Big Sticks and Small Carrots

I was intending to write a post today called “In Defence of MPs” (really) but then I read this:

The amount of expenses MPs can claim without a receipt is to be cut from £250 to £25 from 1 April.

The Commons Members Estimates Committee ruled out demanding proof over smaller claims, as MPs often use cash on items “for which receipts are not given”.

You what?

I have a lot of experience administering expenses and petty cash in retail. I’ve done it for a large store which was part of a national chain and for a small independent. In both cases, receipts were required for everything, big or small.

Taxis? Just ask for a reciept. Taxi drivers are used to it.

Stamps? The Post Office will give you a reciept for one stamp if you want one.

Train tickets? Petrol? Pencils? Big boozy breakfasts? Hilton Hotels?  Shouldn’t be a problem. In fact, it just wasn’t an issue. I can’t think of a single purchase where a receipt wasn’t available.

To be fair, MPs probably spend their expenses on slightly different things than retailers… hang on, that’s it. I’m coming at this from the wrong angle.

What about prostitutes and drug dealers? I bet they aren’t that keen to provide a receipt for your records…

Tim has received some answers from Tom Watson.

According to the Sunday Mercury, Tom Watson’s wife earns up to £20,000 a year and we now know she earns that working as his PA.

Is that more than average for such a job? Well, the last time I read about how much an MPs PA earns, it was in amongst this lot. The investigation into Derek Conway’s expenses included an interview with his wife. She told the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that “her role as his PA had been to deal with correspondence and keep his diary. She also arranged meetings, and visits to Parliament by groups, etc. from the constituency, of which, because of the constituency’s proximity to London, there was a considerable number”.

Conway’s wife is apparently paid £3,271 a month to do this job; that works out at £39,252 per year. According to the Telegraph, this “almost £40,000 a year” is “significantly more than the Parliamentary average for such a role”.

So then, what do they mean by “significantly”? If it means twice as much as average, perhaps £20,000 would be a sensible sum. But twice as much is surely more than “significantly more”; they’d have said Conway’s wife gets “double” the average or something. Or would they?

To be fair, I don’t really know whether these two jobs are comparable. And I don’t know whether Mrs Conway delivers good value for the money she earns.

I do know that the £40,000 a year Conway’s wife gets was not part of the equation when “Guido” attempted to make his bizarre comparison. In fact, Staines is spinning like Alistair Campbell on a Waltzer. He knows better than most Conservative MPs how badly the Conway affair hurt the Tories and even attempted some damage limitation himself. Now, with nothing but innuendo and implication, he’s trying turn that hit around by suggesting that Labour MPs are worse.

This does at least have the advantage of exposing the claim that “Guido Fawkes” treats all politicians equally for what it is. I’d spell it out but I’m trying to give up blog swearing* at the moment.

* Not that I don’t recognise that there’s an art to it. Perhaps the outstanding practitioners have made me realise that it wasn’t ever going to be my field.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…

It’d be even funnier if the government were not wasting huge amounts of money on a monumental disaster waiting to happen.

The good news is that “plans to force passport applicants to get an ID card have been dropped”. Did Jacqui Smith take that decision on a voluntary basis, I wonder? I only ask because Labour’s commitment to roll out ID cards “initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports” was a real lowlight in knowingly mendacious politics. How satisfying to see it fail to do anything other than highlight just how knowingly mendacious they are prepared to be.

Nevertheless, the government appear to be keen to press on with some ad hoc version of this scheme despite the fact that this half-baked version negates many of the arguments they used to justify its creation in the first place. It’s like watching a not very good and all too predictable farce. A happy ending is highly unlikely.

Winston Churchill (may have) said that “the biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter”. Typical patronising Commie pinko bull…

In truth, the quotation touches on a whole series of difficult questions regarding systems of democracy and how they work. Representative democracy by definition is going to involve politicians. Unfortunately, such systems tend to generate a separate political class, a self-serving insulated elite who trust the people about as much as the people trust them. Their central interest is always likely to be persuading enough voters to elect them, something not renowned for fostering a spirit of constructive and honest debate.

