We seem to shy away from constitutional matters at Samizdata. I think in part this is because we have a distaste for government and would like to see an end to the whole shebang.
I can’t argue with that but it seems to me that freedom is a slow process and the state is going to hang around for a good while yet. So, how it is set up is something we probably ought to concern ourselves with.
Amongst all the other rows engulfing UKIP last week, one concerned whether they should accept so-called “Short” money. This is money handed out to opposition parties to help them with their parliamentary duties. If memory serves, the argument is that the government has an army of civil servants to help them, so the opposition needs the help to even things up a little. For us libertarians, there would be no need for Short money if we had less government but there you go.
All this can be traced back to 1910. Before then, as I understand it, MPs weren’t paid a penny: no salary, not even expenses. The problem was what to do with these newfangled Labour MPs. They tended to be less well off and were unable to support themselves by either private means or by moonlighting as barristers or journalists as figures like Carson and Churchill were able to do. The obvious solution was to allow trade unions to pay them. But this fell foul of the principle that MPs could not be bought.
Scared of the implications of denying Labour voters representation – riots were a frequent occurrence at the time – MPs started paying themselves. Pity. The great advantage of the previous system was that energetic statists had to do something useful before becoming MPs. This meant they had some idea of the difficulties of running a business. While we can’t prove that it was a bulwark against socialism it is difficult to imagine it did a great deal of harm.
By the way, on the question of UKIP and Short money I understand they decided to take no money at all. If this turns out to be true, good for them.
I don’t think UKIP decided collectively, more that Douglas Carswell decided for the party as the sole MP. Yes, good on him – I was pleased to hear that UKIP would not take the short money.
Things were a bit different back then and MPs positions reflected the times, but perhaps MPs should be treated like the rest of us. Fixed salary, no expenses, contracts that forbid additional work with conflicts of interest, etc. I’d opt for a big salary (£250k) but nothing else, no taxpayer funded travel, 2nd home, wife/secretary, etc.
You ought to reconsider the 2nd wife. It tends to keep the first one in line.
An MPs job is not especially onerous, besides they usually claim to want it less for material gain and more as a public service. Therefore I think £60k, no expenses or taxpayer funded travel but the option of using a HoC dormitory (B&B) for staying in London, would be entirely fair. If anything there could be a strong argument for reducing the salary to the claimed national average (£26,000).
Runcie, Alex: No. Don’t pay them a penny. Back to 1910. The difference today being that if they have no other means of support, we now have a generous welfare system. (It would be highly amusing to watch Labour members argue that they can’t be expected to live on benefits…) A dormitory at the House isn’t a bad idea, mind you.
But yes, good for Carswell.
Pay commensurate with results. Think of the economic benefits of that.
I agree that they should only get the minimum wage. Let their party membership chip in to pay them any extra, and their expenses.
The worst thing to happen to politics was the rise the professional politician.
Good salary, say £80k. London accommodation in HoC apartments. No mortgage, or rental, payments claims allowed. All travel booked via a commercial travel outfit….their job to police the rules. All expenses to be paid via HoC issued credit card and MP responsibility to clear balance each month by submitting fully receipt-supported expense claim. Anything not within scope of expense regime to be for own account. No second/third job or paid directorships/advisory positions. Directorship in established family business allowed. Air travel,within Europe, to be economy or budget. Rail travel allowed as 1st Class. All computers etc to be property of HoC and returned in good condition at time of leaving. Faulty eqpt to be exchanged for serviceable kit. Plus some other details.
The above is very similar to at least one major corporation and have worked, successfully, for many years.
Charge £10 to vote, the MP who wins gets the lot to pay for his upkeep/office for 5 years, 50,000 votes in an election = £100,000 pa all in.
Sam, inclined to agree with you. However it is first necessary to establish the principle. Very few people would argue that MPs deserve no pay. It is therefore necessary to argue from a reasonable position to establish the principle. If we make the argument binary (pay & expenses vs no pay or expenses) then I doubt we would win it.
Regarding welfare, as far as I am aware there are no benefits that an MP could claim while working full time as an MP.
For the record, it seems that Mr Carswell took £350k rather than £650k that he could have claimed. A gesture in the right direction, glass half empty (or is that ‘pork barrel?).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3090282/Ukip-sacks-half-staff-sole-MP-turns-funding-Party-faces-fresh-crisis-Douglas-Carswell-refused-650-000-year-funding-entitled-to.html
Anyway, I shall go again to the Clacton Airshow this year.
JSiddall’s approach is probably the most sensible (and achievable). But I still prefer to put them all on straight commission: divide up among them any surplus revenues, but if the government runs at a deficit they get nothing. That would focus their minds!
Quite so.
Members of Parliament were not paid till 1911.
I know of no evidence that there was a sudden improvement in performance in 1912.
Members of the State Legislature in New Mexico are not paid – is it worse governed than most other States?
