministers have refused to take a pay increase because of trying to show that they are suffering along with the people, I would outlaw such pointless gestures which merely distort the whole picture. If any Cabinet Minister backbench MP doesn’t want to take a pay rise, they may donate it to charity but they will be paid it. Let’s get the train back on the rails and keep it there and all the while knowing what it costs.
Posted in 
Tags:
Whilst there seems to be some support for your level of £100,000, this is almost 4 times the average wage (Gov statistics for 2008). Anyone can be an MP with no experience and no qualifications, which is right and proper, and there is no shortage of candidates clamoring for the job.
£63,000 sounds like a fortune to me, but maybe I’m getting out of touch with real world pay. High salaries seem to have lead to the culture of professional career politicians who have, with exceptions, not served us well. Let us go back to smaller salaries, that attract vocational type MPs who are willing to serve for a while, bringing real world experience into a political class that seems so far removed from reality.
“I do not believe MPs are corrupt but this makes them look petty and venial,”
But it does show that their morals are relative and shift in line with the political herd. A few had their feet firmly on rock and could see that this was morally corrupt, if within the rules.
Don’t get bored with this. Whilst the death of 4 soldiers in one day and foolish multi £bn expenditure on low carbon schemes is undoubtedly more important, it will be something silly like MP’s claiming expenditure for an illuminated make up mirror that will tip public opinion and actually change the political outlook, not, sadly, the deaths of our valiant forgotten soldiers.
Alfred
£63,000 is a lot of money even in today’s world but it is all relative. Although in the past I have earned over £100,000 a year, it was during a period of very hard work. Also as it involved a lot of travel both here and abroad, by no means was it all pocket able money, from the gross had to come the legitimate deductions for earning the money.
It is from these experiences that I realised that working this way was far better because you had to justify your deductions to the Taxman and if one of those deductions was for work done by a family member, very detailed scrutiny followed. But just as importantly, it made you consider whether you needed to spend the money in the first place.
In the distant past I have worked for organisations where you were given a “Sustenance Allowance” of a fixed sum per day whilst away from home. Sadly it was not as generous as Parliament but never the less was ‘bunce money’ you didn’t have to account for – no receipts required, not a good system.
I will be writing further blogs on Parliament and the Separation of Powers so I am sure that I will return to MPs again. I also agree with your wise observation on an illuminated make up mirror, you are right, on such trivia empires have fallen !