MP's expenses and pay - a simple solution

Two problems: (1) Members of Parliament are paid a salary which is too low to attract talented people; (2) Members of Parliament have expense allowances which are not transparent/are misused.

Solution: Roll up the the total salary paid to an MP together with the total amount which could be claimed via allowances (adjusted for London MPs smaller housing allowance) and place the entire amount for each MP into an account to be operated by that MP. The MP should then be free to use this budget as he or she sees fit (in connection with his/her activities as an MP), including to boost his or her own pay. Clearly, the bigger the salary, the smaller the budget for other things.

This solution would mean that there would be no incentive for MPs to employ family members in jobs to boost the family finances artificially. It would also make it much easier for MPs to pool resources - share staff and subscribe to centralised services. Not having set amounts to be claimed for certain activities would make MPs more businesslike and encourage them to shop around for the most efficient service and thus stretch their budget the furthest. This amount could then be increased each year in line with inflation, but then it would be up to each MP to set his/her own pay. Might make for some interesting decision making....

Party funding - does it matter that much?

Ever since Lord Nolan reported on standards in public life as cover for Labour's plans to introduce "transparency" in party funding (before it blew up in their face so spectactularly), I have been suspicious of attempts to limit the ability of individuals to donate to political parties. It is unfair, for example, that a busy person who chooses to donate more than £5000 must appear on a public register, but a person with a lot of free time can work unpaid for a political party and it is lauded as a healthy part of the process. In the US, it is treated as a question of freedom of expression that political donations can be made - albeit with certain limits imposed on donations to individual candidates.

As usual, I digress.

In amongst the funding scandal have been regular discussions of whether or not political parties should be funded by the state - here, for example. Given that both Labour and the Tories could probably get by on £20m per year and presumably the Libdems on a lot less, the amounts in question are a drop in the ocean, even when compared to the running costs of Parliament let alone overall government spending which runs at about £1bn per day.

Clearly, if there were to be state funding, the key issue would be as to how the money is handed out - and the advantage of incumbency would be completely unfair and open to abuse. Surely a perfectly fair route would be to combine donation limits with tax relief and/or match funding.

To be clear, I do not think donations should be limited, but sometimes when the writing is on the wall it is better to go for the least bad solution.