Will Cameron join the expenses bandwagon at PMQs?
March 26th, 2008
Did you get a bet on in the new PMQs market?
With the two tabloids that are reckoned to have the most impact on public opinion, the Mail and the Sun, leading on the legal bid by the Speaker to stop MPs expenses being made public could David Cameron be considering this as his first line of attack at PMQs this lunchtime?
The Tory leader has never been known to be shy when it comes to issues raised by the tabloids and it would certainly fit in with his attempts to be a populist on the issue of what MPs claim. Last month to groans from all sides of the house he was calling at PMQs for the abolition of final salary pension schemes for new MPs.
The legal move followed a decision a few hours earlier by the information tribunal ordering that data about the housing allowances paid to 14 specific MPs, including Gordon Brown and David Cameron, be published this week. Among the other politicians included in the group are John Prescott, George Osborne, and Ming Campbell.
In what seemed like an advance move to put Brown under pressure the Telegraph is reporting that “Mr Cameron’s aides disclosed that of the £21,359 he claimed in 2005-06 more than £21,200 was for the mortgage interest paid on his constituency home in Witney, Oxfordshire. He is thought to have claimed less than £100 on utility bills and nothing on household furnishings or groceries.”
All this comes after the new betting market on Cameron’s first topic at PMQs appeared to have really taken off with hundreds of wagers being placed following the story here yesterday afternoon.
It would be interesting to know if Brown and Cameron are following this market. My guess is that their offices certainly are.
MessageSpace Advertising
Does Her Majesty not read the Daily Mail then?
Brown has claimed for a second home despite having a flat in Downing Street for the past decade.
Cameron has to go with this.
Our Genial Host muses it would be interesting to know if Brown and Cameron are following this market. My guess is that their offices certainly are.
Can we have a derivative market perhaps (since derivatives are valued at twice that of the planet’s entire GDP) on how long it will take Guido to allege that some staffer or other is using inside information to make a quick buck. I mean it will have to be after the election of course, he wouldn’t shop any of Cammo’s team.
2. This issue tars all MPs with the same brush. Cameron will steer well clear.
Some bloke on the radio saying that Camden Council are going to ban meat and dairy products from carehomes to help the environment.
Lucky pensioners!
I’m sure Cameron would love to raise it and frankly i hope he does. Nothing will happen until the leaderships take a stand.
However to do so would be to take a big risk with his own backbenchers.
5 Cutting costs, and giving them a warm glow of self-righteousness at the same time.
O/T but I was amused to learn about the parish councillor who resigned from the BNP on discovering it was a racist party. What did he think he was joining in the first place?
Cameron’s problem is that because he comes from a wealthy background, the attitude of many MP’s would be, ‘Well its alright for him.’
The security excuse just doesn’t stand up, there is no need to publish the addresses, (not that it wouldn’t be difficult to find them out) just who spent what on what, thats all!
Its interesting to see Iain Dale attack Martin on this issue, seeing as Dale was Conway’s number one defender.
4 Alan J is spot on - far too many Tory Mps have their snouts in the trough for Dave to lead on this one, plus the Speaker could rule any such question out of order pending the outcome of legal proceedings.
Cameron seems instead to be developing a liking for starting out with a less than obvious question, doubtless in an attempt to throw Brown off guard, so I would favour one of Ladbrokes’ 20-1+ outsiders in terms of identifying value.
Mike,
My posts do not seem to coming through?
There really is no excuse for Martin’s attempts to protect the trough.
Cameron should make a it clear that all Conservative candidates at the next GE will have to publish their claims with no exceptions.
Let Labour consolidate their sleazy, grasping reputation.
Interesting piece from Freedland
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/26/constitution
The, ‘Butch & Sundance’ scenario I like it!
But that one made it? Oh dear….
[Long time follower here, first post]
I think it’ll be on education given the prominence of Gove’s speech and there’s clear blue water between him & GB. See below:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/574481/islington-schools-fail-their-pupils.thtml
“In the whole of Islington in the school year of 2006-7 not a single child took a GCSE in one of those sciences.”
The Conservatives?
14 Wirch. Another lost virgin of PB !!
Welcome.
14,
That is a disgrace. How many pupils is that out off?
Put David Cameron into 192.com and you get details of him and Samantha in Oxfordshire
The chances of Cameron going on a constitutional topic are extremely slight, although I suppose the appointment of Professor Sir Kenneth Calman as Convener of the new Scottish Constitutional Commission yesterday, and First Minister Alex Salmond’s launching of Phase II of the National Conversation today (consulting civic Scotland), does make the future of the Union highly topical. And we have this too:
Is the Act of Settlement of 1701 (full title: “An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject”), one of the final Acts of the independent English Parliament before its Union with the Scots’ Parliament in 1707, finally to be repealed?
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Call-to-end–bar.3912786.jp
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2145957.0.Act_of_Settlement_review_in_shakeup.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701
14 Sounds as if you are helping to propagate an urban myth. Seems that most people these days take the so-called “double award” science, where pupils study a core course in all three sciences and are awarded two GCSEs for it.
However if you lived in Islington no doubt the Oratory School would take your children if you wanted them to.
