baldysblog.co.uk

To my mind, the most disturbing feature of the MPs “Expenses Scandal” has been the obsequious behaviour of the Media in being unprepared to tackle the real issues involved head on, like politicians themselves, they appear too scared of the “public outrage”.

This public outrage I suspect, has as much to do with with the pomposity of the Labour Government and in particular one Gordon Brown who it is now clear, made a total horlicks of the UK economy whilst Chancellor whilst boasting that he had abolished Boom and Bust. In addition, this Parliament has effectively been dead since sometime during 2008, there should have been a 2009 election and political clear out of Westminster then.

Daft Old Git

I for one think that Legg has done an appalling job that is seriously lacking not only in terms of basic justice but even common sense, the man is a total loon and unfit for any purpose. Regardless of the facts or particular ‘stories’ concerning who claimed what, the reality is that you must not and cannot re-write rules retrospectively whether in terms of taxation or even a given sport. It is rather like a Ref rewriting the Off Side Rule in the middle of a Football Match – total nonsense.

But worse than that, the irrational roar of the crowd stops the focus on the main cause of it all and thereby through identifying the problem accurately, decide how to ensure that it never happens again.

It Is Not Expenses

This has nothing to do with “expenses” and everything to do with how we pay our elected people based upon the “duties” we expect them to perform.

My personal views on reform are broadly as follows: There should be no Parliamentary Expenses System of any kind what so ever, MPs should be paid a far higher gross amount and then like every one of their constituents, justify their “deductible expenses” to the Inland Revenue (or whatever they call themselves today).

I would keep the severance payment for “loss of office” currently paid to MPs on losing their seat but extend it to include resignations during the life of a Parliament. If such a measure were in place today, either we would have had lots of by-elections or a General Election by now I’m sure.

In line with all public sector pensions but starting with MPs, the Final Salary Schemes should be replaced with Money Purchase ones so that whilst employed a generous percentage of salary is paid into a pension by the employer. When the employee leaves or retires, the accumulated cash fund is transferred or used to purchase an annuity (pension). This way, an employee would cease to be a burden on the taxpayer once they have left service.

The Real Cost

We the electorate need to get a grip on the total picture especially with regard to actual costs involved, the smoke and mirrors used by the Media to concentrate attention on salary, expenses and people employing their relatives always was a total con and a small slice of the picture. If we look at the actual cost taking into account MPs secretary s being employed directly by Parliament, Pensions, Local Office allowances and the like, we are likely to find that the true cost of an MP as it stands, is well over £250,000 a year already.

If we move MPs to a gross self-employed basis as an MP, Ministerial roles will need slightly different treatment, we may well have to add to that sum considerably and if so, we need to move on to the “numbers game” of just how many MPs we need, obviously today, there are far too many.

How Many MPs ?

Cameron has promised a ten percent reduction in the number of MPs but in order to pay MPs realistically, we need a far bigger cut, probably down to around 400 but that brings in other constitutional issues.

In England we would need to devolve more powers and control of taxpayers money to County level we would therefore need to strengthen the “checks on staff” there too. Whilst we seem to prefer First Past the Post, with larger constituencies and a more diverse range of views in that electorate, could we avoid changing to a TV or PR system of voting ? What about the devolved Assemblies ? Should someone elected there also be elected to Westminster ? Should Westminster sit as the English Parliament for “X” days per week and the UK Parliament for “Y” days per week ?
As for the “Expenses Scandal”, to me it is rather like the man who complained of too much ice in his drink after the Titanic hit the Iceberg. Are we as people prepared to be treated as infantile by the Media over this any longer because I never was right from day one because the problem was obvious: For thirty years no one was prepared to publicly pay MPs properly so a ‘slight of hand’ expenses system grew up which was always bound to end in tears at some moment in time.

The Actual Problem

This situation grew out of cowardice by politicians and nobody seems to have learned the lesson yet and if we don’t, look for a repeat version within a decade. The real danger is that only personally wealthy people or “sponsored candidates” will be able to stand for Parliament in generations to come.

I thought that we had left that behind some time ago and today, we might not just be looking at “Union Sponsored” MPs, why not “Bank Sponsored” or “Corporate Sponsored”ones too ? My point is that the “real meat” inside this sandwich has yet to be seen let alone tasted, the MPs Expenses is mere froth, the public should not be fooled and the Media should be put on notice that their symbiotic relationship with politicians will in the end do them great harm.