By Jessica Asato / @Jessica_Asato
Another day, another blow to the heart of our democracy. As the Daily Telegraph reveals yet more expenses atrocities, I expect many Labour activists are thinking “stop the world I want to get off”, or at least about emigrating to America to bask in the still warm glow of Obama’s victory.
I was horrified watching Michael Martin’s response to Kate Hoey’s reasonable plea to take account of the public’s anger, but the sad fact is that he is simply repeating what many MPs are still whining about – their own petty worries about the potential publication of their home and bank details. The mind boggles doesn’t it? As home owners are facing repossession for the want of a few thousand pounds, we are hearing that MPs have made tens of thousands of pounds as a result of improving their homes and yet they are indignant at the idea that this was somehow inappropriate.
All these years Labour activists have argued against the stock voter response about politicians on the doorstep – “you’re only in it for the money” or “you’ve all got your fingers in the till”. I’ve spent time after time explaining that the vast majority of Parliamentarians I’ve met, from all parties, tend to be doing the job they do for the right reasons and that much of the time they act with integrity and make me proud of our Parliament. But this expenses scandal leaves very few politicians untouched; it goes beyond party allegiance, background or longevity in Parliament, and it puts a lie to the faithfully held view of many ordinary party members and supporters that politicians in this country, by and large, are good sorts.
So how can politics move on from here? It’s obvious that all MPs should immediately publish their expenses. No one can wait until July. While I think the Telegraph was right to publish the expenses in the national interest, it cannot be in the national interest to have a national newspaper which is avowedly pro-Conservative, holding the sword of Damocles over our Parliament and the future of our democracy.
I also can’t see in all honesty how Michael Martin can stay. His behaviour has let down the mother of Parliaments, and he will be forever wounded and hounded until he finally cracks. Moreover, I think that all MPs should be asked to repay money which they in their conscience feel has not been used in the spirit of public service, even though they might have been within the rules at the time.
As I’ve written before, MPs should be paid a higher wage, and receive very little extra support except for housing costs and travel outside London. It may not be a popular suggestion at the moment, but the last thing we need at this time is another fudge. The principle of public service in our democracy is an important one and we must be prepared to pay for it. When Chief Executives of quangos get paid £200,000, there is something topsy-turvy in a society which doesn’t remunerate those who bear the responsibility of making our democracy work in practice. Let’s by all means introduce greater performance measures, and let’s build in greater scrutiny of government through enhancing select committee powers and finally reforming the House of Lords. But if we think MPs aren’t worth paying, we will get worthless MPs.
I’m not so sure about the idea, which ConservativeHome are promoting, of allowing constituency parties to reselect MPs who appear to have abused their expenses. In the febrile atmosphere of the moment we could end up losing some good Parliamentarians with experience which will needed over the coming decade in the Labour Party.
On the other hand, there is a part of me which feels that grassroots Labour Party members have been mostly ignored in this debate so far and are rightly angry too that their hard work has been undone by MPs pushing the boundaries of what is morally acceptable in public life.
It might be good for the future of the Party for a new wave of next generation candidates, untainted by this muck and with a pledge to clean up politics, to be elected into Parliament next time round.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Apart from expenses we need to tackle MPs pensions the best occupational scheme in the coutnry bar none.
Ministers have "reformed" other public sector pensions to reduce (future) costs and will probably do so again. Let us "reform" their pensions as well. Stop MPs moonlighting. Being a MP is a full time job. Stop the MPs free holiday club otherwise known as British Council visits. Ban all relatives from working for MPs. Yes let us sweep out the crooks, chancers, sycophants and careerists but ensure we do not replace them with white, middle-class, Oxbridge graduates.
And whilst we are at it let us sort out that parasitical lobbying industry.
I guess that my feelings in this matter are much less important than those of my electorate. They will resolve things for me and many in my position.
The puritanism of the British is just so dull.....such as calls for politics to be 'morally acceptable'. The day politicians start deciding what is 'moral' is the day politics stops being politics.
I worry about those who class themselves as moral crusaders. As for the current moral outrage, I think 99% of the supposedly appalled general public would have done exactly the same given the chance. Some would have claimed more than others. of course, no one will ever admit to it
Yeah yeah and if I'd grown up in Austria in the late 19th century, failed as an artist and experienced all the same things as a certain young Adolf I would have become Fuhrer.
