PM Direct

The Parliamentary expenses scandal proves one thing with crystal clarity: you can never ever trust your rulers.

True, selling your immortal soul for a KitKat - or even a dry rot treatment - is not altogether in the same financial league as Mobotu�s Swiss bank accounts. But the moral principle is the same: these characters deliberately deceived us in order to line their own pockets from the public purse.

Why did they not level with us about their allowances system? Why did they not tell us it was �20 grand pa tax free for virtually anything they fancied? You know why. They all kept schtum for the simple reason that they knew we�d object. Instead of being open and honest, instead of explaining why they thought the allowances were justified, far easier simply to help themselves.

Of course, there are plenty of people out here who would do exactly the same, given half a chance. But you see, they're not ruling over us.

So given that these rascals are no better than the rest of us, WTF do we permit them so much power over our lives?

I mean, everybody knows that Big Government is rubbish at implementation: wasteful, inefficient, counterproductive� even hardcore socialists now concede that (which is why Labour �thinkers� like the ippr thrash about devising tortuous and unworkable arrangements to split �policy-making� from implementation - see many previous posts).

And as the expenses scandal has now underlined, those supposedly representing us at the controls of Big Government do no such thing. True, once every 4 or 5 years they do give us a Tweedledum and Tweedledee first-past-the-post election. But those elections can be won decisively with as little as 35% of the vote, and for the rest of the time they behave pretty well as they want. And all too often, that�s a million miles away what we might want.

Take Gordo's performance on his tour of studios and sofas this morning.

Right now, it couldn�t be clearer what we want - we want him to eff off before he does any more damage. But as he told us, he has decided that an election is not in the national interest. That famous �moral compass� of his is apparently in such fine fettle, and so vastly superior to anything we, the ignorant masses possess, that his duty - yes, his DUTY - is to fight on. He must save the nation from itself, and there's nothing whatsoever we can do to stop him.

True, this arrogant repulsive buffoon is taking the Labour party over a precipice. And true, a smashed Labour party will put the Tories in power for a generation. And true, the Major and I feel much better about that prospect than we have done at any stage over the last 12 years. So some good will come of it.

But never mind that. This simply ain�t no way to run a whelk stall, let alone Britain.

We have somehow got saddled with a system that gives us an elected dictator � well, unelected in the case of Gordo � who never enjoys majority support (see this post). Yet once in power, he gets complete control over a supine lobby-fodder legislature, he disposes 40-50% of our national income, he can take us to war on a pack of lies, he can force us to accept substandard public services, and he can stick his nose into every aspect of our lives.

Why? Why in the name of sanity do we put up with it?

The good news is that more and more of us understand not just the need for change, but also the nature of that change. We need to dismantle Big Government. Decentralise, downsize, privatise, etc etc (see almost all previous posts, and of course, The Plan). That would soon cut the power of these people back down to size.

Good as far as it goes. But now we can see it isn't enough: Parliament itself needs a radical overhaul so we can make the rascals at least a bit more accountable to us for the stuff that has to remain in their hands.

As we've blogged before, we reckon the time has come to split the executive from the legislature (and see this article by David Green). Because we surely can never hope to have a legislature that holds the executive to account while the executive commands an automatic majority in the legislature itself. And we can never hope to have more independently-minded MPs while for the most part they owe their prospects and their very election to the party leader.

We should have a directly elected PM, just like many of us already have a directly elected Mayor. And we could use the same single transferable vote system we already have for electing London's Mayor. There should also be a strict two-term limit, like they have in the US and France.

We would elect our local MP separately, possibly using a single transferable vote, or possibly even on the same first-past-the-post system we have now. Only, after the reform, we'd be focusing much more on the individual we are electing, rather than his/her party. The outcome of the local constituency election would not determine who is PM because we'd have already chosen our PM directly.

Oh, and there'd be far fewer MPs, all of whom would be subject to recall.

As for the Lords... can anyone think of a good reason to keep it at all? If it didn't exist, you'd never invent it, and with the planned separation of executive and legislature, what possible purpose would be served by having two lots of legislators?

Yes, it's all becoming so very clear.

There�s just one small problem: how do we get our rulers to vote for any of it?

As far as I can recollect, no Prime Minister has ever been up for relinquishing power. No Parliament has ever forced the issue. No major party has ever offered bankable pledges on the subject.

Hmm.

Bring me my torch of burning tar,

Bring me my pitchfork of minority parties.

PS No posts since Friday because our BT phone line went down. According to the engineer who finally pitched up, we'd "got lost". We certainly did - living in an area with zero mobile phone reception means that, without a landline, you simply drop off the edge of the known universe. Scary.