Yes the double award that does not prepare students for a degree in science. Yet the government wonders why students don’t take science based degrees.(though am I right in thinking its a Tory creation)
Surely, Icarus (20), if schools are given complete freedom to determine their own curriculum, that means that they are free not not teach physics, chemistry and biology separately.
So if a politician wants these subjects taught separately, there has to be MORE control from the local education authority or central government, not less.
More muddled thinking from the Tories, I’m afraid. But education was never their strong suit, was it?
Icarus
The point here though is that it is targets that help decide the exams that the children will take in the state sector.
If the school is not confident about decent grades being obtained then the children will be discouraged from taking those subjects.
This is a way is subject apartheid bought on by the need for targets to be achieved.
Socialism…great eh…
There should definitely be a separate expenses and pension system for MPs who are new to the Commons. Why should a brand new MP immediately get access to £10,000 kitchen refurbishments? Surely this should be reserved for those who are long-term MPs?
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
24-Why get a kitchen refurb at all on the taxpayer?
20 Science education in this country has taken repeated and enormous leaps backwards over the last 20 years (under both Tory and Labour governments).
Prediction; In 20 years time, over 50 per cent of the students at our top universities in the Sciences will be citizens of countries other than the UK. This trend is already there.
UK-educated pupils will simply not be able to compete.
19 Stuart - somewhat O/T, apologies, but please can you say how many seats the SNP are realistically expected to win at the next GE. The spread betting markets are suggesting around 7, but this seems pretty modest to me and I am wondering if there is a real betting opportunity here?
23 The Mark Senior Award for Petty Political Point Scoring is given to … Tressage.
Targets have nothing to do with socialism (neither has the Labour party). Targets can be useful but in general they tend to be used badly by lazy managers.
The answer to the second home issue, of course, is that when the properties are sold then the first charge on the proceeds should be to repay the tax-payer for what has been paid to the MP upto the total of the increase in value of the property. If an MP seeks to hang onto the property after he/she ceases to be an MP then a valuation should be made and the ex-member should re-pay from the difference in price.
28. A clear stylistic difference though; it was delivered with a rather tedious, smarmy self-satisfaction rather than Mark’s entertaining ‘disgusted of Worthing’ vitriol.
I thought yesterday that Constiutional/parliamentary was crazy value at 33/1 and then soon after I tipped it on the board, somebody posted that it had been taken off the list of options. Now I’m not saying the two events are related, but are there not huge dangers of manipulation in this market?
Whether it comes up in PMQ or not, the dispute is certainly bad for Parliament. I do think it’s reasonable to keep the exact addresses off a convenient burglar-friendly list (’here’s a few hundred homes of people who are never there at weekends’), and I have no idea why the Information Commissioner thinks this needs to be public - surely the street or postcode would be sufficient? But there’s no good reason for the rest of the details not to be made public. My ACA (=London allowance) is completely dominated by the rent of over £1500/month for the smallest 1-bedroom flat I’ve ever lived in (the bedroom is only marginally larger than the prison cells I inspected in Nottingham a few months ago), because it’s in Westminster. On top of that there’s council tax and food and utilities, and er that’s it (these costs come to more than the allowance). John Lewis list? I’ve never to my recollection claimed a penny for any kind of furnishings. It’s just irritating that the attempt to conceal the details makes everyone think we’re all secretly living in luxurious taxpayer-funded penthouses.
I recently met a Labour MP on travelling on a Midlandh Mainline train into St. Pancras. I told him that I was surprised to see him in standard class because I thought MPs got first class. He replied, obviously fearing that I would out him on PB, that he “paid the difference in the fare levels to charity”. Cheat.
And if you are reading this XXXXX you should know that I tell this story to everybody I meet from your constituency, including your Tory opponent at the next election who I met on the train on Easter Monday.
30
My preferred alternative. Some tower blocks on some run-down estate in one of the less salubrious parts of London would be purchased. Flats in these blocks would be offered to those MP’s who need London accomodation. Living there would give them a new sense of perspective. If they choose not to take up the offer, they have to fund themselves.
Cameron should go on this, and then afterwards publish ALL of his his personal expense’s at a press conference. That way it’d look like he’s “above it” and it would also distance him from The Speaker.
I don’t think he will do either though.
Hmmm only 5 Xs - There are 6 letters in Palmer and only 3 in Vaz. Anyone know any Male Labour MPs from the Midlands with 5 letters in their name?
34 St Pancras … now let me see!
The obvious Labour seats are the Nottingham and Leicester constituencies, aren’t they?
The main story on the BBC website right now is the FSA admitting it failed to regulate Northern Rock properly. There might be something in that.
And surely GB’s latest climbdown on the embryo bill will feature given the prominence DC has given to this in recent PMQs, no doubt aware that GB had painted himself into a corner.
37 Meale ? (Mansfield)
The big question, of course, is what Internet Mogul, Smithson, was doing out of his Chauffeur (Peter the Punter) driven limo!!!
34 Hopefully, this is exactly the type of cheating by MPs which will no longer work in future when they are required to provide payment evidence for all items costing over £25 - or perhaps travelling costs to and from their constituences fall outside this rule.
37 Coker (Gedling) is perhaps more likely.
34
Reminds me of a story of some collegues who used to travel to London for meetings on the coach and claim car mileage. On one occasion the boss, (who used to sign their claim forms) got on.