Joking aside, this implication that 'we all do it' (Stephen Fry) or 'we would all do it giving the chance' is insulting. But worse than that, it's completely irrelevant. The question is not whether we might do the same thing hypothetically. The question is whether or not it is right. Do we think it is okay for politicians to receive £800 per month towards a mortgage that has long since been paid? What do you think, Mike, about this specific case?
Or have a revolution. I worry about people who like being shafted.
What will they be called this time I wonder, New New Labour? Every time the socialists gets in power they always become so discredited the next generation has to re-brand. That's why there are so many names for the same basic idea, viz. the govt runs things: socialism, communism, Marxism, social democracy, democratic socialism and so on. That's why Blair and his cronies invented New Labour, precisely in order to draw a line under the sorry past.
Look at the state of the country after more than ten years of Labour rule. The economy is on its knees. Public discourse has been ruined by lies and spin. War declared on a lie. Promises been made and shamelessly broken (e.g. the Referendum on the Constitution). Parliament imploding under the weight of unprecedented scandal. Two Lords have been suspended for the first time in 400 years for amending legislation for money.
The Houses of Parliament have been emasculated by the EU. That's the long-term underlying problem. As a consequence those who represent us have become demoralised and the voters have lost confidence in the democratic process. We need powers to be returned to Westminster and we need more direct power given to voters.
Any issue attracting (say) one million signatures on a petition should be proposed as a Bill and voted on directly in a referendum. With today's technology we don't need to entrust the important questions facing our country to corrupt, incompetent MPs who over four decades have sold us down the river to a foreign undemocratic government in Brussels.
At the risk of going against the pitchfork wielding masses, I'd also like to see MP's paid substantially more and given far greater staffing resources to address larger issues in the political system.
In return for this, the relationship between Parliament and the government would need to change. MP's, with access to high quality researchers should be expected to properly scrutinize legislation of which their should be far less than there is at present.
Another massive missed opportunity from New Labour over the past 12 years in terms of constitutional reform I'm afraid.
In relation to other comments, the problem with arguing that £65,000 is not enough is that the public are not stupid and they do not see MPs saying this before they get elected, only after the have enetered the Westminster club or more recently when they have been found with their fingers in the petty cash box and it is used as an excuse along the lines of if you had paid me more I wouldn't have to fiddle my expenses. As with any job you know what the rate of pay is before you apply, if you do not think it is enough apply elsewhere.
That said, it is a fallacy to suggest that the only people intent on parliamentary careers are from the so-called "political class." To pick a few examples of up and coming politicians, Sadiq Khan MP, David Lammy MP, and Chuka Umunna (Labour PPC for Streatham) were all lawyers while Rachel Reeves (PPC Leeds West) worked for the Bank of England, and Stella Creasy (PPC Walthamstow) worked for a social enterprise.
No doubt, the Milibands, James Purnell and Ed Balls are talented people in specific sense. They are policy wonks who have come up with some good ideas, all due credit given. However, they broadly come from the same background, Oxbridge educated and middle class. There are only so many of these people that you'd think it was desirable to run the country. What I'd like to see is people who have left the Westminster village for a time. Is it too much to ask that we have a variety of experiences in the people who govern us? There are plenty of different talents out there, and it's a wasted opportunity not to use them in government. As for knowledge of Parliament and Whitehall, while desirable, don't you think that some fresh eyes might be just as desirable? (This is not meant as an attack on you, I appreciate that you are from an Oxbridge and civil service background, and I very much enjoy some of your writings.)
As for the names you've listed, while some are talented, I don't really think that you can exclude those names from the political class. I know for a fact that the PPCs you mentioned were very active in Labour Students or Young Labour from an early age, and this is not to condemn them for that, but the allegation that they were just biding their time until a seat came up is easily made. Also, using lawyers as examples of 'real' jobs (which of course they are real jobs), doesn't really help your argument. There are plenty of lawyers in Parliament at the moment, and plenty more are standing for election, along with policy wonks and PR consultants. Surely this constitutes some kind of political class, including lawyers? Tell me, where are the teachers, social workers, businessmen, salesmen and other professions in the new intake of PPCs with safish seats? I can think of one off the top of my head, but that's about it.
We need a broader talent pool for the new intake, with a broad range of experience, and we aren't getting it.
