What counts as "attendance" and other thoughts on MP expenses

The Daily Mash has probably got the best summary of Gordon Brown's proposals that MPs should get an attendance allowance instead of a second home allowance:

"Mr Brown has proposed abolishing the controversial £24,000 a year second home allowance and replacing it with a £25,000 a year dragging-your-fat-arse-into-work allowance."

Although what counts as "dragging-your-fat-arse-into-work" if you are an MP? Will there be any requirement to attend the chamber of the House itself or take part in a committee meeting or will it be the clocking on and buggering off routine which is apparently prevalent in the European Parliament (the fact that Brown is considering adopting a system which is being so roundly abused in the European Parliament should be a clue that it is utterly rubbish)? 

On the other hand, in an era when people are able and are encouraged to work remotely rather than commute unnecessiarly, should we really be encouraging MPs to travel to Westminster when they don't need to be there.  There is also the danger that they will want to be seen to be "active" on days when they are claiming their allowance and appear in the chamber simply for that reason, rather than because they have something useful to contribute. 

I have a simple but radical solution: give all MPs a budget roughly similar to the aggregate value of their salary, allowances and staff budgets, then let them decide exactly how they wish to apply them.  If they want the money for themselves (as salary) then it will be taxed as income and if it is spent on staff or legitimate office expenses (including travel) then not.  It would then be simple for voters to compare what each MP decides to keep for him or herself and what is spent elsewhere.  

This would do something to deal with issues of what pay rates are needed to attract the right people (and just because there is a long queue of people wanting to become MPs, doesn't mean that they are the best people for the job, or that the "right" people will be happy to take a pay cut). 

More importantly, it would encourage MPs to look for savings wherever they can in how their offices are run as all savings could be put towards other Parliamentary activities - or even their own salary - which is the same position as any business owner is in when savings are made.

Having previously thought it was fair enough for MPs to employ husbands, wives and children, clearly the behaviour of a few has made this untenable and must be stopped. 

Fred Goodwin - what really happened*

*OK, so this account is entirely based on how I imagined it whilst sitting on the tube this morning having read the papers.

Gordon Brown: Myners, first of all we need to sack the senior RBS management, starting with Fred Goodwin.

Paul Myners: OK Gordon, but you do realise that they are on rich contracts and we'll have to give them a wacking great pay off.

GB: We can't do that - there will be an outcry. You'll have to think of a way around it.

PM: What if we offer him something else such a boost to his pension which noone will pick up on until the dust has settled.

GB: I don't want to know - just sort it out.

PM: Yes, Prime Minister.

------

So there you have it. Proof, if any were needed why the government should not be involved in running businesses, particularly banks. They are bound to take rubbish decisions for political reasons and then we can all sit back whilst some lackey acting on orders from above takes the political fall out.

Paul Myers joined the government as a GOAT ("Government of All the Talents"). Turns out he's a scapeGOAT.

Non-doms: Gordo's got it wrong

I have been wrestling with the issue of the much trailed non-dom levy. On the one hand I am all in favour of people paying their fair share of tax, but on the other I am dismayed that it is being done in such a cack handed manner which is likely to damage the economy. Whilst I have little sympathy with US businessmen who are to be taxed on their worldwide income or pay £30k since a UK citizen working in the US would not even get the benefit of that option, I can see that the arbitrary change is a bit tough on people who have managed their affairs in the expectation that the tax system would remain stable.

However, rather than imposing the flat, reggressive £30k levy, there are a couple of sensible reforms that the Chancellor could make in a few weeks which would not be such an obvious cause celebre amongst the ex pat business community.

1. Change the rules so that any income derived from employment based in or mainly undertaken in the UK is subject to UK taxation, regardless of where the payment for that employment is made. Currently, non-dom workers can be paid through off-shore companies for work done in the UK. This would be similar to the crackdown on consultancy companies, which were used as tax efficient vehicles.
2. Levy a small percentage of the value of any real property held by an offshore company. Lots of properties (including the entire HMRC estate, via Mapeley STEPS) are held in offshore properties to be tax "efficient" and where properties are held in an SPV, this SPV can be sold avoiding the need to bring income into the UK or pay UK stamp duty as the only transaction is the sale of the SPV, in the BVI or whereever it is located.

There is no reason why foreigners working and living in the UK should be getting a free ride on the work done in the UK or property owned here. But the compromise (to keep a competitive advantage) is that we do not seek to tax money earnt and kept offshore.