They never acknowledged each other, they filled in their claim forms as normal, he signed, because of course, he was doing the same thing.
33. Mr Palmer - Your having claimed more than two and a half grand a week expenses every single week for the past five years - over and above your salary, of course - makes it a tad difficult to rustle up much sympathy for your claim to be living on the verge of deprivation.
43. grrrrr, cant stand coker.
I wonder if a serious problem is that many more MPs now come from cosy public sector backgrounds where the culture of fiddling and skiving at the expense of the taxpayer is well entrenched.
Nick has a point with regards to what we actually need to know. The problem is at the moment, the lack of transparency over expenses.
Any claim I make on my expenses has to have a reciept. No reciept, no money!
32. No manipulation going on. It’s always been up on the ladbrokes site as far as I can tell. We’ve cut it to 12/1 but that’s just a response to perfectly normal market forces. Our four losing results at the moment are (in order of pain)
1. Parliamentary/Constitutional Issues (12/1 from 33/1)
2. Embryo Bill 6/1
3. London Mayoral Election 25/1
4. Iraq/Afghanistan 14/1
32 Assuming that Ladbrokes’ Parliamentary/Constitutional category did indeed disappear off their board, hopefully Shadsy will be able to tell us why. Like another poster pointed out, there should be a “none of the above” category, to avoid the bookmaker sweeping the board (which wouldn’t look good from their perspective). I also raised the point last week, which was not answered, that it was quite possible to anticipate a question which fell within two separate categories and just how the bookmaker would deal with this - it is difficult to imagine they would be keen to pay out twice!
Whilst this bet has its attractions and it’s good to see Ladbrokes being inventive, I somehow think this particular market is fraught with difficulties.
I used to live in Sweden, and I remember walking past a building near the Swedish Parliament, the Riksdag, and my Swedish wife telling me that it was accommodation for Members of the Riksdag when they were in Stockholm.
Here is link to the official site of the Riksdag (in English)
http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____10935.aspx
“Overnight and hotel accommodation
A member of the Riksdag who lives more than 50 kilometres from the Riksdag can receive reimbursement up to SEK 7000 per month for overnight accommodation in Stockholm.
The Riksdag has about 250 overnight apartments which are provided free of charge for members.
The cost of hotel accommodation on official journeys is reimbursed in full.”
Members of the Riksdag are issued with season tickets for travel by train or aircraft (Sweden is so big that air travel makes sense), which must be used on official business only.
There is a substance allowance of just under £30 per day for travel on official business, but some of this is taxable, and free meals are deducted.
Their salary is just under £5000 per month, which is taxable.
Overall, this seems to me to be rather a better approach than the UK Parliament has adopted.
47. hey! I’m a civil servant, our expenses are basically non-existant and have been for years. Only high level civil servants and those living in london get expenses any more.
50 Here is what we came up with for the rules -
Others on Request. Settlement will apply to the main topic of the question. Dead Heat rules will apply should it cover more that one of the catergories listed. Categories should be considered exclusive unless mentioned e.g Crime does not include Terrorism, questions specifically on the Embryo Bill will not count as Paliamentary Issues.
re 34….I should add that the poor MP had a price to pay - enduring me for the entire journey speculating over whether he would hold on to his seat at the next election. I went into my PDA phone and checked out the poor guy’s marginality on UK Polling Report.
50 S*ds Law - now seen Shadsy’s post at 49
53 Sorry about the spellings
49. Alright sorry about that, whoever said it had been taken off must have misread it. Still I wish I had been able to get in there at 33/1.
45: mirthios - you’re including the office rent, stationery, phone bills and the pay of the people who do the detailed casework. I’m not making money out of any of it.
Mike - you’re doing XXXXX an injustice (and I’ve no idea who it is). I don’t know why he said what he did - perhaps he couldn’t be bothered to explain the system to a random stranger and just fobbed you off - but it doesn’t work like that. He *cannot* reclaim the cost of first class tickets. He gets a travel card which can be used (only) to buy tickets, and he’s authorised to buy a first class ticket from his constituency to Westminster and back. When he travels standard class, he is not making a profit, he’s saving the taxpayer money. If he tried to reclaim the cost he would be refused - it’s one of the changes to tighten the system that were introduced some years ago. Ask him again!
51. Indeed. But UK MPs wouldn’t slum it like that. They believe their status warrants at the very least a town house and a constituency home - only plebs have a single dwelling, after all. Curiously, this attitude seems most entrenched among people who call themselves ’socialists’.
My view, which will not be popular, is that MPs should be paid at least twice as much as at present, and have NO expenses.
What’s that? Don’t think your MP is worth the money? Well vote for someone who is.
60. The ever-hilarious Janestheone blog (run by former Reading East Labour MP Jane Griffiths) is currently running a poll as to whether Martin Salter (Labour MP for Reading West, and Jane’s nemesis and bete noir) is worth £100,000 a year. The answer seems to be a resounding “NO!”
re 33 Nick P, why? Every person who voted in 2005 knows where you live - it was on the ballot paper. They will know that house will be empty most weekdays.
