'I support MPs' 1st class train travel as long as it's at a 1st class price' blog

Gordon_the_Moron

grastgirl wrote: »

Most of what you suggest seems fine Martin, although instead of a second home allowance I would have them in a purpose-built block of apartments, with a reasonable level of furnishing and space (including private kitchen, bathroom and additional room for family). Ideally it would be close enough to parliament to have them walk, but prices/security may preclude this in which case I would go with coaches leaving in time for each session. This way "flipping" would be impossible, and all MPs would be treated the same (barring cabinet members with grace and favour accommodation). A reduction in numbers would make it more economical. I would also hope that the block of apparments would be as "green" as current technology allows.

Terrorist magnet.

Simon_c_2

At last, Someone talking sensibly about expenses !!

I even agree with linking MPs pay to various industry averages, although I don't think a standard back bencher should be on £120k.

The problem with the expenses scandal (in my view) as for the first day or two, each party leader tried to gain some political advantage over the other. By the time they figured out that didn't work, it was too late to have a united front.

If they had at the very begining said something along the lines of it's an outdated system where "allowences" can be spent on anything, and they would reform it fully and that any clear abuses (e.g. claming for non existent mortgages) would be delt with, I think we would have all been better off about it now.

I think that expenses should be as Martin described. Every expenses claim outside a very closely proscribed set of allowances should be published.

Pay should be linked to performance in some way, so for a start, lets have 20% of their salary determined by some key indicators. Maybe cabinet should have a larger %age (of their larger salary) determined by key indicators for their area of responsibility. Growth in the economy for the Chancellor, and some more efficiency based targets for other ministers. (I'm thinking of cost per pulip educated, weighted by their result for education, cos per patent treated, for health etc. We'd have to give it great thought to allow for the law of unintended consequences)

The PM can have half his salary made up by the performance of his ministers. That should provide some incentive to keep good ministers in their jobs for longer instead of promoting them. While we're at it, why not make the ministers permanent secretary's bonus dependant on the same results as the minister.

As for the MP in question, who said "other type of people" he's a fool for not picking his words carefully. And as usual, we don't have enough info from the media to really judge his travel arrangements. Does he travel 1st class even if he's on an almost empty train mid way through the week going to some do or other, or only on the end of week commute back to his constituency ?

The only real way of cleaning the mess up is for full openness & rational debate.
IMO the real villains in this are Michael Martin who tried to cover this up for years, Lord Goldsmith (I think) who introduced the freedom of information act, without a large "heads up" to the PM & MPs about expenses, and the Telegraph for drip feeding this over months instead of publishing everything after the first week. *most* PMs were doing what was right in the environment for their family. Allowances were just that, allowances to be clamed, not a cap on their expenses.

I expect I'll get flamed for some of this

antdon

Bang on....

But I would pay them £120k
and let them make their own living arrangemants.

The simpler the system. The more time they have to to the job we pay them for.

20000RPM

They'd need to be better qualified than they currently are. You say that you want good calibre candidates, and that's why they should be highly paid. Well, GPs and Judges have a fairly high barrier to entry: they have to qualify and then gain experience for a long time before earning that sort of money. Where is the barrier for the MP? At the moment, any chancer with £500 and a persuasive way can become an MP. Should there be criteria that they have to meet before becoming an MP? What would that be? Some sort of work experience?

double0

If you are going to link an MPs salary to that of a similar profession in the private sector, then the working conditions of each much be assessed carefully first. I'm sure no-one in the private sector gets the same amount of holidays that MPs do. And many private sector individuals do not get enough time to have second income streams which so many MPs do seem to have (thanks mostly to their position of being an MP in the first place). I'm sure comparing the annual leave allowance of other professions would have a heavy impact on a suggested MP salary.

With regards to train travel and ability to work in a standard class carriage - many other commuters seem to manage it perfectly fine (and 9 times out of 10 have had to pay for their own ticket). And the MP in question should consider himself lucky that he can work on the train. Many of us 'different class of people' have to stay in the office to finish our work and not just trot off home with our laptop.

Totally agree with having a set residence for each MP which is then handed over to the next MP for that constituency should he/she be voted out. Maybe not all in the same place to avoid the terrorist threat. And no second home allowances for cabinet ministers who are given grace and favour apartments. And food allowance should be scraped. You only need to eat once for each meal in one place! You don't need to claim for a meal just because you were not at your main residence. You don't buy two loaves of bread - one for your main home and one for your second home - you only eat one which you should pay for yourself!!

