Pooter Kelly is not the fount of all wisdom

I've just been wading through Sir Christopher Kelly's £339,000 examination of MPs' expenses. On most main recommendations, despite an often Pooterish pettiness, he is probably broadly right, and MPs need to bow to public opinion. But it is only when one starts to consider the detail that questions arise. That is why he should not be so arrogant as to assume that the new independent agency shouldn't look again at some of his ideas. It most certainly should.

Phasing out of mortgage subsidies is reasonable. MPs shouldn't make a profit from their London accommodation. And, a £1250 a month cap on rent works if an agency does negotiate some deals, and just about covers the costs of a furnished flat South of the river, provided, as Kelly proposes, council tax and utilities bills are treated as extra. The £120+VAT nightly cap on London hotel bills is also probably manageable. It would at least meet John Mann's Travelodge test.

But this doesn't stop some petty-minded silliness creeping in. Instead of providing an agency cleaner, perhaps supporting a fortnightly two-hour cleaning of a flat, costing around £500 a year, MPs are imperiously informed that

the difficulties of maintaining a clean home while working long hours are not unique to MPs. Should MPs wish to maintain the services of cleaners the Committee does not think it unreasonable to expect them to meet these costs out of their salaries, as others do.

Yet these are not their main homes, and 'others' do not generally maintain two homes, certainly not on a salary half that of many senior civil servants. Presumably those opting for hotels should deduct a sum to cover cleaning costs in their rooms? No less petty is the abolition of subsistence allowances for MPs renting rather than staying in hotels.

Kelly is right to scrap second homes for outer London MPs and those on the fringes, but with the welcome proviso that accommodation is covered for late night sittings. But here the obsession with detail becomes confused. There is a recognition that getting home in 60 minutes is about more than the train journey. The independent regulator will apparently draw up 'a definitive list of constituencies covered'. Does this mean that MPs who live elsewhere in a rural constituency - or who replace someone on the 'definitive list' should move close to the railway station to meet the regulator's requirements?

Fair enough to get MPs to publish what they spend on travel. But, it doesn't always follow that a first class rail ticket is absurdly expensive. A Sunday evening first class ticket from Bath booked in advance is far cheaper than a 2nd class open return on a Monday morning, for example. So I fail to see the point of publishing the class of ticket, apart from playing to the gallery.

There is also a curious disincentive on MPs to stand down at a general election, rather than fighting and losing their seat. An MP who is defeated can get nine months pay after two terms, but one who doesn't stand again after twenty years only gets two months. There is no good reason why someone the electors have rejected fares so much better.

And, on the bigger picture, I really don't see how he can support MPs having unlimited outside employment, but not see that employing spouses properly approved by the Commons authorities can provide better value to the taxpayer as well as better support to MPs. After all, the report itself says:

Despite the publicity that a small number of cases have received, the Committee has no evidence of abuse occurring on a significant scale through the employment of family members. On the contrary, the Committee has heard evidence that many MPs’ family members work hard and offergood value for money for taxpayers, including testimony from those who have expressed reservations about allowing the practice to continue.

Kelly also gives no reason for sacking existing employee spouses apart from satisfying the mob (expressed a little more politely). Yet when it comes to paid employment outside parliament, Kelly moves from the Pooterish to the broad brush pragmatic. No rules apply here beyond the need for a declaration on an improved website.

In the Committee’s view, this is largely an issue of balance. A limited amount of time spent writing newspaper articles or other paid journalism, for example, need not be incompatible with being a fully effective MP. Nor is it unreasonable for MPs with professional qualifications to wish to maintain some element of expertise, or for others to take the view that limited direct experience of a particular issue is a good way of building up expertise which will benefit their contribution in Parliament. But if any of these activities are pursued to excess they are bound to have an impact on the MP’s effectiveness in performing their main role. The Committee takes the view that outside paid employment should not be banned, provided it is kept within fairly limited bounds and there is transparency.