54: Can’t argue with that, Mike accosting Members of Parliament on trains and showing them my website. Money can’t buy that sort of advertising
60. I would favour stopping their salaries entirely and just paying them an attendance allowance, like the old HoL system. That would cut out the grasping middle class careerists.
re 60 I tend to agree, but whenever a seat becomes vacant, even a marginal one, there’s not exactly a shortage of volunteers wishing to swap their current life for one of privation and poverty, is there?
65. The lure of power is remarkable. Add in easy money as well and it’s irresistable.
63 Anthony, please could you answer the question I asked of Stuart Dickson in 27 above, re the anticapated number of seats the SNP can expect win at the next GE - I did look for this info on both your website and Baxter’s but was unable to find it.
[60] Actually I would agree with you, but would point out again that the “expenses” include such “luxuries” as paying secretaries and case work/researchers, and such stuff as stationery. In my view very few MPs are on the fiddle- though the odd one that is deserves the press kicking that they usually get.
A far more unfashionable view is that by and large we get good value for money from most of our MPs, and the people who attack them- mostly journalists- are the ones with far higher salaries and padded expenses claims- as some of the more shrill and nasty of them might say “you couldn’t make it up”.
There are many serious problems with Parliament- but the tearing down of the whole institution based on ludicrous allegations that “they are all on the take” is massively more dangerous than the minor veniality that occasionally comes to light.
I would like all the Fleet Street journalists to publish their expenses, and then we might have a sense of proportion about who is ripping off who and why.
In the meantime, the real work of actually holding the executive to account is forgotten.
58 Was Mike ” … a random stranger …”? The implication of Mike’s post is that XXXXX certainly recognized Mike, if only by reputation. Hence, why would XXXX “not be bothered to explain the system”? Your post hardly makes sense, NickP.
Let us take XXXXX at his/her word. If XXXXX wishes to donate to charity, fine.
But, XXXXX is not entitled to assume that the taxpayer wishes to donate to charity the difference between first and standard class travel.
(This leaves aside the question of whether the charity was one specifically to help distresed Labour MPs).
I have gone for Iraq/Afghan, only because of Hague calling for an inquiry. I have covered China/Tibet because of the Chinese reaction to Brown stating he would meet the Dalai Lama. Cameron could come in asking for clarificaion on whether China had been consulted, if Brown is still committed, or even ‘whether he is committed to that meeting regardless of the hinese response’.
Meanwhile …. friends of Nick Palmer are concerned at the efforts he is making to win the “I Live In The Smallest Second Home Contest”
http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/yyy/019uiok8.jpg
o/t. I just hope every Labour MP is hanging their heads in shame after the Iraq debate yesterday. Millibands arguments were utterly pathetic and merely served to confirm that no inquiry will ever take place under a Labour government. As the current operations by Iraqi forces show our army is only their for political reasons and thus an inquiry will no effect on our own troops. I have to say it was a new low in the reputation of this govt.
72. I missed it all, was still trying to sort out my clutch (stupid peugeots) what happened?
Milliband just dismissed calls for an inquiry on the grounds that it should happen when the troops come home. ie when they feel like it given they are doing nothing there at present but providing political cover for the US. The vote was lost by just 27 votes, obviously some Labour MPs have a conscience
2. Cameron has claimed for a second home in Oxfordshire despite having a house in Notting Hill. Most MPs need a london house and a constituency house. Brown’s second home may be up in his scottish constituency, quite a commute from Downing street.
74 I beleive it was 12. The whole ‘wait till the troops get home’ argument is a Red Herring anyway; previous conflicts have been the subject of enquiries while still going on, indeed that would be a normal approach.
There is a sensible proposition to eliminate all these allowances and the sleaze that goes with them. Parts of this have already been suggested.
1. abolish all allowances
2. pay nothing towards houses in constituencies - after all MPs should live there and that should be their main residence. Constituency offices paid for on receipts on a standard scale. This should not have any connection to a political party and as often as possible be in a public building: town hall, parish hall, local baths etc. That might make help make these places live a little more.
3. Provide accommodation in London for those with constituencies more than 30 miles away (travelling out and into London is ghastly even after late night sittings). This could be in four or five smallish blocks fully maintained by parliament with catering provided as in a hotel. This provides greater security.
4. Travel to and from constituencies on a prepaid rail card, Be green: no car milage
5. Taxis within London on a credit card. Taxis from station at home to house on a receipted claim basis
6. Information leaflets once a year printed by parliament to a standard design with parliamentary staff checking the contents are not party political and distributed by parliament to the constituency.
7. Travel and subsistence for journeys for other parliamentary business paid at the same rate as for a departmental PS. Separate budgets for each committee from which this money would come, perhaps. If road travel is necessary use the government car pool, it is big enough.
8 And then pay MPs at least 100k a year (they ought to be at the level of a GP surely).
9. Pensions should be the same as for civil servants with a terminal payout of six months salary if they lose their seat after 8 years or more (not if they give it up and pro rata for a tenure of less than 8 years) so they have time to get themselves sorted out.
10. One constituency agent or secretary and necessary Westminster staff and office provided directly by parliament with two additional ‘cpnfidential’ people nominated by the MP as staff but paid on standard scales by parliament
67: I don’t claim any special knowledge of Scottish politics, so I can only really look at the maths. The only easy pick up for the SNP is Ochil & South Perthshire which needs a tiny swing they should pick up easily to take them to 7 seats. Beyond that, they actually need pretty hefty swings to pick up extra seats: Dundee West would need a 7% swing, Kilmarnock & Loudoun and Aberdeen North both 10% swings.
