MPs' expenses: things for policywonk to say if she gets the chance

I was responding to MollieO's comment re: written constitution going toward an elected judiciary, citing the US example. I don't think it's comparable as the US does have elected judiciary, but at Supreme Court level (and Superior Court level at State level) it's on an appointed system. But do agree with her observation of the 2nd Amendment being hijacked by the NRA.

But if you look at written constitutions, they have been post revolution (US, France, South Africa) so I'm not sure that a written constitution would have the same impact in the UK.

An unwritten constitution obviously provides flexibility, although the rights are not entrenched. Does it matter?

The key point though is the judiciary, who in my opinion, are impartial and independent. The only scandal I can recall in recent memory was when Lord Hoffman didn't declare his association with Amnesty during the Pinochet trial.

I can't see how a written constitution would have been of any benefit these past few weeks re: MPs expenses. If anything, it shows how the current system does work as it was based on going through the process.

I think second jobs should be banned btw. An MP should be a full-time job and salaried accordingly.

sorry, I was not saying that teh current pension entitlement is uncertain, I was saying that if the pension pot were reduced as BigGitDad suggests then it would be uncertain.

If, by being elected, you lose the final years of your secure final salary scheme then yes, I think you should be compensated for that.

And all the people saying "There woudl be loads of candidates who would do it for national average wage" - really? Would you? Why aren't you standing then, if the job is so alluring?

I don't think there is such a glut of superb candidates out there - particularly not superb female candidates of moderate wealth with kids.

Lots of people who have to work away from home have accommodation provided with the job. No-one's suggested they should be stuck in studio flats.

And the 'no-one will want to do the job unless we pay them £££££££' has been used by MPs (especially the Tories) as a barrier to reform for donkeys years. All that 'we need to sit all night and make it impossible for anyone who has children to look after so we can keep our lucrative second jobs'. Doesn't wash with an electorate that earns, on average, £25k.

And the pension pot isn't uncertain - as we've established, it's very generous. So they might lose their job at an election - big deal, many of us get made redundant more than once in five years. Without such a whacking pay-off!

Maybe bringing MPs into line with the electorate would encourage MORE ordinary people to stand.

Agree with you about more women, though, it's shocking that only 15% of MPs are female. At that rate, each woman MP is essentially a token.

PS, PW please tell me these are your super trousers? www.marksandspencer.com/gp/product/B001NNE2XY/sr=1-3/qid=1242978386/ref=sr_1_3/278-8133086-0338613?i e=UTF8&node=&m=A2BO0OYVBKIQJM&keywords=&mnSBrand=core&size=60&rh=n%3A43097030&page=1

the problem with all these slightly punitive ideas (less money, little pension, halls of residence) is that it will disadvantage exactly the kind of candidate you want.

In my opinion, what makes a bad MP?
People of independent wealth, by and large, who have little or no appreciation of what it's like to live on a salary and rely on a pension.
People who are career politicians and spend their lives in Westminster.
People who use their position to further outside business interests and sit on multiple boards of directors etc.
People in it mainly for the power trip.

What does the HoC need in my opinion?
More people of moderate/ordinary wealth
More women and people with families
More former professionals with experience of living and working in the world before they entered Westminster
More people in it for altruistic reasons, not for the influence they can wield.

IMO, many of these very punitive changes would put off the type of people who SHOULD be entering politics, and leave the field clear for the type of people who SHOULDN'T. If you are a working professional, perhaps a head teacher or a family lawyer, with a family and a mortgage, you are simply not going to enter politics if it requires you to take a pay cut, give up your job (and the best earning years of your pension) in return for an uncertain pension pot, commute miles and miles at your own expense, and live in a tiny flat in Westminster away from your family.

I am not saying the current system is right, but punishing MPs too hard will only mean that only those of independent wealth, who don't need a realistic salary or a pension, will be able to enter which would be much worse for British politics than a few people claiming dubious coffee tables and bath plugs.

policywork - coudl you please identify which of these trousers are the super duper linen ones?

oh and BTW i agree with parliamentary hotel idea. maybe they could find an old RBS building and convert it. since we already own 70% of it anyway

The thing that's annoyed me about this is not so much the claims themselves, but the fact that, as "expenses", this money comes tax-free. the system must be radically overhauled.

I think MPs should get subsidised travel or some kind of hall of residence accommodation. Travel should not be fully paid - perhaps then they won't let the train companies put fares up so often. and that's it. they can pay for their own lunches, just like the rest of us. and furniture, cleaning etc will be provided in their residences.

having said that, I think perhaps they should possibly do less constituency work (that being the justification for the two homes thing). maybe local councillors could do that, and give regular reports to the MP - it's silly to have them running up and down the country in order to act as "glorified social workers" as some do.

as for the salaries...I think civil servants' salaries are irrelevant. I'm tempted to say MPs should earn the national median wage (25k or thereabouts), so they know how their constituents live. but I guess we should put them in the top 10% of wage earners - which would be 40k (not the 60-odd they get). the argument that "quality candidates" wouldn't do it for that much is, frankly, insulting to 90% of the population (many of them of very high quality themselves).

Employees in the NHS get a final salary pension It is an 80th scheme meaning they get 1/80th of their final salary for each year they work. So if you work for 40 yrs you get half your salary 40/80th.
I believe and I stand to be corrected that MP's have a 30th pension scheme. For each year they work they get 1/30th of their final salary.
I agree that not many MP's work there for that long but that pension is a pretty good one. bear in mind most MP's have second jobs (so I am led to believe) and so probably additional pension provision.
Given how the govt have screwed pensions in this country I do believe they should not be allowed a final salary scheme and should have a money purchase scheme like most of us have in the private sector and so if the economy nose dives so will their pensions just like the rest of us.

lol - you could be right Effie!

All humanity is in Yes PM so it would not be surprising if they came up with this first.

TYV: wasn't pegging MP's salaries to those of civil servants an episode of Yes PM?

TYV, o yes they do. I think £40,000 resettlement package. I may be wrong and I dont have time to double check right now. But I know they def get a financial package if they loose their seat at GE. Rubbish isnt it. That is just saying, dont worry if you are crap at your job and your constituents hate you so voted you out, here a few sacks of cash for your trouble.
It is something to do with helping them to restart in a career away from politics!!!!
I wonder if they will pay me to restart my nursing career when I go back after my children go to school. I dont think so, do you?

[starts scanning NHS job vacancies...]

Why does a written constitution mean elected judiciary? The Supreme Court Justices in the USA are appointed.

but edam - that's equally true (if not more so) of MPs. They are up for re-election every 4 years and can be dumped by their constituents or parties at any point.

I would be very surprised if a higher proportion of MPs survived 20 years than did NHS employees.

Also - not sure about this so would be interested if anyone knows - I presume they don't get any kind of redundancy package if they are not re-elected?

I know plenty of people who have worked in the the NHS all their lives and now manage wards etc. If you work there for most of your working life you will get half your salary as your pension when you retire...

If you have been a senior person in the NHS for 20 years, bloody well done on surviving that long and avoiding being dumped when your organisation is merged, absorbed and merged again and the politicians need a scalp to claim... (although the ones who are up to no good do remarkably well).