In New Hampshire members of the State Legislature are not paid much – same question.
“Small population States Paul”.
Is Texas a small population State?
Only California has more people in the United States.
Yet members of the State Legislature in Texas are not paid much.
“Paul they do not sit many days a year”.
Nor should they.
When the legislature is in secession the lives and liberties of the citizens are in danger.
Mark Twain.
Legislatures should sit for a few days a year – for a few hours a day.
By the way – stop all expenses (and pay) to local councillors.
Now I am not a councillor there is no good reason to pay them.
Can’t we pay them to stay at home and do nothing?
Considering the number of UKIP MEPS in prison for fraud over their expenses and how the party gets most of its money from the Euro gravy train I would not ascribe any nobler virtues to UKIP.
Some want the party to challenge Labour in the North and expand it’s appeal. Not going to happen it Nigel’s party and he does not play well with others. Indeed you have to wonder if the party really wants a a successful out campaign over the Europe. A narrow defeat would suits the parties long term interests the best (of keeping going as a long time concern).
Not quite OT: I see estimates of the advantage of incumbency couched in terms of what percentage of the vote it’s worth, so it’s arguably a calculable quantity. Why not require sitting members to win by a plurality plus their ‘incumbency advantage’?
Offsets the advantage and costs nothing.
@ Paul: “When the legislature is in secession the lives and liberties of the citizens are in danger.”
This is clearly a misattribution; Twain’s remark concerned legislatures being in “session”, not in “secession”. However, it’s a salutary typographical error (and perhaps a Freudian slip?). I look forward to seeing my legislature “in secession” once again, and I sincerely hope we get a better result this time around!
Incidentally, FWIW the South Carolina legislature receives a relatively paltry salary of $10,000 per year, for a session which lasts roughly 5 months, 4 days a week (which many of us think is far too long). However, they also receive generous per diem and mileage allowances, plus additional payments for out-of-session committee meetings (which are numerous) and any special sessions (not uncommon). As far as I know none of them is starving, and there seems to be no shortage of willing applicants for these “low-paying” jobs.
Let each candidate choose their own salary, and write it down on the ballot slip next to their name. Payment made through a local tax.
Ah, but the vital “principle” here is self-righteousness – what would our owners do without it?
When the MPs’ expenses row erupted I vividly recall Ann Widdecombe self-righteously complaining on Question Time that without professsional-level salaries and allowances no one like her would become an MP!
It was utterly inconceivable to her that anyone might view that as good thing.
It was a sort of Ceausescu moment – but without the happy ending.
Well the Welsh Assembly has been goven a £10k salary hike because it now passes laws with devolution of powers.
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Assembly-Members-10k-salary-increase-election/story-26553893-detail/story.html
Terrifying that they think productivity increases merit pay increases.
I’ve always been very much against taxpayer funding of political parties. There should be no need and it presents too much risk of corruption. However, as Patrick points out, the so-called Short Money is paid to opposition parties to balance the inherent advantage the governing party gets from direct access to the efforts of the Civil Service.
Thus, I find my strong dislike of taxpayer funding of political parties is somewhat weakened by that very purpose.
But there is another way. Both UK houses of parliament have their own non-political staff, and those people do carry out some investigations on matters before parliament – presumably in a fair and even-handed way, just as one would expect from the Civil Service.
Surely what is required is to do away with Short Money (and the equivalent Cranborne Money of the House of Lords) and to route similar sums of money to enhance the permanent staff of the houses of parliament, so that they can conduct ‘research’ and make investigations for MPs and Lords, in the same way and to a similar extent as Civil Servants do for the government (and so indirectly for the political party in government). In this way, the risks of corruption are much reduced. There remains a clear distinction over money paid directly to political parties – from money paid to individual MPs for salary, to individual Lords for attendance, and to both individually for modest and necessary expenses. [Please :)) at my phrasing, but don’t quibble – that would distract from the point I’m trying to make.]
With some obvious sensible arrangements on tasking and timeliness, the same beneficial work would be done in support of MPs and Lords, in carrying out their duties of informed ‘opposition’ to the government. But without all the risks inherent in direct taxpayer funding of political parties.
Best regards
@Jamess Excellent idea! Or, perhaps, if they made a claim at the next election and voters were asked to say yes or no. Again funded by a local tax.
@Nigel. You remind me of the excellent work of the (non-political) House of Commons Library.
Come on you free marketeers, someone is doing a job, they should be paid appropriately for it, and £250k (sans perks) reflects (IMHO) what that job is worth, judging it’s responsibilities, compared to the market rate.
Ok, we could have a 20x, 50x, 100x average salary as an incentive, as all or part of it, or linked with GDP or whatever. But remember you have to be a real tricky weasel to be an MP and any incentive that can be gamed will be – 650 times.