Fairly limited bounds? And what are they? Surely Kelly has a view? Not really -unless you are a Northern Ireland MP, of course. But this does run against the grain of a report mindboggling in its attention to detail, yet somehow completely oblivious to the lives of MPs and the true cost of doing their job, and composed in a manner that only a lifelong civil servant could. As Steve Richards argued in a forceful piece yesterday, it is ironic that civil servants invited to review politicians are themselves so lacking in accountability:

Kelly will explain his thinking at a press conference tomorrow and presumably in interviews. That will be the limit of his accountability in changing drastically not only the way MPs are paid, but in the ways they function. MPs are loathed but at least they are accountable around the clock, unlike current senior civil servants and former officials who wield immense power. If an MP throws a grenade into any saga they will be on the Today programme at ten past eight to explain what they were up to and a non-appearance would be pilloried: "We asked X to appear, but they refused to do so". Yet others who wield power without responsibility are revered even if they cause mayhem. Legg is nowhere to be seen. Kelly will return to the darkness. MPs sweat in the public eye. The more they explain the more they are loathed.

Political pariahs?

I've written this piece at the Public Finance blog about the saga of MPs expenses:

MPs could be forgiven for thinking that they have officially been declared enemies of the people. After the public lynching engendered by the Daily Telegraph’s weeks of revelations before the summer, they now have to ensure the tortuous combination of Sir Christopher Kelly’s hairshirt and Sir Thomas Legg’s restrospective thumbscrew.

Of course, some MPs have been abusing the system, and some have claimed very little. But most have just been doing what they were told by the officials at the Fees Office that they could – and often should – do. And it is a bit much to see the rough justice where some MPs – including David Cameron, who has happily used the saga to rid himself of a few troublesome backbenchers – are able to enjoy rich pickings from property speculation whilst the Prime Minister is rapped for spending more than an abritrary £2000 a year on flat cleaning and laundry.

The reported plans by Sir Christopher to phase out mortgage subsidies make sense, as do attempts to clamp down on needless first class travel. But stopping MPs employing spouses will not produce better or less expensive offices – they are the ones most likely to work longer and mix constituency and Westminster duties better – nor will the arbitrary 60 minute travel rule enhance the quality of debate, unless Parliament moves to a 6pm curfew. Having MPs rushing for the last train is hardly the stuff of decent democracy.

All these new rules may satisfy the forces of public opinion as they are mediated by the tabloids. But they could prove costly if they confirm the public’s view that all MPs are fiddling the system.

It would be far better to make things simple. Either give MPs a rail season ticket and a choice between staying at Westminster-owned serviced apartments or a hotel with which the Palace authorities have negotiated a good deal or increase their salaries and only pay them a decent allowance for running their office. And provided they are up to the job, and do the hours, let MPs employ their spouses if they get the work done.

All this nit-picking about railway timetables and internet subsidies is as damaging to democracy as the moats and duck ponds. Many good people on both sides of the House have had their careers destroyed because of mistakes or simply assuming that the Fees Office knew what they were talking about. Creating a whole host of complex new rules will not save taxpayers much money but could make the MP a permanent pariah, which even next year’s general election could do little to change.

A simple, transparent system, which everybody can understand, and which recognises the nature of the MP’s job, is the only way to restore faith in our democracy. Sadly, neither Sir Christopher nor Sir Thomas, born bureaucrats whose civil service instincts for micro-management inform their world view, seem to grasp that basic reality.

A sense of proportion on MPs' expenses

The leaked version of Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals for MPs' expenses suggests a degree of compromise, but also a wish to feed the media rather than develop a rational approach to the issues.

As I have argued here before, it is right that MPs should receive money for rent or modest hotel rooms rather than mortgage subsidies: there is no justification for MPs using their living expenses to build a property empire. I still think the Parliamentary authorities should buy up some apartment blocks near Westminster, so it makes money on the deal. That way, it could provide services like dry cleaning or house cleaning on a contractual basis, making money on the flats and saving money on the services.

But on two other issues, I am less convinced. The new 60 minute commute rule is fine if it is fairly enforced. But as someone who travels from home near Bath to London a few times a month, I would never allow less than 2h 30 to reach a meeting in the centre of the city, even though Bath is a 1h 20 commute. When I lived in Mitcham in South London, using the dreadful Northern Line and walking to and from the tube stations often took 1h 15. So the debate about a 60 minute commute will be fun. Far better to set the boundaries as those of the London Underground or overground lines in Greater London. And for late sittings, the option of an overnight hotel stay must remain. Indeed, if MPs are still to be allowed to travel first class, it is often cheaper to stay over than travel to and from London (from Bath it is even true with an open 2nd class!).