Well, frankly Will, I would expect the son of one of NLs most right-wing ministers to put in warm words for Purnell. In what way, pray, has HE "made Britain and the world a better place"?. By in a time of rising high unemployment make the sick and disabled look for jobs that are'nt even there for the 2.2 million able-bodied unemployed?. By making the mothers of one year old children look for work?
How does THAT make the world a "better place"?. Better for whom?
And next time you see him, tell him to buy his own groceries.
And yes we know Lammy, Khan et al were lawyers before suddenly deciding they wanted to "make a differenec" Oxford, the media and law seem to be de rigeur for New Labourites - so "niace" and middle-class isn't it?
Sorry... is this a spoof, and have I been had?
You go on and on about how even good people can't find jobs - but as soon as it comes to MPs pay you are convinced that anyone who would do it for £65,000 must be crap.
So let me get this right... despite every thing else you socialist have said... you know there are plenty of jobs paying more than £65,000... but there are not enough people good enough to fill them... because people worth that much have their pick of opportunities...
But noone should be paid more than £150,000 - because no one can possibly be worth that much?
I know socialism doesn't stand up to scrutiny - but I didn't expect you guys to make it quite so obvious...
Look at this guy he's a candidate http://www.youtube.com/user/Johntheactivist
There are a lot of video's on that link. Try these two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPgUfdPsTY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAO0hHDEW7A
Had a look at those additional links. This guy makes John Major look suave, sophisticated, and James Bond like. I particularly liked the 15 second opening shot of the cans of lager, and his imitation of a windscreen wiper. The man should have his own show on BBC3.
I note that SE Cambridge is currently represented by a Tory MP, with the Lib Dem candidate second, and Labour in third place. so the likelihood of Johntheactivist being elected is quite remote. Cue a huge sigh of relief.
It does raise the question... If he was considered the best of the bunch, how bad were the other potential candidates?
He's written for LL - More here http://www.labourlist.org/john_cowan
Very funny, but a bit unfair - they guy gets 4/5 view per video he just needs a few years on a media course to get things sorted.
But, to be fair, he is already head and shoulders above gordon...
And you wouldn't believe the wacky stuff I have on youtube - its there, you just do it don't you... don't you? - damn I did...
The 'tories' here seem to consider themselves 'tories' because the 'tories' are most likely to deliver what they want/believe in -- while socialist are here because they blindly support labour...
1. The working man
2. The welfare state
3. A strong culture within our country
4. Opportunity for all.
I am a Tory, but I reached that conclusion by understanding what the parties stood for - not my class or what my dad told me to believe.
I agree that to attract decent MPs we need to pay more. £65,000 for the workload that's expected is poor. I wouldn't be an MP for that sort of wage especially when so many second raters that swamp the corridors of local councils earn so much more. But then a whole root and branch appraisal of salary needs to be conducted across the public sector because it's totally out of control.
Back to MP's. If we are to pay them more then we need to ensure that the quality goes up. As entertaining as he is does Dennis Skinner deserve more than £65K? No. He is just a old school politician and if anything that's what we need to get rid of.
I would try and remove career politicians. I would want to see more people from outside the public sector who have a proven track record of success. I met one director of a business today who had real vision and insight who would be perfect but he would need much more than £65K to tempt him.
But how shall we pay for it? Politics costs this country millions and it just isn't good enough. I agree with Cameron that we should have less MP's. As noted above and as outlined in Chris Mullins diaries they can't actually achieve much.
I am disgusted by the beahviour of our own members of Parliament and so disappointed at the damage they have done to the Labour Party.
My own esteemed Member of Parliament, who I had thought highly of, has claimed amongst other "vital expenses" a £3000 granite worktop and a £150 vase.
I think we, as Labour party members, be offered the opportunity to have a say who we want to represent our constituency. Not just because of the field day opposition candidates will have, but also because I believe what he/ they have done is morally wrong. Indeed, as I heard someone say the other day- "If I'd have done that, I'd have been sacked and the police would have been investigating me".
Why should MP's be exempt if they have broken the rules/ law?
If MPs can reflect on that they might start getting a better grasp on law at the top and bottom. Perhaps they need to tighten up at the top. Certainly, more specific guidelines would help with expenses and City regulation. Then there's the mess that's the tax and welfare system. That desperately needs simplyfying and streamlining. That's before we get into them understanding their own characters and society in general. For people who would be leaders of a nation they are remarkably lacking in awareness.