When I say no perks, I also include no summer recess, no exemption from criminal activity, no free snuff, no booze in the place of work, a contract just like the rest of us, in fact the only work benefit I’d accept is the continued exemption from prosecution for what is said in the chambers.
Runcie Balspune said:
Depends where you view the market as being. An MP represents a constituency. The market for MPs is each individual constituency imo. They should be asking us how much we want to pay for their services.
So of course the answer was to make buying MPs into a State monopoly. What could possibly go wrong?
Go back into the 1930s-60s and there are instances of people who accepted the financial sacrifice of taking office as junior ministers because of the various outside work, better paying they had to give up; accepted that, unless they were in a safe seat, they had no political ‘career’; accepted that public service, which is what they were performing, might impoverish them. Salary and rail travel to the constituency, that was about it. And I rather think that we had better people in the H of C as a result.
Quite agree about not paying councillors, and why one should pay anything significant to members of these devolved entities – look at the type of people and ask what else they might/could do to earn money. Indeed, they should be in session as rarely as possible and do as little as possible.
Paul Marks – May 22, 2015 at 8:15 pm:
The correct quote is “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.” It was written by New York state judge Gideon J. Tucker, in his decision in Final Accounting in the Estate of A.B. 1 Tucker 248 (N.Y. Surr. 1866).
As an old Tory, Paul was simply having a swipe at the rebellious colonists of the Americas, and in the long run, he may be proved right, as and when the USA sinks below Canada in overall freedom (however you measure that).
Although he never ran for national office, my great-grandfather was, by turns, Justice of the Peace, Alderman, (Labour) Councillor and Mayor (in 1927-28), all while being employed as a clerk on the local railway company. He interviewed constituents in his front room and bought his own postage stamps.
The same Council’s current Chief Executive is paid £186,000 pa, plus expenses, and the Leader of the Council similarly. I leave the implications as an exercise for the reader.
@Ian Bennet
But without professsional-level salaries and allowances no one like Ann Widdecombe would be able to become an MP!
Runcie:
So they should be paid appropriately, if there is a contract. Here there is no ‘market’, there is a public office with a salary set by the majority of the job holders of that post. The question of the ‘market rate’ simply does not arise, as there is no ‘market’. However, what we could do is reduce the salary until no one applies for it at all, and then we would know that there was no ‘demand’ for the job at that rate. This position, and the demand for it, is simply outside the scope of market economics.
Government and the free market are not the same – the exchange of goods and services in a free market is not the same as an exchange of artillery fire on the battlefield.
The two exchanges are different in kind.
I like JohnW’s analogy. I shall have to “borrow” it sometime.
There is an argument to be made for paying elected officials reasonably well, and that is it drives up the cost of bribery. Someone who is paid very little can be bought cheaply. Conversely, someone who is well paid isn’t likely to take the risk of accepting a bribe unless it is substantial. And really, who wants to be represented by cheap politicians?
I know someone in another state (I won’t name it) with part-time legislators who aren’t paid very much. He had an interest in advancing a certain bill his group had written, so he went to his representative with the draft legislation in hand. He was told that it should be able to be passed in return for a campaign “contribution” of $10,000. So evidently that’s the going rate for bills in that state. Good to know.
So that prevented another (possibly superfluous if not outright damaging) piece of legislation – is that so bad?
I was told by a British expat living in Barbados that another expat who wanted a residency visa for his girlfriend got to see the minister responsible, and agreed to make a cash donation of $10,000 Bajan dollars (USD $5,000) given to the Minister’s secretary for the Minister’s charity. The visa followed thereafter. A ‘noble cause’ corruption perhaps from the libertarian pov, but still corruption.
About 20 years ago, someone had the preposterous idea that Princess Anne, who was on the British Olympic Committee, could be bribed, and apparently tried to make her a (financial) offer that she wouldn’t refuse. I cannot think of a more preposterous plan*: ‘…Your mother is the Queen of England, you must want something?…’.
* apart from Mr Cameron’s deficit reduction plans.
Runcie Balspune
May 23, 2015 at 11:18 am
the only work benefit I’d accept is the continued exemption from prosecution for what is said in the chambers.
Then the police own the MP/Congress Critter. OTOH it might cause a wholesale gutting of the Law State.
Corruption is the direct result of unnecessary laws and regulations. Paying politicians more incentivises them to legislate and regulate more – in turn increasing corruption, not reducing it.
UK MPs are not ‘exempt from criminal activity’. They have, as do peers of Parliament, exemption from liability to the civil law in respect of their functions in Parliament. The recent expenses scandals put an end to any pretence that Parliamentary privilege extended to the criminal law, with MPs taking to the UK’s Supreme Court a failed argument that it did.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0195_PressSummary.pdf
The 1689 Bill of Rights Article 9 rightly protects MPs from being sued for, e.g. defamation for what they say or publish in Parliament, so they cannot be cowed by the courts, nor canthey face civil arrest whilst Parkiament is in session.
The full works: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction