Thursday, May 14, 2009

Cameron Should Ban Tory MPs From Using the Communications Allowance

Yesterday at PMQs David Cameron reaffirmed the Conservative Party's pledge to abolish the Communications Allowance. Under this allowance, MPs spend £7 million each year telling us how wonderful they are. He is absolutely right to do make this pledge. However, I would urge him to go one step further.

At the moment only 22 out of 196 Tory MPs do not spend any of their £10k allowance. If David Cameron wants to be consistent, he should make it a condition of holding the Conservative whip that from now on no MP is to use this allowance.

I can already hear some howls and screams, but it would be the right thing to do.

24 comments:

Tim Johnson said...

I agree that it should go, but to unilaterally give up the money is to hand the advantage to Labour.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament did not make sense - this wouldn't either.

Jim Baxter said...

It's just possible that some of those 22 might be rotten MPs who can't be bothered keeping their constituents informed about how, or if, they've been working for them.

If this allowance is to be abolished then MPs might become even more remote from their constituents than some feel they already are.

Yes, they can have a website, even a blog, but not all constituents, especially the elderly, use computers. What if they would like regularly to hear something about what their MP has been doing?


One of the good things about use of the communications allowance is that the communications it pays for are not allowed to have a party-political slant. Perhaps MPs could pay for their communications privately. Then they could be as party-political as they like. Is that better, and wouldn't it favour the better-off MPs?

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with this stance, otherwise the PMQ's bit looks opportunist and disengenuous

Anonymous said...

Iain, certain items, such as websites, have to be paid for through the Communications Allowance...

Anonymous said...

Quite right, Iain -- well done.

Will you also throw your considerable political weight behind proposals to deal with another area of rent-seeking and corruption amongst our Parliamentarians, one whose influence is far more pernicious than any expenses abuse?

Anonymous said...

They can spend hundreds of thousands of pound communicating with me but they will never convince me that they forgot they had paid their mortgage off, that a portico was essential to carry out parliamentary work, that a spare room in a relative's house was their main residence, that dredging the moat was part of democracy, that the nanny was really a secretary, that fitting tudor beams was not mocking me or that they are honourable people.

They can stop blaming Mr Speaker as well, he didn't force them to defraud the taxpayer.

jon dee said...

Yes I agree and thought so immediately he recommended it at PMQ's yesterday. Without hi-jacking the thread may I suggest another move where his influence could be made urgently.

Surely the position of Don Touhig as chair of the Members Allowances Committee is now untenable.

Apart from his previous record in vetoeing proposals for a full external audit of MP's expenses and an end to the "John Lewis" list,he is now revealed as a "flipper".

He cannot therefore be the right person to decide whether flipping should be banned.

Add to this the possibility that his own "flipping" activities may be the subject of further inquiry, he is clearly in the wrong job.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with a)David Cameron's view on the communication allowance and b)and your suggestion also, yet, something worries me about the amount of good will David Cameron will have in the backbenches after the next election if he continues to push hard on this. There has already been rumours that not all are exactly happy with Cameron but are basically toeing the line till the election is over.
If the overall majority is small, it could be interesting to see how much support Cameron has and how many possible rebels there are.

Chris Paul said...

He's used some of his own Iain. As you say most Tory MPs and most Lib Dems who also mostly voted against have used this money. Don't know what the figures are for Labour. May be fairly similar. Don't know.

Paul Rowen MP (Lib Dem, Rochdale) has used part of it to hire a local web publisher to build his website. They coincidentally have virtually stopped covering Labour-favourable stories in the area.

Even going as far as to crop the Labour PPC off a picture and out of a story of a meeting with Gordon Brown that that candidate, Simon Dancjuk, had facilitated.

Forge Lindin said...

Or better yet, just set out some guidelines for how it should be used. We do need more engagement with people.

The communications allowance could be a good thing if moderated well. It also encourages candidates who don't have a communications allowance to actively fundraise and get their face out even more through the term :)

Which is of course not what its for.

Jane said...

I agree with you Iain, there will be howls and screams. According to todays papers some backbenchers are already murmering about David's decisions of earlier this week, saying they could be left impoverished. It is making my blood boil- they clearly do not know the meaning of the word.

Unknown said...

I think that the slanty-mouthed cretin may well have sealed his own electoral defeat.

What a loss that will be to parliament.

Letters From A Tory said...

According to my records, Parliament only spends £4,723,850
on the Comms allowance each year.

Interestingly, the rules allow MPs to 'top up' their Comms allowance with their other expenses, meaning that they can spend thousands of pounds over the £10k limit each year. In fact, Michael Spicer managed to spend £21,587 last year on his Comms allowance using this loophole.

From a Conservative point of view, this allowance has actually worked out quite nicely. The Conservatives have 23 of the top 50 Comms allowance spenders out of all MPs, meaning that the Party has figured out how to use it to their advantage.....

msj said...

I don't know what money is spent where, but I expect that at least some of this money is used by my MP putting up A4 posters around his constituency saying where and when he is holding the next surgery. Most people find that useful.

Thats News said...

Iain, al lthey need do is employ you to tell them how to use Blogger for free to communicate with the outisde world!

In the meantime I have a question on Mr Morley. Is it perhaps worse than it seems?
Morley update: A question

Anonymous said...

Isn't £80k + a bit much for accommodation over five years as well? Why can't they rent somewhere, preferably in a cheap part of London so that they are in amongst those of us who have to pay up for them? That would show leadership, wouldn't it?

Stepney said...

Damn right.

£6.4 million quid on self-aggrandisement and personal propaganda?

That could pay for quite a few Diversity courses for hard pressed Local Authority paper-shufflers.

AND their first class train tickets to get there.

Something should be done.

Anonymous said...

@ msj

It doesn't cost ten grand a year to put up a few A four sheets. What's wrong with a notice in the local constituency office?

Web sites should come out of their normal office expenses.

Bri said...

Ian, I am sick to my back teeth of hearing the phrase "It's the right thing to do"
I think it's the first lesson prospective Labour candidates learn.
Gordon Brown uses it at least 3 times a day.

I can do without you starting to use it.

Enough please

Anonymous said...

Anybody who squawks should be told to find another job and if they don't, should be deselected. There is no shortage of people queuing to be MPs. And the newcomers would know what the rules are.

Anonymous said...

Surely now is the time to start asking some very hard questions about the funding of Tory constituencies' communications by Ashcroft, the Midlands Industrial Council and others. Looking at past Tory national campaign expenditure returns for the EU and General Elections it would appear that the Tories are working on the assumption that such expenditure does not count towards the overall limits. If I were them I wouldn’t be so sure. That Act makes it very clear that expenditure undertaken by Tory Constituency Associations (which are accounting units for the purpose of the Act) counts towards the national limits and hence should be reported on the returns (see section 72(8)(a) below), with invoices being audited and submitted to the Commission. And the definition of what counts as campaign expenditure is set very wide see section 72(4)(b) below

Perhaps someone could explain why all the “Ashcroft/MIC money” shouldn’t count towards the national expenditure limit. Of course the total limit for the European Elections is about £2m and covers all relevant expenditure during the preceding 12 months so may already have been broken if the “Ashcroft/MIC money” were to be included.

Surely this is something that the Electoral Commission should be considering very seriously, given that we are now less than 12 months away from the General Election.

72.—(1) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this
Part.
(2) “Campaign expenditure”, in relation to a registered party, means
(subject to subsection (7)) expenses incurred by or on behalf of the party
which are expenses falling within Part I of Schedule 8 and so incurred for
election purposes.
(3) “Election campaign”, in relation to a registered party, means a
campaign conducted by the party for election purposes.
(4) “For election purposes”, in relation to a registered party, means for
the purpose of or in connection with—
(a) promoting or procuring electoral success for the party at any
relevant election, that is to say, the return at any such election
of candidates—
(i) standing in the name of the party, or
(ii) included in a list of candidates submitted by the party
in connection with the election; or
(b) otherwise enhancing the standing—
(i) of the party, or
(ii) of any such candidates,
with the electorate in connection with future relevant elections
(whether imminent or otherwise).
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)—
(a) the reference to doing any of the things mentioned in paragraph
(a) or (as the case may be) paragraph (b) of that subsection
includes doing so by prejudicing the electoral prospects at the
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 c. 41 57
Part V
election of other parties or candidates or (as the case may be) by
prejudicing the standing with the electorate of other parties or
candidates;
(b) a course of conduct may constitute the doing of one of those
things even though it does not involve any express mention
being made of the name of any party or candidate; and
(c) it is immaterial that any candidates standing in the name of the
party also stand in the name of one or more other registered
parties.
(6) “Relevant election” has the same meaning as in Part II.
(7) “Campaign expenditure” does not include anything which (in
accordance with any enactment) falls to be included in a return as to
election expenses in respect of a candidate or candidates at a particular
election.
(8) Where a registered party is a party with accounting units—
(a) expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of any
accounting unit of the party shall be regarded as expenses
incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the party, and
(b) references to campaign expenditure incurred or to be incurred by
or on behalf of a registered party accordingly extend, in relation
to the party, to expenses which constitute such expenditure by
virtue of paragraph (a).
(9) In this section “candidates” includes future candidates, whether
identifiable or not.
(10) Nothing in this Part applies in relation to expenses incurred or to
be incurred by or on behalf of a minor party.

Anonymous said...

Websites funded through the Communications allowance need better scrutiny.

Check out Margaret Moran's. Her legal info link admits funding through CA but the site is branded with the Labour logo and some of her articles are seriously politically biased.

peter_dtm said...

Getting some of the luddite MPs to use email is enough of a job - why is an email not treated the same as a letter (an MP HAS to answer a letter) ?

If they are not to be given the means to host their own website; the HoC will have to provide the necessary infrastructure - which means it will be bloated & over proced & probably with some pretty ludicrous restraints.

Communications for an MP are not an optional extra; it is arguably one of the most important things they should be doing.

All MPs should be using local (in constituency) suppliers of services; a good interactive web site would help break down the barriers...

Anonymous said...

Pete: If [MPs] are not to be given the means to host their own website; the HoC will have to provide the necessary infrastructureWhat "means"? I have a Wordpress blog which cost me exactly zero pouinds to set up and run. If MPs cannot figure out how to do this they are too stupid to be allowed to make decisions on running the country and should be sacked.