Tim Montgomerie has a superb analysis of what it costs to be a candidate HERE. I've written on this subject before so I won't repeat it all again, but I do believe we're getting to a point where only those with money can afford to stand for Parliament, particularly for seats which are selected very early in a Parliament. This applies to all three Parties and is something they're all going to have to address. I agree with Tim that a bursary for those with limited means would be a good idea, but it ought to be run separately from Party HQ with a Board of Trustees. Tim reckons it costs on average £41,000 to stand for Parliament. According to the FT potential A Listers will be receiving letters telling them the good or bad news over the next 48 hours. At least those of us not on it can console ourselves that our bank balances will be the better for it...Tuesday, August 01, 2006
£40K - The Cost of Being a Candidate
Tim Montgomerie has a superb analysis of what it costs to be a candidate HERE. I've written on this subject before so I won't repeat it all again, but I do believe we're getting to a point where only those with money can afford to stand for Parliament, particularly for seats which are selected very early in a Parliament. This applies to all three Parties and is something they're all going to have to address. I agree with Tim that a bursary for those with limited means would be a good idea, but it ought to be run separately from Party HQ with a Board of Trustees. Tim reckons it costs on average £41,000 to stand for Parliament. According to the FT potential A Listers will be receiving letters telling them the good or bad news over the next 48 hours. At least those of us not on it can console ourselves that our bank balances will be the better for it...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Having a bursary from Central Office is a terrible idea. It would increase CO's control over candidates even more, at a time when many Tories are coming to the conclusion that CO is part of our problems not their solution.
Anyway where would the money for these bursaries come from? Rich men or the consituencies? In either case why not just cut out the bureaucrats in the middle?
Many of the best MPs in our history had private patrons. Perhaps it's time this tradition was revived.
Tim needs to make his mind up. He opposes any public funding of parties yet imagines they can magic five-figure bursaries out of thin air.
I am not surprised at the cost. I guess if you want to be an MP that badly it may be worth it so I do not fel sorry for candidates. It is probably cheaper than doing an MBA.
Perhaps just a raffle-ticket allowance would suffice...
A more interesting question....
What do candidates think they'll get for forking out 40K?
An altruistic warm glow?
The joy of belonging as they're herded through the division lobby like sheep?
Or is it a very smart investment?
Can't think of any other occupation where such a small outlay would guarantee such a fat pension pot - with other benefits (travel, expenses, some poor sod of a reporter being obliged to listen as ego-driven drivel is spouted) along the way.
£40K is a tiny price to pay for the salary/pension/perks/expenses that come with being an MP.
Assuming a backbenchers total cost to the taxpayer is around 150K p/a (a very conservative estimate given the generous pension) and assuming you're average MP sits for ~30 years and that it takes on average two attempts to get elected.
That's a 187.5% annual return on your money and that doesn't take into account the annual inflation busting pay rise you get to vote yourself.
It's hard to see where you will get a better better return. The (just under) 30 year treasury rate is currently 4.04%.
Hayek, that is an absolute load of rubbish. I'd love to see how you get to £150,000 when the salary is £59,000. the Parliamentary Allowance does not go into MPs pockets - it covers the cost of employing staff and running an office. And where you get the idea that an average MP serves for 30 years I just don't know.
This is a fascinating story which has actually been told before: the book "Tory M.P." by Simon Haxey, written in the late 1930s, showed how expensive it was then for would-be candidates. In those days the candidate was expected not merely to pay their own election expenses but also to pay a hefty subscription to the local Conservative Association. (Incidentally, 'Simon Haxey' was a pseudonym and so far as I can find his real identity is as yet unknown)
The Labour Party has a very big issue with all this. There is a strong principle that no-one should ever be considered a better candidate merely because they have more money. A would-be Labour Party candidate who attempted to win favour by offering to pay the election expenses etc. would damage their chances of selection.