Leaving aside the recent mruk poll, Scottish voting intention polls for Westminster don’t show a collapse in Labour support. While the SNP’s support is substantially up, with Labour steady they’d need to be up A LOT to start gaining substantial seats.
If I had to hazard a guess, I’d expect them to get a couple of unexpected seats so would say 8 or 9 is realistic, but as I said, I have no specialist knowledge of Scottish politics. On the other hand, if the spread is 7 then I can’t see any significant downside on that - on current polls it would be very surprising indeed if they failed to take Ochil or lost any seats, so 7 is a good baseline.
Further thoughts on the ‘Tonya Harding’ option by Maureen Dowd in the ‘New York Times’ - Hillary or Nobody
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/opinion/26dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
77 Not bad, Witan, but please get rid of your Idea Number 6 - these “Information Leaflets” from MPs are a disgrace. Politics at the taxpayer’s expense, which are a serious advantage to inmcumbency.
57/49 if anyone’s still interested in the Lads PMQs market…
I couldn’t find the ‘Constitutional/Parliamentary’ option at whatever time I posted my message, late last night.
Since the odds seem to have shortened, I’m happy to assume it was only down while Lads moved it in from 33s.
Interesting put down from Sarkozy being interviewed on the Today programme. He said - taking about UK political leaders - that “..yours were so young. I mean David Cameron, Tony Blair - when he was leader - and the new Liberal Democrat leader”.
77 - some comments.
3 - Why turn landlord? Just pay those with constituencies outside London a bit more and leave it at that. They can then choose to supplement that and get somewhere nice or not.
4 - Not everywhere is on the rail network.
6 - I like the standard design idea but don’t see why Parliament should be in the distribution business.
8 - Why should they be on the level of a GP? Maybe they should be lower, maybe higher. But why presume they should be on that level? I just don’t understand your point.
9 - Why give a terminal payout at all? You weigh up the risk of losing your seat up before you go into it.
10 - Most secretaries/PAs work mainly from the constituency so that wouldn’t work. They should advertise openly and assess fairly with applicants having access to the interview panel’s score sheets. I worked for a newly elected Lib Dem MP and we did precisely that - and I would have no concerns about any applicant viewing his/her own sheet as it was all entirely fair, appropriate and well documented.
60. I quite agree. Let’s pay MPs a wage to attract a more serious type of person, but end this culture of taking us for all we’re worth on the expenses. It creates distrust and it isolates MPs from the fluctuating cost of living faced by the rest of us.
Nick Palmer MP, as a former resident of London I would venture to suggest that if you were prepared to travel slightly further from Westminster you would be able to find a very decent flat of about 40 sq m for about 2/3 of the rent you currently pay. I know that all MPs have as their chief concern the maximisation of value for the taxpayer, so they’ll be delighted if you pass them this intelligence. (Poor sarcasm aside, I appreciate your openness about your housing expenses.)
re 58. Thanks Nick. I do know the MP and he did act as though he had been caught out
77 - challenging ideas Witan, although I also agree with Cicero that if we believe that all MPs are crooks we will do more damage in revising the expenses procedure by losing further trust in parliament and focussing less on keeping the Government to account.
Big opportunity for Nick Clegg here, it would be an open goal to publish his expenses, in the spirit of honesty and accountability, get his top team to pledge to do the same in the future, and say that the Commons needs to change.
86. Clegg et al. might have very good reasons for not wanting their expenses and income to be entirely public.
34 Mike, was this our mutual friend? I have often seen him in cattle class, even when the train has been very crowded and when no-one would have begrudged him moving to first to let someone else sit down
Did he say what charity it was? Surely not the Smith Institute
81.Robert, the price didn’t change until this morning, so that wasn’t the reason. Where were you looking - was it on the link to the market that Mike provided or directly at ladbrokes’ site?
It’s probably down to something boring like a spelling error being corrected. You’ll notice “Parliamentary” was originally wrong if you check Mike’s original graphic yesterday. Our fault, not his, naturally. Might have made a link somewhere disappear.
86 Some MPs might welcome such a simplification.
At the moment so much is unaccountable but that will now have to change. Having worked for years on a fully accountable payment by payment to limits system, I can tell you it was a great relief when it was simplified to remove so much of the self admin which always seemed to leave me out of pocket and patience.
It made it possible to get on with the job, rather than spend too much time as yet another administrator.
The idea that all MPs should live in their constituency is superficially attractive, and I broadly agree with it. But it is not a be-all-and-end-all - Diane Abbott for example has at least an average rep as a constiuency member but she doesn’t live in the seat she sits for (she lives in Hackney South). I’m sure there are other examples of “big city” MPs - being just a mile or so over the boundary, if you are still in the same local authority area, shouldn’t necessarily be a disadvantage.
In the same spirit, I don’t see why an MP should have to move house just because the Boundaries Commission has re-drawn their seat.
Mike,
I have twice posted a message with the name of an African state in beginning with S ending in A, but the message has come through?
