The current payment system should be replaced with a single scheme, the suggested name for which is the "constituency management fee". It should be paid from central funds and drawn down by MPs annually (or in periodic increments). From this, MPs pay all expenses and remuneration, in accordance with what is most appropriate to the effective management of the constituency and which is acceptable to their local voters. They ordered 401 of them in November 2003 at a cost of £166 million. Only now, nearly six years later, are they finally going into service, but not before the Ministry of Defeat has spent another £20 million on them to make them suitable for Afghanistan. This is the fabulous Panther. "The Berlaymont building will remain closed today for security and safety reasons. Firefighters have now finished their work, and Commission services are looking to re-establish essential services as soon as possible," a short statement from the commission said. Tuesday, May 19, 2009
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Regulating MPs' remuneration
Thus, an MP will draw from the fund, the salary, pension payments, working and all other expenses (including normal travel), staff employment and all other expenses.
Accountability is maintained on the one hand by publishing a "business plan" setting out the "budget" and the expenditure heads, and then publishing quarterly audited accounts, with an annual report at the end of the year (or period). As to monitoring of expenses – and allowable amounts – this should be a matter between constituents and the MP, with the tax authorities as the arbiter, scrutinising expenditure as they do with other enterprises.
On the basis of current salaries, allowances, etc, the fund could be in the order of £300,000 a year, possibly "banded" by constituency zone, reflecting distances and other issues which affect individual MPs. The sum set would be a maximum, with each MP able to come in under the sum allocated.
To guard against abuse – as with Conway – there should then be a "recall" provision. Electors in a constituency should be able to raise a petition (say with 10,000 names) on which completion there should follow within a stated period a by-election, where the sitting MP is required to stand for re-election.
In terms of overall advantages, this has the benefit of insulating MPs from abusers. With each MP devising their individual schemes, with the agreement of their local electors, no other MPs are tainted if one or more MPs go off the rails. On the other hand, voters are empowered, and may well be inclined to take a greater interest in the workings of their constituencies and their MPs.
Within the broad scope of the scheme, there is and should be great scope for innovation and flexibility. Some MPs, for instance, may chose to appoint a local "advisory board" made up from the local "great and the good" to advise them on disbursement of funds. There is scope for each political party to issue "guidelines" on expenditure, which an MP may (or may not) vary according to local circumstances. Others may prefer to devise their own schemes.
Ultimately, this puts voters "in charge" as ultimate accountability rests with the electorate, where it should reside (and not with an unelected bureaucracy). This also should lead to some savings, as the administrative teams currently processing and authorising payments can be disbanded.Fantasy politics
If ever proof were needed that the media has regressed into a second childhood, the leader in The Daily Telegraph on the resignation of Speaker Martin provides all you could ever want.
That resignation, opines the newspaper, "marks the latest stage of a very British revolution", using this plank to launch into a thesis of stunning naïvity. "Over the past 12 years," it tells us:… we have seen a Government with an overwhelming parliamentary majority turn the Commons into a cipher for often perverse decisions. It has burdened the Commons and the country with pointless and even dangerous legislation. People feel their political representatives are aloof and arrogant. Now, in addition, they think they are venal, too.
We have all put up with this for far too long, the paper adds. The public has now decided it is time for change: its fury has forced apologies, repayments, suspensions and resignations; constituency parties are threatening deselections; MPs are voluntarily deciding to stand down; the Speaker has been forced out, for the first time in 300 years.
From there, the piece appears to lift, as we get treated to a diagnosis of the broader problems:That system now lies broken and demoralised. With its sovereignty already dissipated by the power of the European Union, the role of the House in scrutinising legislation has been further undermined by the placing of time limits on all debates; the hours it sits have shrunk, the chamber is often virtually empty, and MPs routinely fail to articulate the concerns and aspirations of the people who elect them. Westminster has sunk into a slough of despond. The dwindling turnout at successive elections is testament to what the country thinks of the system. Mr Martin, as Speaker, has presided over this sorry shambles.
Then, however, it begins to unravel. We get told that the "expenses crisis is symptomatic of his failure and" – only then - "of the wider malaise that has beset the institution." From there, the paper then asserts that, "the resignation of the Speaker is … still not enough," a sentiment with which we would heartily agree.
But it is the payoff which destroys the whole argument: "Once the new Speaker is installed," says the paper, "a general election should follow soon after… With a new start, the institution can be refreshed. That is the British way and it is still a good one."
The two false turns are, of course, clearly evident. Firstly, the paper takes as its starting point 12 years ago – after which all problems supposedly appeared. As so often, therefore, history begins in 1997. Before that was perfection. Yet, by the paper's own reckoning, at least one of the problems is the "sovereignty … dissipated by the power of the European Union" – an issue which arose slightly before 1997.
Secondly, by then ignoring or underplaying the corrosive role of this development, the paper is able to suggests that, somehow, with a general election, we can happily ride off into the sunlit uplands as the institution is "refreshed". This, in the context, is complete and utter tosh. As long as we have the malign influence of the EU, undermining the very core of our legislature, an election – and new administration – is going to have no effect whatsoever.
But there is an even greater defect in this piece, in that it ignores yesterday's proposal by Gordon Brown to reform the expenses system and cut the powers of the Speaker. We mentioned this briefly and the plan is given fuller treatment in The Times, noting that this is to end "centuries of self-regulation by MPs".
Such an assertion is a complete distortion, in that such self-regulation has never existed (in theory at least). The ultimate regulator is the electorate, to whom MPs are answerable. Now, it is a matter of concern that the mechanisms for accountability were never perfect and have weakened considerably, but the answer surely is to strengthen them.
We have offered such a scheme, which is published here, on top of which we would like to see provision for "none of the above" on the ballot paper, with an election declared void if the NOTR votes exceed that of the highest-scoring candidate. Such measures would strengthen the hand of the voter and improve democratic accountability.
Instead, we have on offer, an essentially statist plan which weakens the power and authority of parliament as an institution and makes MPs answerable to the unelected officials of a new, bureaucratic quango – thereby also weakening the links between MPs and their constituents.
Rather than seeing the institution "refreshed", therefore, we are likely to exactly the opposite. That so-called "right-wing" newspapers like The Daily Telegraph are not ripping into this proposal, as well as addressing the more fundamental problems, is a clear sign that the media is playing fantasy politics. They have no real idea of what is wrong and no ideas of how to fix them.
COMMENT THREADUnacceptable waste
MPs should be furious – that sort of unacceptable waste could have financed 16 months-worth of Additional Cost Allowances.
COMMENT THREADEssential services
Essential services? Who are they trying to kid?
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Posts