Dictatorship By The Minority

I'm sure you will already know this, but further to recent posts, and just for my own interest, I've looked out the voting figures for general elections since WW2.

The blunt truth is that no post-War government has ever had majority support.

Not the famous 1945 landslide Labour government.

Not Thatcher at the height of her power.

Not A-New-Day-Has-Dawned-Has-It-Not Bliar.

Not a single one.

And yet we have somehow conferred on all of them the powers of that famous elected dictatorship - even the current shower, who have less popular support than any of their predecessors.

Why?

The Direction Is Clear

The light that lightens

In these dark hours of our national crisis, Mr Cam steps forward with his programme for political reform:

"I believe the central objective of the new politics we need should be a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power. From the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities.

From the EU to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy.

Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability we must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street."

Tyler is cheering. Quite loudly.

It is a light to lighten the darkness.

It is a clear statement of guiding principle, that says we the people must be in charge of our lives, not the political class.

It is exactly what Tyler, the Major, and a thousand Surrey housewives have been crying out for.

So lets draw up an armchair and see precisely what he's proposing...

Hmm...

Ah...

I see...

Well, it seems there are a couple of details still to sort out.

Like, how specifically is Mr C going to downsize government? He mentions some of things we've praised before, like school vouchers and elected sheriffs, and that's good. But he says nothing about some of the even thornier issues that would make a real difference in weakening the grip of the state.

For example, there's nothing on fiscal decentralisation - ie re-energising local government by making councils responsible for raising the bulk of their own money themselves, through local taxes on local electors.

And there's nothing about breaking up the massive top-down quangocracy that is the NHS. Where's that bold initiative on social health insurance, the system that removes funding power from the hands of ministers?

In fact, come to think of it, he says pretty well nothing about the driving principle of all modern power relationships, which as BOM readers will know, is follow the money. Reform without sorting the money is no reform at all.

And how specifically is he going to make our MPs more accountable to their constituents rather than their party masters? Open primaries we already know about, and have praised, but what about giving disgruntled electors the power to recall a backsliding MP (check out the new campaign on this - 38 Degrees - here)? He doesn't mention that.

And what about splitting the election of the executive from that of the legislature? That would significantly weaken the hold of the government over MPs, and allow us to choose both the PM we want to govern our country, and a local MP to represent us in Parliament. No mention of that either.

Fixed term Parliaments? Well, yes, maybe. But is that actually at the heart of the debate about government accountability? How would that help with our current problems, including the fact that we've got a wildly unpopular, useless, and unelected PM? Under a fixed term, we'd still be stuck with him until next May.

Surely, much more important than fixed term Parliaments is that Big Lumbering Elephant known as PR. In fairness, Cam does mention it, but only to brush it aside with the traditional Tory line:

"Proportional representation takes power away from the man and woman in the street and hands it to the political elites. Instead of voters choosing their government on the basis of the manifestos put before them in an election, party managers would choose a government on the basis of secret backroom deals."

Now, to be frank, Tyler is still in hum and haw mode on PR - exactly where he's been for the last 40 years.

Fundamentally, there's something very wrong with an electoral system where as little as one-third of the voters can elect a dictator (in 2005, Labour got a 66 seat Commons majority on just 36% of the popular vote - which is worse than 1932 in Germany, where the Nazis got 37% of the vote but less than one-third of the seats).

On the other hand, PR puts a wholly disproportionate degree of power into the hands of the smaller parties (which of course, is why the LibDems always want it). And arguably, it also makes for weak unstable government, as Italian-style coalitions disintegrate under the pressure of events (although that doesn't seem to happen in Germany).

But however we run the argument, PR is just about the biggest and most obvious change we could make to our electoral arrangements (didn't you just love Rockin' Al's sly self-serving intervention on this yesterday?). And at a time when we all agree there's something putrid about the way we're currently represented and governed, we surely need to do more than brush PR aside by regurgitating some stale old lines from 1998.

Many of Mr C's other suggestions are utterly sensible, encompassing loads of BOM's old favourites: much more transparency, including easy online access to itemised spending accounts, both for MPs and much more importantly, public sector bodies (and we love Cam's reference to an "army of armchair auditors" combing through the nitty-gritties - we're ordering our new armchair right now); a war on quangos; an end - nay, a reversal - of the great Brussels power-grab.

So overall we give him 6/10.

A very promising effort, but some serious further study still required.

Now Is The Time

Concerned about the Major

Hot on the heels of yesterday's outburst, the Major was round again this am. And just like yesterday, he was carrying a newspaper.