An Edinburgh bar is being credited with inspiring an internet campaign aimed at barring Chancellor Alistair Darling from every pub in Britain.
Organisers were angered when the MP for Edinburgh South West increased duty on alcohol in his Budget.
They are spreading their message via blogs and a Facebook group.
The campaigners were inspired by the landlord of the Utopia bar, who put a poster in his window saying that Mr Darling was not welcome in the pub.
In addition to 4p on the duty charged for a pint of beer, the chancellor increased wine duty by 14p a bottle, spirits duty by 55p a bottle and cider duty by 3p a litre.
Binge drinking
He also announced alcohol duty would go up by 2% above inflation in each of the next four years.
Inspired by the Utopia bar on Edinburgh’s Easter Road, a group has been formed on the social networking site Facebook called “Alistair Darling You’re Barred”.
It claims that Mr Darling is hitting the licensed trade at a time when 27 pubs a week are closing because of the smoking ban and rising industry costs.
The group says that the chancellor has failed to recognise that well-run community pubs are the solution to Britain’s binge-drinking problems.
Pubs in Bolton, Lewes and Oxfordshire have followed the Edinburgh bar in putting up posters.
Several have been designed, including one depicting Mr Darling as a Simpsons character in Moe’s Tavern.
91 - It would be totally unnecessary regulation to require MPs to live in their constituency. Opponents can and do raise the issue if they live substantially (and sometimes, absurdly, only fractionally outside). This is an ample form of discipline without the need for regulation.
I don’t see why MPs should be paid particularly well. Their job isn’t particularly important or demanding (though I accept the hours can be unsocial). Somewhere around the level of a middle manager or a country solicitor, I’d say. By that measure, their pay is about right now. If a substantial pay increase is to be justified, we should have productivity gains, perhaps by radically reducing the number of MPs.
On the other hand, ministers should be well paid, and it is there that pay is seriously adrift of what is appropriate. The danger is not that there will be a lack of candidates for the job - there is a never-ending supply of wannabes - but that at the pay levels offered for the risks and responsibilities entailed, the only applicants will be the deluded or megalomaniac.
93 - I bet Darling is absolutely gutted to be barred from every grubby drinking den in the land.
95 - Arent you forgetting that ministers are drawn from the pool of MPs and that increasing ministers’ pay may be ineffectual if the quality of MP is low in the first place due to not addressing their pay?
95. But when MPs weren’t paid at all (though ministers were), we had arguably a higher standard of debate, of ministers, and of government. What’s changed?
Talking of donating to charity. Alex Salmond, despite saying that he would not take his salary as a Westminister MP after he was elected as an MSP and became first minister, does still take his MPS salary, and presumably his allowances.
When challenged, he said that he now “donated this to charities benefiting the North East”. Leaving aside the idea of whether the good folk of North East Scotland should be bribed with their own money and the constituents of Banff Buchan getting little or no representation at national level - has any of this money actually been accounted for?
97 - If that became a significant problem, it could be looked at again then. Ministers do not, of course, need to be MPs, and the USA seems to get by just fine on the basis that all cabinet ministers are drawn from outside the legislature. I do not believe in paying public officials at a higher rate than their job justifies on the basis that one might wish to reward them more highly in another job at some stage in the future.
98 - Even if I accepted your premise, which I don’t, I would note that in those days MPs were disproportionately drawn from the wealthy and were much freer to earn money outside Parliament without censure.
My wife and I have been talking about getting a new kitchen at home. Is it worth waiting until after the General Election? Just thinking that injecting £10K of my personal money into an election campaign could be money well spent.
95. Perhaps the job of an MP can be seen as unimportant, but it ought not to be.
The Commons is sovereign (not the Government). Sadly MPs choose to cede that power to their parties, and thus to the Executive. Even more sadly the electorate have helped them to relinquish power by voting according to party labels.
98 - Very arguably in relation to your standard backbench MP. In any event, MPs were not expected to be full time and were expected to be wealthy by other means. Many were well educated and quite articulate people (they came from families who could afford it) but they weren’t that representative. So you can’t seriously compare.
If you believe in incentives at all, and I do, paying more means that some people (particularly those who are very capable and would earn a lot in other fields) go for election when they otherwise wouldn’t. My concern is you need to follow the logic through - is it necessarily a good thing that a lot of very capable brain surgeons or entrepreneurs are tempted into politics? Not necessarily - you want to attract people with the most appropriate aptitudes to the job bearing in mind the alternatives.
89
Morning Shadsy, yes you’re probably right. I was looking directly at your site, but I didn’t check back (I’d already had my bet - I was just curious as to whether the odds had changed) so it was probably just bad timing.
102 - I actually agree with you. But the current batch of MPs does not hold the Government to account, backbench MPs do not propose legislation in any significant quantities, they do not meaningfully amend the legislation put forward by the Government, they are utterly hopeless at supervising secondary legislation and with a few exceptions they command no substantial public profile. The best that can be said of them is that they act diligently as amateur citizen’s advice bureaux and conduits to ministers of public outrage. I see no reason to pay such individuals handsomely without a dramatic improvement in their performance in the job.
test
106. Failed !!
93,Piccies of Alastair darling over the treble 20 on pub dartboards could induce s marked rise in pub darts standards
Not just thee and me again Mike ??
