On Monday, I have been invited to spend the morning with IPSA at the invitation of one of their board members, Ken Olisa, who readers might remember has come under some criticism from me here.
Should any MPs or their staff have information they think I might useful, my email inbox is always open...
I'm interested in knowing how IPSA's systems are still failing and what MPs and their staff think can be done to improve things.
9 comments:
Ask Olisa what qualifications he has to be a part of this organisation. He talks a good talk but try to pin him down to specifics. I know him well and he does not deserve to be in the position he has now taken.
Ask him what he intends to do to address the criticisms
that the ISFA has had from the public and the media. There is nothing very complicated in addressing expense claims in ANY organisation. This is of course assuming he knows how to do his job, which incidentally, I don't believe he has either the experience nor the qualifications to achieve what is clearly required.
You're going to be deluged with about 200 emails from a certain Scots MP called Tom Harris in the next hour or so, outlining every single complaint about IPSA that he has. Do make sure you read his complaint that one of IPSA's staff likes to eat kittens for breakfast - that was a particularly entertaining rant on his part.
Tell IPSA they're doing a great job and they should pay no attention to people criticising them. Partly because I'd like to see the face of the aforementioned MP when you do. ;-)
Demand that IPSA publish each & every expenses claim, without redactions, before any monies are reimbursed.
Only then will MPs think twice before making any questionable claims.
After all, it's taxpayers money that is being handed over, so us taxpayers have a right to know to whom and for what, our money is used.
Why is it necessary to have such a large and cumbersome organisation for a function which is simple enough? The job of IPSA could be handled easily by a staff of five, what are these others doing?
Joe Public is absolutely right about the need to have all expenses published.
It should be for whom on what, when and why. Particularly why, it has got to be directly related to expenses incurred in the members parliamentary duties. It is only right that we should see exactly HOW OUR MONEY is spent.
Daedalus
I have been a paid-up member of the Conservative Party since before Tom Harris was born, but I feel a great deal of sympathy with him over IPSA.
Ask Olisa why they cannot do their job properly, why do they insist of MPs and staff using a computer system that repeatedly fails, why do they need so many staff - when I started work ICI Billingham's staff department comprised two middle-aged ladies who looked after all the needs (including accommodation for new graduates from outside the area) of new recruits, for a workforce of over 30,000 (but, of course, they didn't have a computer so they got it right first time). Why do they need a public relations department when they never interact with the public?
As a preliminary you could challenge Tom to produce evidence (in confidence) of some of his most outrageous examples.
Can you find out to which minister he is responsible because other Quangos are being cut down to size and this looks like a prime candidate?
Success must be punished. Liberal Democrat tenet number 1.
You could perhaps ask him why he has the time to spend a morning with a blogger? Presumably Iain isn't the only person he's giving this privilege to, so how much of his time is being spend this way?
IPSA seems to believe the gospel according to St Blair, that reality equals perception. And if you have a problem with how people view you, the solution is to deploy your charm via PR. It is not, under any circumstances, to try to fix the problem that people are complaining about. Ask them why they have a PR department at all.
Also what are their plans for winding themselves up? Their remit is to improve Parliamentary Standards. Presumably once the widespread corruption under the previous Speaker is dealt with, they won't need as many staff?
Why no prosecutions for those who've still no paid back cash?
The still unanswered question, why no prosecutions for false accounting by signing an expenses claim stating that the expenses were "wholly and necessary" for their jobs as MPs. The public has tweaked why, and its that 52% of MPs would be and are guilty.
Post a Comment