Put Down The Expense Form, The Publicly Funded Ski Trips Are Over, You’re Being Replaced

After endless expense scandals and policy embarrassment, is now the moment to remind MPs that the public would quite happily replace them with farm animals if they could be trusted to turn up on time.

There are certain concepts that can’t help but produce a feeling of unease when uttered, that despite their potential innocence, they evoke such an image of unpleasantness that it feels wrong to even vocalise. One of these such terms I had the displeasure of first reading and then repeating was the Parliamentary Ski Trip. Alongside the OFSTED Fox Hunt and Civil Service Annual Whaling Expedition, the concept of a Parliamentary Ski Trip is so unbelievably distasteful that its creation and yearly scheduling are hard to contemplate. The irony, of course, is that any politician operating in the 21st century would know that this is a PR disaster, with the general public desperate to criticise even the most charitable acts, let alone something as disturbed as an MP on the slopes. It makes me wonder whether the true purpose of becoming an elected official is instead a way to experience publicly supported self-flagellation, with the Houses of Parliament more akin to a wellness retreat for the psychologically needy.

Dostoevsky, an author whose name I couldn’t spell without Grammarly, once said in Crime and Punishment, a book I haven’t read, that ‘your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing’, yet in an era where expense claims eclipse parliamentary salaries, the logic behind repeated public humiliation makes far more sense. Each daytime television appearance, filled with brutal mockery, is likely far more palatable when you can return home to your constituency pied-à-terre and start filling in the expense form. I’m sure the most experienced politicians can enter a zen-like state where, during the live television grilling, they are mentally transported to a happier place, one filled with complementary BAFTA tickets and reimbursed council tax.

Now, before I start cementing myself to the M5 with a copy of Das Kapital and a vuvuzela, it is important to admit that MP remuneration, and expenses in particular, do serve a purpose. Relative to the average wage in the UK, an MP is well-paid, there is no doubt, however when compared to the private sector equivalent salaries, the role appears far less lucrative. Some would argue that this is perfectly acceptable, as the role of an elected official is more of a charitable act for those who wish to humbly serve the country of their birth. However, I am highly suspicious of charity in any form, let alone a form of charity that provides the giver with enormous power and clout. The current system feels like letting a fox into a hen house and hoping they will avoid the all-you-can-eat poultry buffet due to the pride they should experience from being allowed in the hutch. Put simply, the system was always going to be abused in one form or another, either through personal wealth maximisation or power consolidation.

The next logical step would be to instead suggest that MPs should actually be paid far more, similar to the model used in Singapore, to attract the best talent away from the private sector and make the role of an elected official an end in itself, not a means to an end. Unsurprisingly, this would not be the most popular policy amongst the general public, as a hugely talented member of parliament feels like a total oxymoron. Unfortunately, many of our current MPs are actually fairly highly skilled, intelligent, and well-educated, however, their policy decisions correlate so poorly with what is best for the country that it is hard not to think of them as imbeciles. This creates a cycle that is impossible to remedy without first removing all misaligned incentives and then rebuilding the system from the ground up. Before I am put on a watchlist, I am suggesting a thorough review of counterproductive remuneration measures, a bit like if Guy Fawkes had an accomplice who used the threat of audits rather than gunpowder.

When policies are decided by parliament, they often take the most critical and pessimistic view of the issue they are trying to solve, yet applying that same lens to MP compensation is apparently a step too far. Across both sides of the political divide, elected officials are seen as working in their own self-interest, manipulating a system for personal gain, and putting their constituents last. Whether that is true or not isn’t actually the most important issue, instead, the system should be reconfigured to make sure that it is not actually possible to operate in this way.

At its most basic form, the job of an MP is to represent the interests of those in their constituency, it would be quite difficult to fit 70 million people into the House of Commons, so to simplify this, we have 650 elected officials. To any MP’s reading, you are a formality, a time-saving administrative function, whose job is to present the views of your local community in a national forum. You are not an omniscient sage brought down from the hilltops of Athens to impart wisdom through the great oral tradition, in fact most constituents would quite happily replace your role with that of a goat if it could be trusted to turn up on time.

For that reason, any potential incentives that come from the role of an MP should be carefully monitored to ensure they align with that of the country as a whole. If free tickets to see Taylor Swift will genuinely result in a boost to the local economy within your constituency, and improve the lives of its population, then fair enough. But if it is at total odds with political decisions being made at a national level and is just another way to experience personal gain while the rest of the country loses out, then it might be time to bring in that goat and expense them a few oats.