The Critical Condition basklash to 'The John Lewis List' of last week.

After last week’s revelations about Westminster MP’s housekeeping allowances I have been thinking about the way in which this highlights ongoing conservative thinking in the administration of British democracy. It appears under long-held rules, that MPs are “entitled” to allowances for keeping their second homes since they have to have somewhere to live in their constituencies as well as in London.
The amounts of these allowances have been purposely concealed from the British public in case they caused controversy.
This in itself is wrong, the British public are supposed to vote for and approve the rules in an open system. Not allowing the public to cast their critical eyes over a rule with which MPs could easily have a conflict of interest in considering makes me wonder what other rules MPs have been keeping out of the public sphere to avoid “controversy”. Off with their heads! I say.
Regulations allowing MPs to charge £10,000 to the state for a fitted kitchen have attracted particular scrutiny from the media. And no wonder! This rule is hardly equitable for several reasons.
- An MP serving a 3 to 5 year term and having obtained somewhere to live surely should not need a new kitchen? You would expect MPs to buy or somewhere with an acceptable kitchen which will last them that amount of time.
-State funding of enhancements to MPs private dwellings which increase their value is a morally questionable use of tax-payers money.
- The sum of £10,000 is hardly economical. Many people would have to save for years to afford to spend that amount on a kitchen. As was pointed out on a Channel 4 news discussion of the issues, it is possible to get a new kitchen from IKEA for a few hundred pounds. Property developers regularly invest around £10,000 for full development of a property.
- The people of Britain are employing representatives who do not find it acceptable to have anything less than two houses to commute between in order to serve the great British public and yet apply infinitely more stringent rules to those who run the charities they charge with dispensing public money set aside to tackle poverty and inequality. MPs are farming out their duties towards the disadvantaged people they represent to others and distancing themselves further from the cycle of public funds. They are
I propose some suggestions to make this arrangement more equitable. After all, why should MPs be exempt from the kind of costs that everyone else has to consider as part of regular life in a free market economy?
- If MPs have to keep two properties and split their time between those two properties, surely there is a case for housing MPs in council houses in either London or their own constituency? It might have the added benefit of bringing their focus more sharply onto the issues British people deal with day after day which are continually ignored by Parliament.
- If you add up MPs’ housing and taxi allowances there is more than enough money to build an MPs’ housing annexe in London. There are plenty of sites within commuting distance of Westminster where the government could build some modest blocks of flats. Just think how much money that would save in the long run! They could run a bus from the flats to the Parliament and save them their taxi fares! I’m sure MPs will be delighted to be brought closer to their constituents on public transport. It would be a great environmental policy too, they could cycle to work and tootle off home for lunch, further economising! And MPs from outlying regions wouldn’t be so lonely as all their party members would be nearby.
London is the most expensive place in Britain and one of the most expensive places in the world to live. I think it is just absurd to be subsidising MPs to live in private accommodation in the capital when there are thousands of workers who live in outlying areas and commute to and from the city every day at their own expense because they can’t afford to live more centrally.
Another important point is that MPs are being artificially sheltered from the kinds of financial burdens that everyone they represent is exposed to over their lifetime. Serving as an MP is a job like any other and the burgeoning costs of everyday living are something that our political system is perpetuating. Many of the economic problems which lie ahead for Britain stem from spiralling housing, fuel and transport costs. The brain drain, the talent exodus and economic migration are pointing to a bleak future for many sectors. It also brings the bread line down to a level which our government fails to recognise. Perhaps expecting MPs to finance two households and pay for their own travel arrangements is an unacceptable ask, but when you consider the number of young people who cannot afford to buy properties at all and who have to commute whatever distance necessary to reach their workplace out of their own pocket, with rising petrol prices, congested roads, expensive train fares and dreadful public transport provision its really not that out of the ordinary to be seriously inconvenienced and hideously overcharged for the privilege of getting to work.
When I started University, one of the classes in my first year was extended by a weekly off-campus web-link lecture to a college many miles away. I myself lived an hour and a half bus journey from both the University campus and the college. In order to get the benefit of the lectures I was expected to travel to one or the other venue. The web–link live broadcast lectures meant that two groups of people could get the benefit of one lecture in one location. The costs to the University of paying the lecturer twice, plus the travel to and from the college were saved by this initiative. The students at the other end could ask questions via the link. Now that technology allows us to interact and hold meetings and conferences with people wherever they are, shouldn’t our government be taking advantage of this to save valuable resources? An electronic Parliament would be a world-leading initiative of the kind that Britain should be undertaking. It would also provide jobs, experience and opportunities to a growing technological sector. The question for me is can our old-fashioned and expensive government manage the successful and economical procurement and tendering process required for the infrastructure of an electronic parliament when they think that £10,000 is a good price for a new kitchen?