Honesty will put people off

I'll admit to a bit of a sigh of exasperation when I read this article on the BBC website, which reports on the claim that having to publish expenses claims will put people off entering politics;

Greater transparency over MPs' expenses could put people off standing for Parliament, Commons authorities say.


Resources boss Andrew Walker said rent, phone, food and other bills could offer a "peephole" on MPs' private lives.

I had two gut reactions to this; firstly - good. Politics has far too many people already in it to make a quick buck. Money should never be what attracts a person into a career in public service, not least as it opens you to corruption from the outset. I didn't stand for election to make money, and that that's how things have remained (if you want info on how much ordinary Councillors actually earn, it's here).

Secondly, scrutiny is good. Elected politicians are paid for by the public purse, and it's only right that the public should know how that money is being spent.

The Scottish Parliament, after a few early slip-ups (step forward Henry McLeish and David McLetchie), has made it's MSPs accountable down to the bottle of milk and the newspaper through public publishing of allowances paid. If you want, you can check through every MSP in Scotland. You can find out that Wendy Alexander for reasons unknown bought several copies of the same book. You can discover (and ponder why) Pauline McNeill paid minimal rent on her West End office in the last session. It's all in there.

So why doesn't Westminster follow the Scottish Parliament's good example? When even the much maligned European Parliament has made moves recently to improve it's systems of accountability, you can see how far Westminster is lagging far behind. All moves to improve access to allowances information tend to be fiercely resisted. Why? The only plausible reason is that MPs have too much to lose financially from public disclosure of their spending.

You might wonder where I think Glasgow City Council fits in all of this. Well, we do have to at least complete a declaration of interests. Mine is here. Personally, I don't think that's enough accountability, and I believe Council should also follow the example of the Scottish Parliament.

Too poor to be the opposition

Hot on the heels of Pauline McNeill's pleas for some speech writing assistance, Wendy Alexander's Head of Research is the next Labour person to bleat publicly about the hardship of being in opposition. Tartan Hero also comments on this latest grumble from the Labour benches. The ongoing review of allowances has been interesting thus far, as it shows up how unprepared Labour are to cope with opposition.

According to the BBC article,

In a submission to the review Sarah Metcalfe, Labour's research and strategy director, said the party was required to hold to account an SNP government which had the entire civil service at its disposal.

For the past eight years, the SNP (and indeed the Conservatives, Greens, SSP and latterly Solidarity) have coped on this allowance and fought the might of the Civil Service. I don't think it's been easy, but it has been done. With an effective team a party can mount a challenge and win, as the SNP has proven. You can even be an effective opposition, picking your issues and playing to your strengths, as the Tories have done.

If Labour can't raise their game, employ better and more effective staffers, then they will flounder for years. It would be all too easy to sit back and watch their discomfort with glee, but I do believe you need to have an effective opposition to be a credible government.

It's also important to note that Labour were instrumental in setting up this system; I wonder if their arrogance allowed them to believe that they'd never have to use it themselves...

On staff wages, Ms Metcalfe also stated that

"The Scottish leader's allowance of £22,466 is insufficient to meet even the full costs to an employer of a private secretary - never mind the public expectations of a leader's office in terms of interest in the party's approach to parliamentary business and associated policy stances"

Wages are an important thing - but that's not why someone should get involved in politics. Getting paid is important, but it shouldn't be the incentive that tempts you in. That £22,466 is still seven thousand pounds more than a Councillor takes home. It's also much much more than I took home in my previous job as a MSP's Researcher.

I do my job because I'm committed to serving the people of my ward, and to winning Independence for Scotland. I feel extremely fortunate to be able to do this, and reflect upon those who have stood for the SNP many times in the past to no avail. Every time I walk up the stairs to the Councillor's Corridor in the City Chambers, I stroke the nose of the lion (which is supposed to bring good luck) but smile to myself and think how lucky I've been already to get here. I hope not to lose sight of that, whatever lies ahead.

More money, but for what?

It's taken me a while to get round to blogging on this - but I feel I must. I was in the pub on Friday night, and shouted out loud when I saw this article in the Evening Times. It's one of these stories that just makes you think "those politicians don't know they're born".

Kelvin MSP Pauline McNeill, who is paid £53,000 a year, told him: "Up until now I have written all my own speeches for Parliament, I have organised all my committee papers (filing and preparation) I attend meetings at night on my own as I cannot pay very much overtime to staff to attend with me."

As a former researcher to an MSP, I'm amazed on a number of fronts.

1) An elected MSP wants her staff to go along and hold her hand? Why? I believe I saw a member of Ms McNeill's staff with her at the Council's Botanic Gardens call in, where she and said staff member sat at the back of the room and did nothing for two hours (they were not permitted by the chair to participate in the proceedings). If she needed staff to come with her in the evening, why not arrange flexitime of some sort? Not exactly hard to arrange, and without the need for overtime at the public's expense.

2) What it is Ms McNeill's staff members are paid to do, if not carry out research, assist in speech preparation and do the filing? Recalling the nauseatingly sycophantic "reelect my boss" facebook page set up by Ms McNeill's staff prior to the election (which sadly has disappeared since May 3rd), perhaps they have too much free time on their hands... All MSPs employ staff, and the roles they carry out vary widely. Should particular tasks need done, that's up to the MSP to sort out.

3) Having been an MSP since the opening of the Parliament, Ms McNeill should surely be well able now to deal with the set up of her office, and her responsibilities as an MSP. Why start girning about it all now?

I personally believe there's a lot of room for refinement of the MSPs allowance system - for example in the staff wage structure and the accommodation allowances. Ms McNeill should perhaps focus on these more significant areas, rather than asking for more cash for a job she's already doing.