Come on Iain 59K??? The pension itself is worth the tax on the salary. The directorships and travel allowances and extra home allowances, take it easily over the 100K mark. Then there's the salary for the partner who's the 'constituency secretary'.
I'll hapily admit thought that 30 years was a complete stab in the dark, but even if you say the average is 10 years (I'm sure it must be more than that), it's still a much better return than you'll get in the markets.
And all you have to do in return is have people stroke your ego (yes I know some do a lot more than that but not all by any means).
some Mps take a major cut in salary to become an MP. Shadow ministers are prob the worst off with circa 80 - 90 hour weeks and decisions that chief execs of private companies would be paid hundreds of thousands for making. Some MPs are lazy but the level of cynicism you have Hayek is not justified in current situation.
At some point it was a live issue in the Conservative party, and amounted to little more than some Conservative assocations selling their selection in exchange for funds. Quintin Hogg described it in the 1940s as "a festering sore in the Conservative Party for years."
The Maxwell-Fyfe reforms limited the amount of money a Conservative MP was permitted to give to his local association to £50 a year. I've no idea when the rule fell by the wayside (assuming that it has!), but I'm certain most MPs and candidates give a lot more than that, if only in raffle tickets.
If this is a way of suggesting state funding of political parties then you can forget it. I think it is a good thing that generally only rich people can become MP's. The country will be a damn sight better off when this principle is extended to voting in general.
The point about Government is that it should not represent people, rather property. I would advocate a system where only householders get a vote. Then we could avoid the current situation where people are going to vote for the likes of Dave "because he is cool" (Oakeshott is embarrassed to admit that he heard this from a member of his own family).
As for Hayek's point - he is largely right. The vast majority of the MP's are there because of party patronage(ie a monkey could win if they were given the right rosette - and there are a few monkeys of all colours there now). Many of the MP's employ their wives/current bit of stuff(or both) as their secretary, when they have no qualifications to do the job. Thus they pocket the money. I would suggest that if only rich people are becoming MP's, then we could do away with the salary altogether and get back to the good old fashioned idea of service. This would smoke out the working class lefties(well it would after we had dealt with the union racket).
come off it iain we all know how often MPs employ their wives /partners and rent rooms in their own houses for use as offices, not to mention the generous travel allowances and free stetsons.
However,tell me you are pro gun and pro hunting and I may just send you a 10 shilling postal order towards your campaign.
I agree some MP's take a major pay cut, but even more don't as they often continue their jobs as investment bankers, lawyers, writers, journo's etc.
I also agree something needs to be done to encourage more and better candidates and that at the moment it's a rich person's game. I just don't think throwing more money at MP's is going to help, I'm certain the rich would still win the game (they almost always do) and then we'll just have paid more money to achieve the same result.
If we want to improve the calibre of MP we need better ways of judging an MP's and a candidate's potential and performance. That would encourage good candidates to try their hand and should get rid of many of the candidates who simply want their egos stroked and/or a free ride.
Oddly enough MP's aren't keen on having their performance measured.... can't think why!
"Shadow ministers are prob the worst off with circa 80 - 90 hour weeks and decisions that chief execs of private companies would be paid hundreds of thousands for making"
Balls. CEOs actually make real decisions and have responsibility for the observeable results. Shadow ministers aren't in charge of a whelk stall.
oakshotte yet again i agree with you 0+:
Being an MP should not be considered a job, it should be a public service.
I will always remember that t****** John Major boasting about how "productive" his government was and quoted how many pieces of legislation they had enacted, in other words justifying their existence by poking their stupid noses into my business and dreaming up more ways to piss my money up the wall.
Why should activists' money be wasted on subsidising candidates?
If you choose to fight a seat outside your region that's your problem, not the party's.
The party is £18million in debt thanks to the mismanagement of finances under Michael Howard.
Get real!
If anything £41k may be an underestimate, particularly for those selected early.
Post a Comment