MP's Expenses

When I first heard about the expense scandal, my initial response was, "so what's new?". As the extend of the corruption was revealed (and we're not at the end yet), I moved through anger, and now to my current state of terrible sadness and disappointment. One emotion I never felt, though, was surprise... and isn't that a damning statement?

I've since been listening to a lot of the talking heads trying to make sense of all this. One of the things that I've heard said repeatedly is that the root cause of all this is that the 'political class' have become disconnected from the rest of society, and thus formed a culture of corruption. I disagree.

The mere existence of a 'political class' is the root of the problem. Democracy is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. What we have, for the most part, is a new nobility, that merely swap positions and privileges every few years.

Of course, I'm not a great fan of democracy at all. I certainly don't believe it works when we have an electorate that actively rejects any notion that they should educate themselves on the people that will represent, the policies they espouse, and the burning issues of the day. Sure, it's much easier to get one's opinions from the Sun, but it's hardly conducive to a system that works.

I've also heard a lot of the talking heads going on about what MPs must do to regain the trust of the public. They've all been tarred with this same brush of corruption, so must win back our trust. Of course, they talk about it as though some quick fix or grand gesture is what is required. Heaven forbid they should consider that the answer should be "many years of honourable service".

So, what do I think should be done?

Well, the first thing is to stop these idiotic half gestures and the posturing that's going on. Simply scrapping the second home's allowance, for example, isn't the answer - some MPs, and notably those from Scotland, actually should be allowed such a thing. And, indeed, the "John Lewis' List" isn't a terrible idea - yes, it sounds terrible, but actually, it makes sense that it should be known what can be claimed, and the sorts of amounts that are reasonable. (Of course, £5 for a potato peeler isn't exactly 'reasonable'.)

Secondly, there needs to be a clear statement from all MPs that, "MPs are not above the law". We should stop talking about MPs being forced to resign because of dodgy claims, or paying back the money, and start talking about real measures being taken against those who have defrauded us. Because it is quite simple: those who have claimed fraudulently have committed a crime. And you can't pretend you claimed £15,000 on a mortgage that doesn't exist by mistake - people don't make that sort of mistake. I bet there's not a single MP out there who could have claimed £15,000 for a mortgage, but forgot to do so. The curtains have been pulled back on all of this - it's time for the MPs to accept responsibility for their actions.

Thirdly, all expenses must now be made public. Otherwise we're just back to the corrupt leading the blind.

Fourthly, for MPs to win back the public trust (and they must) we need a full generation of stellar service. Twenty years with nary the hint of a scandal. No more of the merry-go-round of a story breaking, then denials, then silence, then the PM declaring his confidence in the accused, and then finally a resignation. If you fail us, you must go... and not just as a minister, but as an MP.

Fifth, and finally, we need a root and branch overhaul of the way MPs are paid, and the way they claim expenses.

Personally, I think MP pay is actually fine. The basic MP gets twice my salary, and I'm well paid. And, let's be honest many of them also get other salaries, from public speaking, from newspaper articles, or from directorships. These are, by and large, not poor people. However, a modest increase might (might) be appropriate.

But the current rule, that MPs get a pay rise calculated to be in line with other public servants, such as teachers, nurses and so forth, must be retained.

As for expenses, the most problematic of them all is the second home's allowance. The rule here really should be simple: MPs don't own the second home. Instead, the constituency owns the home, and builds equity in it. When the MP is voted out or retires, his successor gains the use of the home. He can move to a different property if he wishes, but he is responsible for making the switch, and in all cases the monies involved (and the properties involved) belong to the constituency. Oh, and second homes should only be available for constituencies more than 1 hour's commute from Parliament, of course.

Once you sort that out, a lot of other things fall into place. MPs will no longer be able to claim for moats and duck islands, or be able to flip properties, or enable family members to build equity at our expense.

Next up is travel expenses. Here, we should set up some formulas - we know the distance from the constituency to London. We know the distance from the constituency home to parliament. We can also make a judgement on how many journeys are required. Thus, we can get an estimated mileage for the year... and allow a number of pence per mile. Sorted. (That's over-simplified, of course. If it's cheaper to fly, for example, we can trade X miles for a single plane ticket at £Y.)

The food and drink allowance should be slashed. The argument here is that if a private employee were away on a business trip, the company would pay for their food and drink. This is correct, to a point. However, if an employee were away on a long-term trip, the company would actually arrange semi-permanent lodging (a rented flat), and they'd be expected to feed themselves. MPs should be allowed a very small amount of money for supplying tea and coffee (and even biscuits!) for their constituency offices, but that's it.

And so it goes on. The principle here is that MPs shouldn't be out of pocket on all these things, but neither should expenses be a kind of top up for their clearly meagre salaries. Oh, and any argument that, "we want the top people, and so we have to pay them the top salaries" doesn't wash with me - if there was any evidence that we had the top people, I might agree. As it is, I refer you to my point four - earn back our trust, and then we can talk about pay rises.

Of course, it's all meaningless. As a result of this, we will see a grand total of 0 charges being brought. We will see a handful of MPs standing down, and a further handful being voted out. We will then see the new crop being just as corrupt and venal as the current mob, albeit perhaps slightly more sneaky.

Once upon a time, I thought I was hugely cynical. I now recognise that I was hopelessly naive. Sadly, I'm starting to this that that is still the case.