Lets not use the ridiculous fact that Quango bosses get paid 200 grand a year (must be a part time one) to justify paying MPs more money.
In the real world salaries are dictated by a combination of the availability of people with said skills and the number of people prepared to work for siad salary. By any conventional measure there should be a pay cut.
I want to see a lot more ordinary folk sitting as MPs. Id love to see a house full of independents with no set loyalty to one party. People who vote with their conscience
I think you could get this for 60k plus reasonable expenses.
Although, I really hope that this whole shambolic episode won't be a top priority for people at the time of the next election. At the moment, it's only right-wing newspaper sales with an anti-politics agenda and political groups outside the mainstream that stand to gain.
I'm looking forward to the whole issue being sorted out with a fresh culture of transparency in Westminster and for us all to move on to more important and interesting issues (in the grand scheme of things). It seems like it's up to Labour's untainted activists to make sure all of this happens...
http://labourlist.org/alex-smith-risk-on-renewal-clp-reorganise-or-fail-movement,2009-03-27
That'll be those brave young souls from LL who prop up the status quo here then?
"pushing the boundaries of what is morally acceptable in public life."
Or 'breaking the law' as those of us in the reality based community like to call it.
Geez, I'm the last person the Labour Party should trust as some sort of public space. Think Boris Johnson is gaffe-prone? I do that kind of stuff for fun.
You are falling into a common trap - individual MPs are *not* that important!
Seats are left empty for long periods awaiting by-elections - the world does not stop, the sky does not fall in.
Parliament is massively valuable and important - but you should not let each MPs pretend that they are wroth a 640th of that total value... Most of the value of parliament is the respect that the people of the UK have for it - we choose to respect, obey etc... That is nothing to do with individual MPs.
MPs are just cogs in the parliamentry machine. £65,000 (plus genuine expenses) is plenty, if someone wants to serve, but finds it hard going that is fine, they can just do one term and not restand.
There may be a different argument for the executive/front benchers - but for bog standard MPs £65,000 plus (genuine) expenses is plenty.
Sorry if the current bunch will find it hard to take such a massive cut, but they don't have to restand do they...
When Brown decided to bail out the banks (one of the most important decisions that has been made with him as PM) parliament was not even sitting !!
If MPs complain that there is too much work (labour MPs were complaining exactly the opposite recently!!) and have to work long hours, well maybe we should have more of them? at £65,000 a pop (instead of the £210,000 we currently pay) it won't break the bank...
However you are absolutely right that Labour are dead, it will only be re-electable when they old is swept away, and the next generation have taken over.
The tories only problem form the previous generation is that tebbit keeps waking up.
£65,000 pa will get you 2nd rate mediocre MPs or those with private incomes.
A middle/senior manager (not even director) gets more than that and has been pointed out the number of people in quangos and the like paid far more are many.
So a wage you can earn in a middle ranking business position, no job security, public hatred and a complete lack of privacy? I can see the people the country ought to see standing for public office saying simply "no thanks, not a chance in hell".
Throw in the stupidity of the electorate who say they want MPs to be "just like me", because window cleaners, shop assistants and administration clerks would bring a great intellect to law making and you end up with the sort of over reaction and moralising hand wringing that makes my flesh crawl at the moment.
As soon as someone suggested "halls of residence", "barracks" and even "budget hotels" for MPs I knew the time for serious debate would have to wait
About 400 MPs are in absolutely safe seats and the fact that they, entirely of their own volition, put themselves up for re-election every four or five years appears to indicate to me that they find the job to be an agreeable way of earning a living.
I don't think the comparison with managers in business is valid - MPs do not have any profit and loss responsibility. There are no formal qualifications or training required to do the job, as there are in medicine, teaching or engineering.
All in all, a salary of £65,000 - which places an MP in the top five per cent of wage-earners - seems reasonable.
My second would be what about genuine public service? A pay cut (though still a good wage) for 5 years and the chance to do something worthwhile... Maybe (just maybe) one off parachute payments to put you back where you would have been at the end of your term.
What quality of person do you get on 'VSO' and similar? Are they useless because they aren't paid?