But today he was very different. No more frothing and wild rolling eyes: today, he was smiling in that stained clarety way of his. But I also recognised a steely glint in his eye - the self-same glint I'd seen when he expedited our neighbourhood heron for crimes against goldfish. Here was a man set for action this day.

"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party," he announced. "Now. Today. No time to lose."

Marching passed me, he opened the Telegraph on the kitchen table. "Have you seen this?" He stabbed at an article written by David Cameron. "David wants me to stand as a Conservative MP."

"David?" I've heard the Major refer to young Cameron by many names, but never before David. I craned over to read. "Are you sure?"

"Oh yes - quite sure. He says... ahh... yes, here... 'it's not enough to just change the processes in Parliament, and when it comes to the people who actually become members of that Parliament this is also an opportunity to widen the net, increase the talent pool and attract people who have never previously thought of serving. How do we do that? We need to get the public more involved in decisions that political parties have, until now, had a monopoly on... That is why I'm going to reopen the candidates list and invite new people to come forward."

The Major was positively beaming. "New people... if that's not a direct summons to me, I don't know what is."

"Well, now, look Major... you may be right of course, but just think for a moment. Think. The very first thing they're going to ask is how old are you?"

"How old? I'm 62... 62 years young, and loaded with experience of life. Real Life... including all those years I spent fighting for Queen and Country against the Dervishes."

"So that's three years off being an OAP. Sex?"

"Well, perhaps not right now, sailor - B'Boommm!"

"So not only are you the wrong sex, but you treat gender balance issues as a subject for Bernard Manning style jokes. Ethnicity?"

"British! British and still proud of it."

"White British... not a plus, Major. Not a plus."

"Look, never mind all that. You seem to be forgetting something - I've been a member of the Conservative Association for my entire life! I even enter the raffle. You can't buy that kind of loyalty. Of course they'll put me on the list - they'll welcome me with open arms."

But by now I'd scanned Cam's article. "I think you should re-read this, Major. Lifelong Tories are the very last people Cameron wants to apply. What he actually says is 'They don't necessarily need to have been involved in the Conservative Party in the past � more important than that is a belief in public service, and a desire to clean up our political system.' I'm sure you don't need me to translate."

The Major clenched his jaw, the tell-tale vein on the side of forehead giving an involuntary twitch. "The trouble with you," he growled, "the trouble with you is that you're too damned cynical. But even if you're right, do you really think that will stop us?

Some day - and that day is not far off - I believe this nation will rise again. I believe we brothers and sisters will take arms against a sea of corruption. And I believe... uhh... something else to complete the rule of three."

It may be a work in progress, but frankly, we're concerned.

****

Interested?

"If you are interested in becoming a Conservative candidate and believe you would make a good Member of Parliament, please write to Gareth Fox at Conservative Campaign Headquarters (30 Millbank, London, SW1P 4DP) setting out why you would like to be a candidate, and enclose a copy of your CV. Please set out any work you have done in your local community, and achievements in your work or your personal life which you think would make you an effective MP."

Contempt For Democracy

We hate Prince George

"Call the dogs off? What a joke!"

The Major smacked down his tightly-rolled copy of the Times on Tyler's kitchen table. But for the fact that he already got there some time ago, it sounded like he was being driven to drink.

"It's precisely because of people like the Chief Druid that we've got into this situation in the first place! Listen, the reason we have such contempt for our MPs is not because we're paying for their duck fetishes and porno films - we expect that. No - it's because they have such contempt for us! They don't give a stuff what we want! Never have!"

Take crime. That appalling case of those poor kiddies in Hackney. One child tortured to death, and the rape of a two-year old - a two year old! Unbelievable! Yet, when it comes to punishing the scum that did it, all they get is a few years in some cushty PFI holiday camp.

Out here, most of us want to string 'em up. In fact, we never wanted to abolish the drop in the first place. It was our MPs that did that - against our wishes! And look at the murder rate now - three times what it was back in the 50s!

Take what happened to the Listeners' Law - that dreadful twok Pound pushing his way onto the wireless, faithfully promising that he'd table in Parliament whatever law the listeners vote for. But as soon as they vote for the Tony Martin shoot-burglars law - well, bugger me - he vetoes it, literally calling the listeners a bunch of bastards. How dare he treat us with such contempt!?!! Who does he think he is!!

No, if anyone has brought democracy into contempt, it's not the Telegraph, or the Barclays, or that woman on Question Time - it's our MPs, and the rest of the ruling elite, including the Druid.

We need to change things all right! We need to make our MPs accountable to us, not their party leaders. And if that means electing Esther whatshername... hmm... well, maybe not her... and certainly not that sanctimonious white suit man. But somebody like our Club Secretary - very good man - he wouldn't forget us once up there.