The_MoneySavingKid

atypical wrote: »

I agreed with the majority of your post until I read this:
"I think it’s time we linked MPs salaries to another relevant profession. They’re paid less than GPs or judges and I think we want a similar caliber of people. One easy route would be to link their salary to district judges which is about £120,000 – nearly double what MPs currently earn."

Firstly, you're making the assumption that money buys competence. I think the bankers proved that concept wrong. Secondly, you seem to have randomly picked GPs and judges as being people of high calibre. Nurses earn ~£25,000; are they of an undesirable calibre?

If MPs were paid £120k they'd be in the top 1% of earners. I think that's an inappropriate place to put people who are meant to be representatives of society. Pay them the average or median salary of professionals.

Bankers are paid by private companies.
GP's and Judges are in the majority of cases, paid by the taxpayer and are a public good who provide a merit good.

mnkyhngr

Martin, you (and others) seem to be confusing MPs and Ministers. What does the back-bench MP with no ministerial ambition actually do? I would suggest:
1. keep his constituency party happy
2. vote the way he is told
3. keep his constituents happy

Sounds more like someone on a help desk than a High Court Judge.

We would all like highly motivated and competent people to be our MPs but where is the guarantee that paying higher salaries will achieve that? There are no professional exams or entry requirements - we would just have the same people we have now.

I often hear "the going rate for the job" - well how about the new MPs pay being linked to their earnings before they became an MP? (and we wouldn't count political roles like Union rep or research assistant).
It seems that some MPs have never had a job outside politics, politics is their career.

CJG1976

1. MP's have the luxury of staff that can book tickets at the cheapest rates possible - Joe Public doesn't have this option.
2. Second home allowances - these should be scrapped, and a clawback should be made on MPs from the past. Given the current the desire for building faceless new apartment blocks, why doesn't the government find a plot of land (and these are more available in London than might be thought), build a complex with 600 or so flats and give each of the elected officials one of them?
3. Exclusion should be made on people with titles or landed estates becoming MPs. The comments you base your blog on, as well as expenses on duck houses and moats spring to mind to justify this.
4. There is no profession or vocation in society which is free from mistakes - you mention GPs and Judges. It is scandalous that GP's are able to earn these amounts in a year (in relation to some surgeons, who only get £65K and are performing vital operations) - where is the motivation for them to stay in the profession after say 15 - 20 years? They are only manipulating a system put in place to try and increase performance, but which still results in members of the public being turned away and unable to register at Doctor's surgeries.
Judges decisions are also open to debate in the national press, so should we say that they are worth this amount?
I would have to say that (for only working about half of a year) a salary of £60,000 is right. Some ministers even return to their old jobs when parliament is in recess (earning even more!)
5. As for amounts wrongly claimed in the past, I do not care if these are repaid - this is still fraud in my eyes. When they sign off on a claim, they are confirming it as true. If someone in the private sector did this, their employer would first off fire them, and then get the police involved. The same should apply here regardless.
6. Finally, as for treating MPs as adults, I believe this is what the electorate do when they vote a candidate into office. We charge them with responsibility. It is only when that responsibility is not met that the public have chosen to ask questions.

Stryder

Some of these comments make sense, and some do not.

As for travel:
I am not convinced it is not beyond the whit of man that MPs should be be given a permanent travel warrant - and the government negotiate a fixed rate for 1st class travel. If the train companies refuse - put it into law! (they are the government).
The MP's should get 1st class as standard and should get a standard return rate no matter when tickets are bought. This is tax payers money after all and it should not be wasted.

Central Staffing
Definately a stupid idea. MP's need to trust their staff , and family members could be key (if they actually work). I would not be happy with political and personal information going though [what is essentially] the civil service. The whole point of MP's is to protect us from the state when need be.

Sadly the article was written from a budgetary standpoint rather than a political one. In the end - we could always vote in honest people we can trust rather then slimeballs in suits

Personally though - if every MP took a couple of thousand in cheeky/fraudulent expenses BUT did a good job AND were otherwise honest, i truely would not care! money well spent. Problem is when the people who do it also sink the ship

voiceofreason

Gordon_the_Moron wrote: »

Terrorist magnet.

Too right.

Lucky they don't all work together in the same big building next to main roads and rivers and plenty of places from which an attack could be launched - then we're really be screwed!

Seriously though - some really good points in the article; sadly, though, they'll be skirted and ignored by sensationalist idiots in the media (the same ones who blew the Winterton comments up into a "story"), and so we may never get anywhere with them.

A shame, that........