And on the employment of spouses, Sir Christopher is plain wrong. A husband or wife who works for an MP is likely to be able to balance constituency and London duties far more effectively than a secretary who is wholly London or constituency-based. Those I know are harder workers and often have far more useful experience. Of course, they should have the right skills and experience, and be audited to ensure they work the hours (I suspect many work twice the hours they should). But a blanket ban on spouses shows no understanding of the nature of the MP's working life. It should be dropped.

Expenses and allowances

It is plainly absurd to fine MPs retrospectively for expenses that were approved in good faith years ago, and if Sir Thomas Legg thinks it is reasonable to do so merely to satisfy the voices of the mob, then he has a very odd sense of natural justice. Natural justice is not what appears in a Telegraph or Mail editorial. But those who can afford £1.3 million flats in central London clearly don't need to worry about trifles like expenses.

And the real reason why these allowances have been allowed to grow as they have is in danger of being forgotten in the ensuing controversy. MPs allowances - as with those for peers incidentally - have always been intended to supplement their salaries (or substitute for them) by covering all the additional costs they incur as a result of living in London as an MP in addition to any constituency home (until 2004, ministers were required to designate London their first home, a fact conveneniently forgotten is the attacks on Jacqui Smith).

That's why many tended to claim close to the full housing allowance, even if it involved mortgage interest subsidies. In that context, the Legg letters may politically require paybacks, but far more important is the establishment of a much clearer system of MPs pay and expenses (which are not the same thing as allowances).

So, MPs should have an overnight accommodation and subsistence allowance - say £200 on days that Parliament sits - that would allow them to stay at a reasonable 3* or 4* hotel in central London - the Commons can block book rooms to get good deals - or accommodation in apartment blocks wholly leased by the Palace of Westminster. The hotel/subsistence allowance should not exceed £200 a day. Mortgage costs would not be paid.

Any cleaning or other such costs would not be handled by MPs but dealt with by officials (or covered in hotel bills). Train fares (normally second class) should be paid with rail warrants and mileage costs covered for constituency business. Otherwise any expenses would be directly related to official business and suitably receipted.

The sooner such a system gets established the better for MPs and the better for their reputation.

Selfless gerrymandering is not political reform

I'm sure the tabloids will applaud David Cameron for his plans to cut ministerial salaries and raise the price of a pint in the Commons. But anyone who seriously cares about our democracy must worry about his selfless plans to entrench a Tory government by cutting the number of MPs from 645 to 585 and neutering the independent body charged with policing political shenanigans.

If he were seriously concerned about making politics more relevant, he would embrace electoral reform. But then, as with his tabloid-friendly humiliation of one of the more human characters on his front bench, this isn't about serious reform. It is just about making Cameron look good for a day's headlines. But he will soon find that a good day's headlines today can be a big headache tomorrow, especially if he does make it to No 10.

MPs wanted: no human beings need apply

It may not be fashionable to say so, but the news that Jacqui Smith and Alastair Darling are likely to be out of the cabinet as a result of the never-ending expenses saga is a cause for concern rather than rejoicing. I have known both for a long time, and I know both to be able, dedicated, honest people, who came into politics to make a difference and have been talented ministers in their time with the Labour government - I know in particular how much difference Jacqui made on schools policy, and her talents are sorely missed at education these days. But Jacqui has stronger support in Redditch than people think, as her result in 2005 (where there was no swing against Labour) showed and I hope she can keep her seat.

But there is a wider point here. The BBC poll today tells us that half the public thinks that at least half of MPs' are 'corrupt'. And there is no doubt that the last month has been a positive boon for the white van man/saloon bar world view, harnessed by the BNP/UKIP axis no doubt to shocking proportions this Thursday.

In the process, nobody wants to stand up for politicians. Of course, there are a few who have milked the system shamelessly and they deserve whatever they get. (I don't believe that includes either Darling or Smith - as both got caught out primarily because of a 2004 rule change affecting ministers and their designation of second home). Most MPs claimed allowances to which they were told they were entitled, and were not trying to milk the system.

And the Telegraph coverage has now lost all sense of proportion: listening to Frank Cook's apology for a claim (that was rejected) for a £5 church donation ending up in the Fees Office did not suggest someone trying to fiddle the system but an MP whose office has patently made a silly mistake. He did not deserve to see his 26 years in parliament turned into a piece of faux Sunday newspaper outrage. Was this really Sunday's biggest news?