Did you mention a drink?"

****

The yawning void (do they yawn?) between us and our ruling elite has been blown wide open. So you'd kinda think they'd have gleaned we aren't hailing them, but hating them.

But as we discovered with the unappealing Andrew MacKay, it doesn't work like that. Even in current circs, they have huge difficulties even understanding us (can he really have thought his meeting with constituents had gone well?).

We are all crying out for an immediate election to secure some proper representation. But the elite haven't quite picked up the message.

His Grace tells us to stop now, because further humiliation risks undermining the very foundations of democracy. Labour man Matthew Taylor tells us it would be dangerous to have an election because we've already got the most motivated possible set of MPs to sort out the mess. Labour ministers (various) tell us we can't have an election because it will distract Gordo's attention from the quite superb job he's doing managing of our economy.

We clearly want, and need, an election soonest to eliminate the worst of the sleazebags - without that, nobody has any moral authority to change anything.

But we also need be a lot clearer about why we actually need MPs.

At present, they are a malfunctioning electoral college whose purpose is to select a Prime Minister. But in Tyler's New World Order (TNWO), we would be electing the PM/President directly, for fixed terms - just like the Yanks and the French. So what then for our MPs?

We'd surely want them to be more than ministers in waiting, focused mainly on plotting their way up the greasy pole. And we'd surely want them to be more than social workers, sorting out housing benefit claims - particularly since in TNWO we'll have decentralised responsibility for welfare and many other public services back down to the local level.

Elected talking heads for Newsnight? Nah - we've already got more than enough of them.

So what then? Why do we need MPs?

Holding government to account - yes, that's it. We need them on select committees grilling ministers on the detail of policy. Yes, for sure.

And scrutinising key legislation. Certainly.

And Tyler would really like to see them reassert their traditional role in controlling government spending - and taxes. When did we last have a serious Parliamentary debate on the government's plans to spend our money? When did Parliament last say No - you can't have that much - you'll have to make do with less?

But our whipped lobby-fodder party hacks are never going to do any of that.

No, to get anywhere along that road, we will need MPs who are much more independent, and much more independently minded. Independent at Westminster.

So how do we manage that?

First, primary elections to loosen the hold of parties and strengthen the hold of local constituents.

Second, many fewer MPs - say 450 - but better paid relative to ministers (obviously the Allowance/hidden salary system goes completely).

Third, no doubling up as minister and MP - if you want to serve as a government minster, you have to resign as an MP. To get more independent MPs we need to split the executive from the legislature - just like in the US.

And fourth... I'm sure there's a fourth, but I've just run out of time on this post.

TBC...

PS There's a lot of hysterical talk about how all this MP-slagging will end with the ignorant masses electing Adolf Hitler. So the responsible classes must close down further discussion asap. But even we ignorant masses can understand the distinction between our self-serving sleazy MPs and democracy itself. It's only the former we hold in contempt: the latter is what we need to rescue from their clutches.

How Much Should They Get?

You'd be a fool not to take it

The MPs' story seems to go something like this:

"We have claimed this money in good faith, fully in accordance with the rules, and all our claims have been thoroughly checked by that bloke in black tights.

As for our �24 grand pa tax-free second homes allowance (equals �40 grand pa grossed up for tax), that is absolutely essential if we are to discharge our duties both at Westminster and in our constituencies. Anyway, even if we do routinely rip the arse out of it, that's down to Michael Foot, because back in the 70s he set up the allowances specifically to get round his government's ridiculous incomes policy. In reality, it's always been part of our pay, and it's no more than we're due.

I tell you in all candour, we are grossly underpaid for what we do, and if it wasn't for our unimpeachable sense of public duty, we could all earn A SHEDLOAD MORE in the outside world."

So what they're saying is that the published MPs' salary of �64,766 pa is only there to fool the public. Their real salary includes their allowances.

As we blogged here, a salary of �65 grand puts you comfortably in the top 10% of earners. If we add on the grossed up second homes allowance, we get to annual pay of �105 grand pa. That puts you in the top 2% (HMRC tax stats). And that's without taking any account of the platinum-plated pension, and all those other allowances MPs get (such as the �100 grand pa staffing allowance that can be used to employ family members).

So how much should they get?

As always, we must start from the market.

Key Market Test - are MPs' present pay levels high enough to attract staff?

Answer - present pay levels are plenty high enough. Unlike the position with say, state school headteachers, there is absolutely no shortage of recruits. Indeed, there's a queue of keen qualified applicants stretching several times round the Westminster block.

Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence of MPs leaving because they are attracted by higher pay elsewhere. Plenty of state school headteachers become MPs (eg John MacFall), but Tyler can't think of a single one who has made the journey in the opposite direction.

As the Senior Salaries Review Body puts it in their most recent - and weighty - report on Parliamentary pay (2007):

"...there is little or no difficulty in recruiting sufficient suitable candidates to stand for election. There does not appear to be a problem of retention. We heard no evidence to suggest that MPs are leaving the Commons because of inadequate pay."

So they are certainly not being underpaid.

The question is rather, are they being overpaid? Since there is absolutely no shortage of suitable recruits, it seems quite likely that they are.

Unfortunately, the proposition has not been tested. Far from pushing down MPs pay, successive governments have moved them smartly ahead. The SSRB has this handy chart (they picked 1990 as the base because that's the first year of the ONS Average Earnings Index, which is now a key benchmark for all salary awards):

They also surveyed MPs' salaries in other major economies, and found that our MPs are positioned in the middle of the pack, almost exactly in line with their French and German counterparts (comparisons on Purchasing Power Parity basis). But their figures take no account of allowances or pensions.

Many MPs say that their real "comparators" are not legislators overseas, still less the great unwashed here at home. Rather they should be compared to high private sector earners like lawyers and bankers, who until recently have enjoyed vastly booming salaries.

Sadly for MPs, the SSRB knocked that one firmly on the bonce:

"...while we take note of the growing discrepancy between MPs� pay and private sector salaries, we believe MPs are quintessentially public sector workers... the relatively lower salaries at higher levels in the public sector do not on the whole appear to affect adversely recruitment, retention and motivation. We see plenty of evidence of a �public service ethos�. Many of those who work in the public sector, especially at more senior levels, appreciate the social value of what they do [no, really - that's what it says down here]."

So the SSRB specifically rejected the contention of many MPs that they should be benchmarked against private sector comparators. Benchmarking will continue to be against the public sector.

But the question is which grade?

Back in Tyler's time as a civil servant, MPs pay was broadly linked to the civil service grade of Senior Principal. That's roughly equivalent in today's civil service to Grade 6, which now pays �52,265- �72,636, putting today's �65 grand pa MPs comfortably above the mid-point.

But more recently, the SSRB has been persuaded that a more appropriate match is Senior Civil Service Pay Band 1, which runs from �57,300 to �116,000. With the suggestion that MPs are somewhat behind.

But even if you accept the SSRB's new benchmark, once you factor in the MPs' second homes allowance - excluded from the SSRB comparisons - they're doing very nicely thank you. �64,766 basic plus �40 grand grossed up homes allowance, and we're on �105 grand pa (yes, yes, OK, they have to live somewhere while in the Smoke, but there's clearly been huge abuse of this allowance).

Then add in the platinum-plated pension - worth 22% of salary according to the SSRB - and altogether we're looking at a seriously cushtie set-up (even without considering the staffing and other allowances).

Conclusions?

First, the market says our MPs are most definitely not underpaid.

Second, we need pay transparency - it's pointless focusing on their declared salary when most of them draw a further �40 grand under the counter. According to the SSRB, two-thirds of them draw at least 80% of the second homes allowance (the Additional Costs Allowance). And half of them draw at least 90%.

Third, according to the SSRB, their current basic salary is more or less where it should be. So let's abolish the second homes allowance, purchase some of the many unsold flats kicking around central London and offer MPs far from their constituencies the use of these flats free.

Fourth, abolish the final salary pension scheme, and move MPs onto a much cheaper money purchase arrangement - just like the private sector.

PS The good coming out of this scandal far outweighs the bad. We are seeing just what frightful money grubbing people most of these MPs are. Why, they're no better than the rest of us... so WTF should they presume to tell us how to run our lives?

How Say You?

Why are you still here?

Amid the latest jaw-dropping revelations of personal dishonesty and sleaze among our rulers, the line being pedalled on the BBC is that there is nothing here requiring resignation. Apparently, the worst these low-lifes have to fear is a bit of verbal in the Court of Public Opinion.

Well, just for the record, the jury round our way - which long ago returned a guilty verdict - has just upped its sentencing recommendation. Instead of mere flaying alive, the jury is now recommending full adoption of the Westminster reform proposals set out in Carswell and Hannan's excellent book The Plan:

• Abolition of all Parliamentary allowances - only a constituency office and travel to Westminster (both openly and fully documented) to be permitted expenses (Tyler adds that the expensed travel should be second class)
• No state funding for political parties - including an end to the egregious Communications Allowance
• Many fewer MPs - if we had the same number of MPs per head as the US, we'd need less than 100

Wonder why Mr Cam is so quiet?