109. Could it be, God forbid, that all PBers actually had something else to do for half an hour?
Meanwhile …. Gordon Brown gets some advise on how to tackle David Cameron at PMQs :
http://www.the-spine.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/brownemp.jpg
100. And how many MPs today are not drawn from relatively wealthy segments of society? Very few.
Over the last century there has been a shift from aristocrats and businessmen toward middle class careerists, which is not in my view especially positive or conducive to good government.
110 As if!
With PMQs about to start, everyone is loading on at Ladbrokes - the Creatures will be coming out of their cages shortly.
110 Baskerville. No …. ‘the force’ wasn’t with the site for a short period.
Morning all
A fair degree of bile and invective toward MPs this morning, not all of which is perhaps deserved. I think the question is whether we want a representative democracy or not ? It would, in my view, be a retrograde step if only the independently wealthy were able to get into Parliament.
There is no law or rule saying someone on benefits or on a low income cannot join a political party, work hard and get elected. I’m sure we would all subscribe to that. Working as an MP entails, by its very nature, expense, whether it’s the expense of travelling from a constituency to London or round a constituency or a myriad of other activities. In effect, we expect individuals who may have little or no personal infrastructure to start functioning from Day 1 as full MPs. Of course, we should support them and allow them to do their job.
The other key point is for some it is hardly job security. It may be a job for life if you are the Labour MP for East Ham or the Conservative MP for Bexhill though boundary changes mean that’s not even certain. IF you are voted out and that happens to the best and the worst of constituency MPs, you are in effect back to somewhere near square one. I’m not defending the excesses and abuses of the current system but nor do I subscribe to the current wave of moral puritanism. I suspect if you looked at the expenses of many people in many companies, you’d find some interesting things.
Being an MP doesn’t make you a saint - if we’re a representative democracy, there’ll be a fair few sinners in there as well on all sides.
banking finance
Brown welcomes Sarozy and wife. MPs cheer (for the wife).
That’ll be Economy/Stock Market/Banking then. A winning favourite.
Cameron’s 1st question: Credit Crunch - economic readiness and financial regulation.
A quick message for all the political ostriches at PB.C who are wildly underestimating the Patriotic vote at the forthcoming London Assembly elections.
The question is no longer ‘Will the BNP win any seats?’ - but HOW MANY.
Introducing your new Assembly representatives (assuming you live in London);
1. Richard Barnbrook
Leader of the BNP councillors and official opposition on Barking & Dagenham council and also the BNP’s candidate for London Mayor.
2. Nick Eriksen
A former manager in the Civil Service and Conservative councillor; currently a qualified English teacher living in Richmond.
3. Robert Bailey
A former Royal Marines Commando and currently a BNP councillor and the deputy group leader on Barking & Dagenham council.
4. Julian Leppert
A BNP councillor in Redbridge and the party’s London Mayoral candidate in 2004.
5. Roberta Woods
An IT professional with a BA in Humanities, living in Greenwich.
6. Dennis Pearce
A former Colour Sergeant in the Royal Green Jackets and a retired engineer, living in Brent.
7. Chris Forster
A Fellow of the Institute of Internal Auditors and former local authority auditor; currently an events organiser living in Richmond.
8. Jeffrey Marshall
An English teacher, from Tower Hamlets, who has lived and worked in countries around the world, including Spain, Poland and Brazil.
9. Cliff Le May
A family man with three teenage daughters, living in Croydon, and a former BNP parliamentary candidate.
10. Lawrence Rustem
A BNP councillor in Barking & Dagenham, with a BA in politics.
11. John Clarke
A mechanical engineer, living in Croydon.
Well done Shadsy!
Good to see the Bookies lose (even if its only a little!!)
39: Me at 8.50am - “The main story on the BBC website right now is the FSA admitting it failed to regulate Northern Rock properly. There might be something in that.”
Do I win a prize?
123 - Do I win a prize?
Only if you put your money where your mouth is….
Brown talking about off balance sheet activity……. hilarious. PFI anyone?
God, how long are cameron’s questions?
Slight change in tone from Cameron this week. Nowhere near as braying as previous weeks.
Questions that always contain statements. Blair did all the time to Major.
Brown starting to stammer again, he sounds under pressure.
122. Very lightly backed fav tbh. Very pleasing outcome.
130
What was the overround a generous 200%?
130,
It does mean that the market might get some traction with the favourite winning.
On the USA, don’t expect the Democratic race to get near the convention before it’s finished. About time, they could have signposted this weeks ago.
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) hints at some behind-the-scenes activity to bring the Democratic nomination race to a close:
Q: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?
Reid: Easy.
Q: How is that?
Reid: It will be done.
Q: It just will?
Reid: Yep.
Q: Magically?
Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/reid-things-are-being-d_n_93369.html
129. Watch for the trembling hand…
For me this was probably the best sustained serious PMQs clash between Brown and Cameron so far. Both seemed slightly shaken at points and Cameron avoided the smug tone that he sometimes uses. Fascinating to watch the gradual shift in tone and approach from week to week.
He’s not quite got the Blair impression right just yet though.
135. If he fails to match Blair’s insincerity and blatant lying that will be a boon, surely.
I hope that the BNP get no seats in London or anywhere else.
