Why the MP pay rise "scandal" matters - a lot

I wrote a piece last weekend arguing that MPs should have their pay rise. As a result of this I got a number of invites onto various TV and radio stations to explain my reasoning and argue for something that virtually no MPs (nor very few commentators) were willing to.

As a result of this I have engaged with a number of people and also listened to a fair few members of the public calling these shows to express their opinion. One thing that is abundantly clear is that there is a toxic atmosphere around the issue of MPs' pay. I had a fair bit of reaction to my stance on Twitter as well and the vast majority of it was also hostile. Incidentally the number of people who seemed to assume I had something personal to gain financially from taking the position I have was quite depressing; it seems the idea that someone might just believe something without directly benefitting from it themselves is somewhat outmoded.

The more I have been mulling this over the more concerned I am getting. Ever since the expenses scandal the subject of MPs and money has been a fraught one. But this goes further back. Much further back. The whole reason we had the dysfunctional expenses system which tacitly allowed MPs to claim in a way that substantially augmented their salaries is because Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s turned down a report similar to the IPSA one today on MPs' pay and instead allowed the nod/wink system to flourish. Her reasoning was that the public would not stand for a large one-off pay rise for MPs. It was the wrong time. The idea it would ever be the right time for this is proven by history to be a falsehood.

So MPs' pay has been a difficult issue for a long time. But let's take a step back a minute. MPs are in a very special position. They are elected by close to 100,000 constituents. They are supposed to have gone through a process, both through initial selection and then later election that makes them the choice of those 100,000 people to represent them. They then are supposed to work very hard at representing those people and also holding the government to account (or if in government administering it in the interests of the entire country). It is an incredibly important job and it requires acute judgement and the ability to make very difficult choices well on behalf of constituents and more widely the whole country. They vote on whether we should go to war, how our health service works, how the poorest in society are treated by the state etc. etc. etc.

But if we cannot trust MPs to settle something very simple like their basic pay and working conditions for themselves then it does not take that much of a logical leap to start to question whether they will be able to take these other sorts of decisions well too. The pay issue is gone. That ship has sailed. We definitely do not trust them on it. There is almost unanimity on this, not least from MPs themselves who recognise the political reality. So what about other issues? Why would we trust them on anything else if we essentially think they are a bunch of shysters on the make and out only for themselves?

I should stress that despite the fact that I do think our politics is somewhat broken, I do not think MPs cannot be trusted to decide important issues. But it is clear that the majority of electors do think this if the response to this story in the last week is anything to go by. Indeed the fact the story lasted almost a week (and is still unresolved - incidentally I expect a deal will be stitched up to "reject" the pay rise) shows how strongly people feel about the issue.

I very much fear where this will ultimately lead. It is an obvious next step once MPs cannot be trusted on pay for them not to be trusted on all sorts of other things.

We elect them through the ballot box to represent us. If they mess up we can kick them out a few years later. If we need to strengthen this democratic link through e.g. some sort of parliamentary recall mechanism (and I think we should) then fine. Various other reforms are needed too as I have written about endlessly in the last 5 years. But there needs to come a point where we trust them to get on with it.

This is not all one way traffic. MPs themselves need to earn the trust and after the expenses scandal it is understandable that the public is wary. But if we cannot regain some sort of trust for politicians then our democratic system will eventually break. I cannot predict on what issue(s) it will eventually founder but when it does we will have a constitutional crisis the like of which we have not seen for several hundred years.

The MPs' pay "scandal" of 2013 is a harbinger of much worse things to come if we are not careful.

I have reservations about this bill but we need Lords reform

There is a tendency in politics that once your side has come forth with its proposals, bill or other form of announcement, for activists and certainly parliamentarians to row in behind them. There is also a less edifying tendency to then try and shoot down any opposition to them rather than actually listen to and engage with opponents.

As such, I find myself in a slight quandary as regards the Lords reform bill that is making its way through parliament at the moment.

We desperately need democratic reform of the Lords. For over 100 years parties of all hues have promised it will happen but almost always when it has come to the crunch, vested interests have closed ranks and prevented it. The only exception to this was the abolition of the hereditary peers by Labour which was an improvement but was supposed to be the first stage of a process that then petered out.

It is always easier to argue for the status quo than it is to argue for change. The existing system is there by default. If we are going to go to the trouble of changing it we have to convince a lot of people, all of whom will have different ideas about what a second chamber should be.

So I'll come right out and say it. I do not personally think the Lords bill as it is currently constituted is the best way we could reform the second chamber. I have two issues. Firstly, I think the idea of 15 year terms with members unable to run more than once will reduce democratic accountability. It is the fact that MPs (mostly) know they will be back before the electorate in at most a few years time that keeps them responsive to their views. This will undoubtedly be weaker under the proposed system than it is for the Commons. Secondly I think we should not have dropped our plans to use STV as the system in England, Scotland and Wales.

But I also understand that if my concerns were addressed it would throw up other issues that may weaken the case for reform or otherwise render it more politically difficult to pass. For example if instead of 15 year terms they were 5 year terms then complaints about making it a rival to the Commons would intensify. And if we used STV then there would be a risk that it could shine a very unflattering light on First Past the Post (which although I think would be a good thing, many others would not). Also, with the size of constituencies for the reformed chamber being so large STV could be unworkable. But if we reduced the size too much to make it more workable lots of MPs would get very nervous about more elected representatives with only slightly diluted legitimacy on their patch. Etc. etc. etc.


This is what would happen with any proposed change. That is why we have never had substantial reform in over a century. And why despite these reservations I still very strongly feel that this bill needs to pass. Pretty much any move to a wholly or largely elected second chamber is worthwhile in my view precisely because if we don't bite the bullet now we'll still be arguing about it in 20 years time.

I appreciate that some in my party may not appreciate my candour on this, especially if it comes to a referendum and opponents will happily use arguments I have set out here against change. But I have to call it as I see it. I am uncomfortable with some of the changes here but you can't always get what you want in life.

In the end, we should not make the best the enemy of the "much better than what we currently have".