All of this has created a situation in which public confidence in politicians is very low indeed. This can clearly be detrimental to the rule of law (people tend to be disinclined to voluntarily obey laws created by those they hold in such low regard) and ultimately to democracy itself. It can be argued that this is an inherent trait in representative systems and that the only way to escape this is to abolish politicians altogether.

Direct democracy, however, is not without significant problems of its own. The tyranny of the majority can be a real danger, for example. And, of course, despite the fact that it may sound patronising, it really isn’t a good idea to ask people to vote on issues they don’t have the time, inclination or intellect to fully understand.

The idea that there should be a referendum on the new EU treaty is a case in point. How many people have (or will) take the time to read through the approximately  300 hundred pages (pdf) of the treaty and then take an informed view as to whether the UK should ratify it? Not many. Not me; I lack the time, inclination and intellect. I made a half hearted attempt but the thing is virtually impenetrable.

Perhaps that’s a deliberate tactic perpetrated by the political elite precisely so that the average voter cannot make an informed judgement as to its content. On the other hand, would a treaty drawn up through some process of direct public participation involving the populations of 25 European countries be any simpler or easier to understand? It hardly seems likely. And who would create such a process of direct public participation anyway?

That’s only scratching the condensation on the lacquer on the paint on the surface of this issue but with confidence in politicians at such extraordinarily low levels, it is something which needs to be seriously discussed.

Unfortunately, rather than tackling any of this, many of our elected representatives  continue to play Punch and Judy to the audience instead. “You promised a referendum!” “Oh no I didn’t!” “Oh yes you did”". Constructive debate it most certainly is not. In the end, you have to wonder whether our elected representatives will be the architects of their own demise.

“Guido” has launched an attack on Tom Watson.

Tim has already had a good look at “Guido’s” post, incluing asking some questions regarding Tom Watson’s expenses, but let’s just expand slightly on the way Paul Staines has done his maths:

Last year Watson pocketed his £60,000 salary and his parliamentary expenses amounted to £150,000-plus – bringing his total package to £211,000 - making him the 73rd highest claiming MP out of 646 MPs. Quite an achievement for an MP not claiming for travel to and from Scotland. He of course employs his wife Siobhan at the public’s expense, his brother, Dan, is constituency director to Euro MP Michael Cashman, Dan Watson’s wife, Joanna, has no fewer than three jobs. Like her husband, she also works for Mr Cashman and for Wolverhampton Labour MP Pat McFadden, yet still finds time to be a Labour councillor in Sandwell. Amy Watson, cousin of Tom and Dan, works for Birmingham Northfield Labour MP Richard Burden. The West Midlands constituency Labour Party offices are packed with Watsons…

The total annual cost to the taxpayer of the Watson family’s five not-so-little piggies is in excess of £300,000. Far more than the disgraced Derek Conway fiddled…

The Conway scandal centred around £40,000 he’d paid to his son and it has to be said that £300,000 is definitely far more than £40,000. You can’t argue with numbers.

But what is “Guido” comparing? The £300,00 is in large part made up of Tom Watson’s salary as an MP (£60,000) and his expenses for 2006/07 (£150,000). The £40,000 is not in large part made up of Derek Conway’s salary as an MP (£60,000) and his expenses for 2006/07 (£140,000).

(By the way, Conway’s London constituency is about 100 miles closer to Westminster than Watson’s. “Guido” never mentioned that.)

Instead, the £40,000 refers to specific money paid by Conway to his son. Having investigated whether these payments were justifiable, the Standards and Privileges committee said they were “astonished that there appears to be no evidence, independent or otherwise, of any aspect of Freddie Conway’s work for his father”. They also concluded that Derek Conway had paid his “all but invisible” son bonus payments which were substantially larger than allowed by the rules.

I can find no similar report from the Standards and Privileges Committee regarding Tom Watson and £300,000.

So is it a like for like comparison? Obviously not. I feel silly even asking the question. And yet, “Guido” has attempted to suggest that it is.

I can’t say for sure why Paul has attempted to make this ridiculous comparison but I suspect it has something to do with his willingness to treat all politicians with equal distain…