Curious timing

There has been much in the media lately of private schools being forced to justify their charitable status to the Charities Commission which has been gleefully implementing the new Charities Act 2005 - or as some of us would have it - doing the government's dirty work.

Quite why it is thought to be a good idea to make it more expensive to send children to private schools - and therefore out of the reach of more people - escapes me, rather in the same way as it escapes the Charities Commission that saving the public purse the cost of educating a significant number of children and improving the economy by providing thousands of well educated young people is actually a public good.

It is no co-incidence that my alma mater, the Dragon School, is in the Observer today which reports that it is giving lessons in generosity in a bid to be more charitiable in the eyes of the Charities Commission.

However, I wonder if it is more of a co-incidence that my other mater, Eton College, has been in the public eye following the broadcast of only the third ever documentary in its history filmed with its co-operation. A Boy Called Alex was shown last week on Channel 4 launching the new series of Cutting Edge (the documentary filmed at Eton about 15 years ago, when I was there, was also under the auspicies of Cutting Edge) and it traced the story of the remarkable Alex Stobbs pursuing his goal of conducting Bach's Magnificat whilst battling cystic fibrosis.

The film showed Eton at its very best. Not only is Alex a music scholar on a full fees bursary but the school was providing him with every possible assistance so that he could continue to attend whilst being treated for his debilitating condition. The film showed hardly anyone from Eton other than head of music, Ralph Allwood (a dedicated teacher if there ever was one) and Alex's nurse and a few interviews with Alex's contemporaries who were performing. As a result, it portrayed a school comprised exclusively of motivated and talented students. Hmmmm.

But as much as the film boosted Eton and showed what it is doing for a musical prodigy, it also raised awareness of cystic fibrosis. So, I wonder what parents of cystic fibrosis sufferers now think of Eton and whether they would want to strip it of its charitable status - especially that famous one, Gordon Brown?

Mercer leaves Gordon's Big Top

The news on Iain Dale's Diary that Patrick Mercer has ceased to be a government advisor came as scant surprise as he had been in the news earlier last week criticising Brown's trip to Iraq. Like many Conservatives, I had speculated to myself about a suitable punishment for the disloyal Tory MPs who have taken Brown's 30 pieces of silver but I wonder if I was, in the words of David Cameron, applying the old politics.

The "0ld" theory of the political big tent is that it is better to have your enemies pissing out of the tent than standing outside, pissing in. But what happens when your latest circus pony decides to lift its tail and crap on the floor of your big top?

Perhaps I am crediting Cameron and Mercer with too much tactical nouse, but perhaps the reason Cameron was so relaxed about Mercer going over to "assist" Labour was that (a) it helps further "detoxify" the Tory brand (how can Labour make their favourite ad hominen attacks on MPs such as Mercer - as they did when he resigned from the front bench, if they are taking his advice) and (b) it gives the Conservatives a more potent weapon - an opposition back bench MP carries no weight when he attacks the Prime Minister - a government advisor does.

So maybe it will emerge that the gallant Member of Parliament for Newark - Lieutenant Colonel Mercer - was on a mission behind enemy lines. Bercow has said that rumours of his defection to Labour are entirely false, so we just need him to lift his tail and come running back to the Tory tent.

Royal Prerogative part 2

Now I read that Brown is considering calling an election in the middle of the Conservative Party conference. Clearly he is not at all worried about using the powers he does not think he should have, when it suits him.

Royal Prerogative

I have been meaning to ask for a while, what has happened to Gordon Brown's promise to bring in constitution reforms - in particular, curbing the royal prerogative in a number of areas. Over the last few weeks the rumours of an early election have prompted the Conservative Party to spend some of its war chest on advertising. The Labour Party, however, being led by the man who exercises the royal prerogative does not have to guess when the election will be called.

So rather than saying that he is going to bring forward this reform and give up the in built advantage which comes with deciding when an election and he is not attempting to benefit from it in the meantime, Gordon Brown, when asked if he will call an election, smiles like the Cheshire Cat.

Something tells me as we get to know Il Gordo, more of his low politicking will come out and will not be confused the high principles he wishes people thought he had...

End of Blair

The day Blair became Prime Minister the weather was beautiful and sunny. Brown steps up and it is dull and grey. Perhaps there is a higher power after all and he is trying to tell us something.