I'd take a mix of top busines people, top trade unionists, top teachers, lawyers, bankers (yes even them), ex high ranking military officers etc. In other words people who have great experiene and a history of getting things done.
Not the politico, started at 18 and never done anything else people we get at the moment.
£65k pa will not attract the best candidates.
From a personal point of view I earn almost double that from consultancy so accepting a massive pay cut with all the rubbish that comes with it and I'll say no thanks. If lots of people like me won't go near it with a barge-pole then you have got a system that doesnt attract people it should be.
At least ten years as a taxpayer before even being considered as an MP.
A double-whammy for the tax payer...
So what you're saying is that Blair and Brown were already corrupt when you put them in charge? So why did the noble, horny-handed sons of Labour allow this?
And if they weren't corrupt when they went in and got corrupted when they were already in power, what will stop it from happening again?
And finally I must repeat my assertion that the majority of MPs will have at least one claim in that would get you or me fired. Don't focus on the big ones, focus on the fact that they are ALL at it.
As noble your lament and desire is to clean up politics; I feel it is misplaced.
Every profession, every trade has its bad apples, MPs are no exception. We expect to work for employers that maintain strict governance and control over the monies we spend doing on jobs. That is our moral contract with our employers - enforceable by law.
These MPs have no such expectation, they have been back-dated, even forward-dated claims and including fraudulent claims. In terms of legal redress, an apology and a cheque is the best we can hope for.
It's irrelevant that the Telegraph is pro-Tory, the truth is, everyone is a loser here. The big difference is, what mettle will the leader show in tidying up their party? Who cares enough about public trust to start mending bridges now, not by committee at a later date?
So far Brown looks weak, lacking authority and dithering. If he was a racehorse in this three horse race - he's the one fit for glue and dogfood.
A new generation should go into politics to serve and also remember that democracy matters not just to the people but to the party. For too long, Labour's MPs have timidly let themselves be pushed around by internal factions and also calculated smears and counter smears to advance some for their own personal gain. The collegiate principles Labour were founded on have been abused and lie in tatters.
Instead, there is a new political class not a representative of the working class and caring of them even less preferring petty bourgeois fashions and memes du jour.
There are, of course, people who have not abused the system or been dishonest - in the current cabinet Ed Miliband, Alan Johnson and Hilary Benn did not indulge in the abuse of publuic funds, there will of course be others.
But even if you bring in the next generation, they can't be leader. Unless you chose one of the three men above (and Harriet harman appears to be untainted as well), it would be pointless have fresh new faces led by one of the ghastly old waxworks who have been at it - men like Purnell, who claimed for groceries, as well as claiming more than any other cabinet member, Ed Balls, given the shenanigans with claiming for his second home as well as his wife Yvette Cooper. And the other Miliband, david has been shown not to be purer than pure.
Who would you want as leader, Jessica.
I have to say, in all honesty, I have never been so revolted, ashamed and disgusted by politics as I have been in the past week
I've commented, before, on the need for a new written constitution. Sadly, Brown has forgotten about this and Straw has backpeddled. I agree with Matthew Norman who suggests that this becomes a top priority for immediately after the next election. I've thought that it should be a flagship manifesto committment for Labour instead of dicking around with marginal equality bills but, yet again, Cameron looks like he's in a position to clean Labour clock. Again.
Yes. I agree. There is a danger that Auntie Hazel and Uncle McNulty could teach the newcomers "everything they know", which would just mean you would get another generation of toadying, grovelling yes-men (and women) who will just go along with any illiberal or non-Labour policy the leadership dreamt up so they could fill their boots.
I once heard an MP vainglouriously describing himself as a "window on the nation". Well, sometimes thoase windows need CLEANING - and NOT (pace Mrs Follett) at £90 a time.
It's interesting how the Iraq War has come to this moment. Both Saddam and Brown are inspireed leaders in their own way but scared of their own shadow. Both had great potential but completely threw it away. Saddam had his chance to dodge the bullet, as Jukes put things elsewhere. Can Brown do the same? Does anyone care?
The reason why I bang on about Zen is the great Zen masters nailed all this stuff ages ago. Quality, karma, and change are all sliced and diced in minute detail. It doesn't take a great brain, travel, or great contortions to understand it, yet, these MPs with ego smeared windows can't "let go" even when it's FREE.
As a respected friend used to say: "Drop, drop, drop". That's it.