Thomas Bridge: It’s time to aspire to better standards in Public Life

Thomas Bridge was born in England but raised in Ireland.  He currently works in IT in the City of London, and lives in Brentwood with his wife and three month old son.

The country is cynical about politics – many people know they don’t like Labour any more, but they aren’t sure what the Conservatives stand for.     There is a belief that politicians are devoid of principle, and are simply chasing power, with all the trappings and rewards for it.   But it wasn’t always like this.

When Tony Blair and new Labour were elected to government in 1997, they promised an end to "years of Tory sleaze". Indeed, in his conference speech in 1994 he said that new politics ".... means being open. It means telling it like it is."

Recently four Conservative MPs put down written questions to the Deputy Prime Minister asking about his duties, responsibilities, functions and powers over the summer. John Prescott's response was "I refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) at Prime Minister's Questions on 12 July 2006, Official Report, columns 1384-85".

A quick check of the record for that particular session of Prime Minister's Questions shows that the only quote from the Prime Minister on the issue of the Deputy Prime Minister was "I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the arrangements are exactly the same as they have been in previous years."  Obviously embarrassed by the question, and the way it was being pressed by David Cameron, he then went on to a fairly standard speech about how Labour are great and the Conservatives aren't.

This fails to answer any of the questions that were put down by the four MPs.  For example, Eric Pickles, my own local MP, asked what official events he attended between May 26th and June 2nd.  There was no answer or even an attempt to answer this question.  In short, at the same time that it is being reported that a new Government department employing 18 people is being created for him, John Prescott is refusing to account for his actions as Deputy Prime Minister over the summer.

The Ministerial Code states that:

• Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies;
• It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
• Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

None of this is reflected in John Prescott’s answer.    

I’m not going to pretend to be surprised at this – but it does concern me.    It is little examples like this that show the contempt many of the ruling classes in modern politics have for the people they supposedly represent and govern.     John Prescott may feel that the questions came from Conservative MPs looking to stir the pot – but if there wasn’t a pot there in the first place, they’d have to put their spoons away.

New Labour have squandered the political capital they were able to make out of “sleaze”.  Despite promising a new kind of politics, they have failed to do so – preferring frequently to ignore the large elephant in their own room.  Indeed, it is worse – Andrew Grice in the Independent recently wrote:  “John Major may have had some funny friends in Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken but there was not even a whiff of financial sleaze around the former Tory prime minister.” The result: an increasing cynicism amongst the public that all politicians are as bad as each other.   

David Cameron is still driving through a significant policy review – as part of that, it is vital that the party address this issue. The “new politics” is important - to give the public the confidence and the trust that most politicians are in politics for the right reasons.   Otherwise, the long term impact on our democracy could be fatal.

Thomas Bridge: Are MPs paid enough?

Thomas Bridge was born in England but raised in Ireland.  He currently works in IT in the City of London, and lives in Brentwood with his wife and three month old son.

Imagine that you're working for a large UK based organisation and that you’re the regional manager for somewhere outside London.  The organization’s Head Quarters is in London, and you have to spend a lot of time traveling up and down from London to your region.  Although you get expenses, the hours are long, but you find the job rewarding and are generally agreed to be doing a good job by the people in your area.

However, the CEO is taking the organization in a way you disagree with, his deputy has just been revealed as having an affair with his secretary, and senior management are at loggerheads over when the Chief Financial Officer should take over as CEO.  The company’s in paralysis and the shareholders are getting restless. After the CFO finally takes over, he calls an EGM to gain shareholder support.  Instead, the shareholders fire the new CEO, and replace him with a younger candidate from outside the company.  The shareholders also decide that you should go, so you can be replaced by an appointee of the new CEO.

In the business world, you'd have a case for unfair dismissal.  In the world of the Labour MP in the marginal constituency that the Tories are targeting, you're a victim of the democratic process.

And this is something that needs to be considered when discussing MPs salaries.  It's not exactly a stable position for many MPs - unless you're a Tory in Brentwood or Witney, or a Labour MP in Hartlepool or Hull.  General elections are usually about the party you represent rather that the profiles of local candidates.  People going to the polls are as likely to cast their vote based on whether they want your party leader running the country than they are on your own merits. Circumstances beyond your control can result in you becoming unemployed after four years of doing the job, even if it is agreed that you did it very well.

According to the National Statistician the average wage in England last year was in the region of £23,000.  An MP's salary comes in at about £59,000, which is certainly a bit nicer.  This can lead to accusations that it's a cushy well paid job, and that MPs are paid too much.  In reality however, while it makes for easy politician bashing headlines, it's actually not a hugely outrageous sum.

As noted on Conservative Home recently, it has been calculated that candidates may end up paying out as much as much as £41,000 to fight an election, and often candidates have to fight an election in safe seats for other parties before having a crack at the winnable seats.    As you can't write off election expenses against tax, this means if you write off the costs of winning the seat over the first four years you're in parliament, you end up with an effective salary of £42,000 for that term.   And although you can now claim back some expenses that you can't claim as a candidate, you're still expected to put your hand in your pocket for raffles and campaigning expenses if you want to stay on after four years.  That salary isn't looking quite so generous now.

The other issue with comparing MPs salaries to average salaries is this.   Do we really want an average guy in the Commons, or do we want a talented one?  This may seem elitist, but if you’re a shareholder in a company, you want good managers to run your company so that it can maximize the return to you.  Surely the same is true of our country - if we want talented individuals to enter parliament, we have to expect to pay them a reasonable salary.  While money should not be the only motivation to enter parliament, many of our MPs are talented individuals who can (and did) make a good living outside of parliament.  People who are successful outside parliament are exactly the sort of people we need in parliament.  If they come from lower salaried positions in the public sector (such as teaching), then that reflects well on their sense of public service.  In general though, if your MP isn’t worth that money outside parliament, then stop voting for them (this especially applies to people in John Prescott’s constituency).      

Even though their salaries represent an easy target, many MPs do not have inherent job security and their talents would be better rewarded elsewhere.  MPs do have to make huge commitments, both in terms of money and time, before even reaching the green benches and there are no guarantees of making it.  Once there, they are often expected to spend long hours traveling between their constituency and Westminster, with knock on effects on their family life.  Perhaps the question shouldn’t be “Are MPs paid too much?” but “Are they paid enough?”