The amazing thing about the recent expense scandal wasn't that it horrified the British public so much, but that the public has become so numb from decades of Parliamentary behaviour so sleazy that the Palace of Westminster was often confused for a Limehouse opium den that said public responded with a resigned shrug rather than burning the place to the ground. Here were MPs lining their expense accounts like they were restuffing a mattress, their payroll looked like the invitation list for a family reunion, and legislation became less about due deliberation than who could get the biggest cut of whatever the scam de jour was and the result was that they didn't end up on a plane to Angola one step ahead of tar and feathering.Now Sir Christopher Kelly is giving us incontrovertible evidence that he lives in an abandoned badger set in the Orkneys by crying in his beer that Parliament's expenses will result in a "Commons of the rich".
"Commons of the rich"? I have news for you, Sir Christopher. It already is. In fact, when someone can complain that their commute from outside the M25 is so hard that they need a second home at their employers' expense, then I'd say that it's become the "Commons of the disgustingly engorged plutocrats who have taxpayer-bought pate squirting out of their ears". This is the sort of situation where the word "reform" only works if coupled with "gelignite" because that's what's needed to pry their fingers off the cash box.
In fact, the current reforms don't go anywhere near far enough. If a proper reform is what is truly wanted, then Britain should look to her Victorian forefathers and how they ordered a House of Commons that ran an Empire. How to deal with expense abuses? Abolish them. Not the abuses; the expenses–including salaries. Until the last century, MPs were unpaid and the sort of scandals we see today were pretty rare because the job wasn't very attractive to anyone with an eye for a place at the trough because there wasn't a trough. Just a lunch buffet and you had to buy your own ticket.
Staff scandals monetary & sexual? That's also an easy one to solve. No staff. Each member gets a secretary (appointed by lottery from qualified candidates or paid by the member out of his own pocket) to handle his calendar. You may claim that this will prevent you average MP from getting anything done, but considering what they've been doing for the past twelve years I'd call that a feature instead of a bug.
But how will they live, you ask? Won't it indeed be a "Commons of the rich" because only the rich will have the money to serve? Nonsense. Parliament should go back to being a part time job with business conducted at night between February and mid-August. That will give members ample freedom to conduct their private affairs and earn an honest living. Better yet, take the whole of August off and a long break at Easter. See? I can be nice. If they can't find an honest living, I'm sure the Job Centre will scratch up an opening at McDonalds for them.
Granted, this is the 21st century and MPs do have to move with the times, so members will be able to cut down on their travel cost by equipping their homes in their constituencies with telecommunications suites for routine work and the House reserved for the opening of Parliament and extraordinary debates. Naturally, these teleconferences should stream live on the Web so the voters can see what their MP is actually doing. On second thought, scrap that idea and tell them to just go out and get a Skype account like the rest of us.
And as for those fact-finding trips to get the lowdown about the economic conditions on the beaches of Aruba? Unless you plan to hand out towels to pay for your ticket, I suggest you consider Skegness instead.
6 comments:
There was a reason, and I hope you'll excuse me commenting adversely on your blog, I'm a long time fan. As I was saying, there was a reason, that we started paying MPs at the turn of the century. There was also a reason why we started paying for their living and their second homes, and it wasn't so that the Members of Parliament could line their coffers, as you suggest, but rather to keep it becoming this 'Commons of the Rich.'
Until not too long ago, MPs were all either members of the aristocracy, or affluent and rich members of the upper class. The reason for this (that is after the land-owning provisions of Parliament had been removed) was that MPs were not paid, and so had to have a huge reservoir of family wealth, as they no longer had a source of income. And so the unions and pressure groups campaigned for expenses and salaries to keep the common man in the Commons, and not to bar him from it. To suggest that we should lackadaisically return to this woeful system, apparently in the interest of 'the people' seems somewhat backward, does it not? Why not to make sure we're paying them the right thing? Why not fix a system that until recently functioned efficiently? Why revert to an antiquated system of politics?
(One again, love the blog)
Ely
This is a very good point, Ely and well reasoned, though I would remind you that I am such an appallingly retrograde feudalist that I'm still furious that Queen Victoria gave up her claim to the Aquitaine.
I agree that there is a problem of "Commons of the rich", though I'd far rather have one where they came in wealthy rather than went out that way. I think that an unpaid Parliament would work best provided that it's an part-time, seasonal evening job because it would force members to spend most of their time outside of politics–even the rich ones out of sheer boredom. This would result in a) the collapse of today's corrupt political class and replacement with something more like the old Establishment, which was drawn from many walks of life and b) your average MP would have hardly any time for government beyond national defence, road building, and locking up dangerous criminals and none left over for micromanaging people's lives.
I suppose a compromise might be that if a member is just too dirt poor to serve and won't work to support himself, then his wealthier colleagues should be forced to have a compulsory whip-round on his behalf. After all, that seems to have been the logic of government for the past sixty years. Why not make the Commons the perfect microcosm of that ideal?
While the idea has a certain visceral appeal, what's to prevent the unpaid MP from accepting "gifts" from those who would influence legislation? They've already demonstrated a profound willingness to be corrupted, so we can't rely on their sense of honor to keep them from taking bribes.
Good point, Jason. My solution is that since they cannot receive any remuneration, then "gifts" come under that heading and we'd finally have a use for that prison cell in the clock tower.
Another way would be to go back to electing gentlemen to Parliament to whom dishonour meant a back room, a glass of port, and a loaded revolver.
Hmmm, David, you appear to be mixing three completely different problems you have with the federal government. The first, an end to corruption, I believe to be much more manageable task than you make out; just have salaries, no expenses and find cheap residences where MPs can live free of charge.
The second, the notion of career politicians, is an area I would have to disagree with you on. I think its good if an MP can fully devote his life to politics, otherwise how on earth are they meant to represent us. Today the idea of an actual working man being a politician is ludicrous - that is not to say that one who held a working job cannot become an MP, but rather that no-one can work in a factory in the morning, and quickly commute to Whitehall for some legislating. By having MPs who's sole job is to cater for their electorate we create much more accountable politicians, because they have time to come back to their constituencies and do what we are paying them for, know and represent the need of the people.
The third problem, that of the size of government, is one I would again disagree with you on. Government is a pinnacle of human creation, which brought order to chaos, and why should something that has the unique ability of government, to empower, to help, to defend, to better, sink into the background? Why should the era of big government be over?
<3
Ely
A good rebuttal, Ely. I've already addressed your first two points to which I can only add that the case against them has already been made by the current political class and the thorough trashing they've achieved of Parliament in particular and politics in general.
As to your third point, if you truly believe that government is the pinnacle of human creation, then you've never held a Toledo broadsword in your hand. Nor would I credit government for bringing order. It can certainly assist order, but what truly combats chaos is found in the hearts of men and the grace of God. As to empowering, defending, and the rest, it has been my experience that government has only a very limited part to play in any of those things and when it overreaches itself, it actually disempowers and threatens.
There was a time not so long ago when a British subject could live his entire life and never have any dealings with the government unless he sought out its services, offered it his own, or broke the law. This always struck me as a much more healthy state of affairs. As you may gather from all this, my preferred state of government is when it takes care of only a few very large and necessary things, leaving the rest to individuals, the market, private organizations and the Church, while my idea of accountability is for my MP to be someone I run into down the pub as regularly as I do my mechanic. Being aware that your constituents can punch you in the nose is a great concentrator of thoughts.
Post a Comment