It was, I thought, accepted that Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (Dr.Johnson)
Brown 2, Cameron 2, Cameron wins on penalties.
Brown (1) is in his area of expertise on the economy and banking, so was more relaxed than usual. Scored on highlighting problems across the world.
Brown (2) put a bit of pressure back on Cameron by accusing him - via Freddie Forsyth - of having a lack of basic arithmetic.
Cameron (1) gets a score for raising the key issues for families - the economy, inflation, mortgages on the back of the FSA report.
Cameron (2) clearly showed Brown was unable to defend his tripartite arrangement in the light of the FSA report and his comebacks on arithmetic were better delivered than Brown’s attacks.
Cameron wins on penalties because he was on the offensive and Brown on the defensive. He is the one seen as raising the issues that matter and Brown obfuscating.
[However, this was Brown’s best individual performance since he took the job.]
134. did it start trembling?
138. as chancellor for 10 years he became very good at fudging economic arguements by bogging it down in vague figures and statistics. Cameron getting anywhere against that is a boon, although I’ll have to wait until watching it later to form a firm opinion.
135. TTT. Agreed neither Brown nor Cameron particularly fluent today but Cameron’s tone much more measured than previously.
Jack Straw still doing funny things with his mouth. Ill fitting dentures?
The one prime minister plus one chancellor joke will probably be what the news bulletins lead on.
I suspect Nick P will be pleased with Browns performance though. As I am sure the Tory MPs are!!
‘Snipergate’ continues to hurt Hillary :
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03262008/news/nationalnews/now_bunko_hill_is_under_fire_103582.htm
……………….
PMQs.
Steady all round. Brown appears more assured and confident and his ‘hits’ are more targetted. The ‘Forsyth’ line worked and jarred Cameron. He continues to hit away and performed well enough, although I thought today Brown edged the exchanges. Clegg turned in a useful performance on an issue (house repossessions) that will slow burn over the coming months.
Ken Livingstone’s transport commissioner threatened to cut the police’s budget unless they stopped talking about the dangers of bendy buses.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23464911-details/TfL+chief%27s+threat+to+police+over+bendy+bus+%27criticism%27/article.do
142 - What was the joke?
138 I rather agree, its very difficult to attack Gordon on economic competence,if only because he was Chancellor for 10 yrs, but it has to be done.
Cameron missed a trick in letting Brown get away with the 2p tax cut(2p or not 2p). He should immediately have reminded the chancellor…sorry PM about the removal of the 10 tax band that will hit many low income families.( A deceit that the electorate are unlikely to forgive)
Personally, I always think the PM starts off by conceding an own goal, by the intial patsy question.
Rather than Cameron won on penaties, Brown lost on penalties, because he never answers a question, and is untruthful(eg 2.5% inflation…
Brown said Cameron could not do basic arithmetic quoting Freddie Forsyth. Cameron said he would give hime some “One Prime Minister plus One Chancellor equals Economic Incompetence.”
144. Charming. But wouldn’t a quick call to Sir Ian Labour have saved all the fuss?
146. I don’t see why the government keep clinging to the 2.5% figure, it is widely seen as being a load of rubbish when compared to the increases people are being hit by.
re 137 Hope’s got nothing to do with it. I hope that the situation in Tibet doesn’t turn ugly, but it’s unlikely that it will affect matters. If policies are turning people towrds the BNP and the concerns of people who might vote BNP are not being addressed then they will be elected. I would predict - bet even - that they will win several seats in next year’s Euros with immigration being a big issue.
Hillary back down into the high teens on the Iowa Exchanges for the first time in over three weeks :
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Nomination08_quotes.html
150. With the implosion of UKIP, that must be a strong possibility.
149
I am sure DC will pick him up on it sometime soon, clutching to such a nonsnse figure just adds to the picture that Gordon isnt being straight with the electorate. I am sure its more damaging to Labour that he keeps repeating it.
I felt Cameron was a bit inflexible today, found it a bit difficult to land blows because Brown got onto his tractor production figures.
What providence, then, that he didn’t need to, because Brown keeps on a’digging those holes for himself.
Inflation under 3%? Oh really?
Cameron economic advisor to Norman Lamont? What exactly did that entail, Gordon?
Cut in income tax? Pull the other one.
Brown looked over-smug and presented an over-rosy picture of the economy from the dispatch box that will simply not be believed by the average man on the Clapham omnibus. It’s becoming a little sad that even in weeks where Cameron fails to land serious blows, Brown manages to bring them on himself!
138 - Brown loses on penalties because he was answering his own question and not those that were being asked. All too transparent and how successive politicians think we don’t notice I can’t begin to imagine.
154. Cameron’s probably realised by now all he has to do is make some good points, get a good phrase in for the news, and let Brown bluster his way into another problem. No-one believes inflation is 2.5%, however he thinks if he clings to it and keeps repeating it people will accept it. Utility bills, food bills, petrol bills have all risen massively compared to that figure.
Latest Rasmussen Presidential Poll for Missouri :
McCain 50% .. Clinton 41%
McCain 53% .. Obama 38%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election
154: “Cameron economic advisor to Norman Lamont? What exactly did that entail, Gordon?”