Fewer and fewer people were willing to enter politics for the money, even with the allowances as they were. Most of those across all parties have worked for years, often at considerable personal cost, building up local support to become an MP because they believe in democratic politics and the contribution they might make to their community or causes.

They work incredibly hard in their constituencies dealing with expectations that have grown as their collective reputation has declined. As David Aaronovitch says today, if they are guilty of anything, it is not realising the impact of what John Keane calls 'monitory democracy' - the onslaught of Freedom of Information, the Internet, 24 hour news and new technology. Few of the political giants of the past would stand a day's scrutiny under this system, let alone years of it.

So, there will be changes to the systems of expenses, and there may be some democratic reforms too - though they should be done with cross-party support, not the shameless self-interest of some party leaders. But in the end we still need people to want to become MPs because we need people who are willing to make huge sacrifices to their personal life (and for most, becoming an MP means you have little time for much else) to do so.

What we are now likely to get as a result of the relentless assault of the last month are humourless self-righteous sorts who are, of course, incapable of making the slightest mistake. In such circumstances, the only person who would want to be an MP is someone with no hinterland or human frailties, or an egomaniac extremist who plays to the populist mood.

If people don't think much of our current MPs, just wait until they see what comes next.

This post was picked up by the Local Democracy blog.

Gordon was very good, but is it too late?

The Gordon Brown we saw on this morning's Andrew Marr programme was the leader we have long been promised by his supporters, but the one we too seldom see. He was concise, passionate and forceful in setting out what needs to be done on expenses and what he believes needs to happen on democratic reform. By contrast, David Cameron delivered a below par performance on Sky minutes later.

But with polls variously putting Labour on 16% in the European elections and 22% in national rankings, it all has a bit of a feel of too little, too late. Obviously, I hope Labour does better than the polls suggest on Thursday, and on Europe the expenses saga has utterly obscured the extremism of the Tories (in their plans to hop into bed with Europe's looniest parties rather than the moderate Christian Democrats) and the utter barminess of UKIP, a party which knows a thing or two about fiddling expenses. But the truth on Friday is that the party will be facing a huge electoral headache.

At that stage, Labour will need to decide what it does next. I am sceptical of a reshuffle whose central feature is installing Ed Balls as Chancellor, though I tend to believe little of what I read on the front page of the Sunday Times. But Brown's hint of a more bipartisan approach to government in this morning's Marr interview was more promising and is much more the direction people want after the last few weeks. He should be braver on electoral as well as democratic reform too: Cameron's cretinous suggestion that putting a new electoral system to the voters in a referendum is somehow anti-democratic exposes his plans (to cut the number of Labour MPs)in all their partisan vacuousness; Brown should be braver and openly less partisan.

It is a shame we have seen so little of the Gordon Brown we saw this morning over the last two years. But if it is a signal of a new way of doing things, it may offer a chance of some recovery after Thursday. Otherwise, there may well need to be bigger and tougher decisions made about the future leadership of the party. But it would be best for Labour and for the stability of the economy as we try to recover from the recession if we didn't need to reach that point ahead of the next election.

Would Cameron really let go in No 10?

Surely one of the funniest notions to emerge from the whole expenses crisis is the image of David Cameron as the man who wants to become Prime Minister only to hand what limited power he has in Number 10 over to backbenchers and local authorities.

Yet this is what we were expected to believe from his speech yesterday (although he was quick to reject the one thing that might demonstrate that he really would give up some power - proportional representation). Sure, I can see that he might want to cut the number of (Labour) MPs and pretend this is a selfless gesture. And he might even want to improve select committees (though they are a lot more powerful now than in the 1990s).

But are we really expected to believe that when Cameron finally works out what he wants to do as Prime Minister, he will let opposition backbenchers and his own councillors who oppose his plans for Swedish-style schools tear it all up to make a constitutional point. Helpfully, Anne McElvoy has dispelled any such notions in a great piece in tonight's London Evening Standard which explains just how much of a control freak Democratic Dave really is. Referring to his handling of recalcitrant MPs, she tells us how the sight of his former PPS Andrew McKay 'prattling' on TV was enough for Dave to hang him out to dry and asks:

What does all this tell us about his way of running things? For one thing, that he enjoys wielding authority and can wear it without strain. He still relies on a small group of insiders in times of trouble - the attack on "sofa government" in yesterday's speech might be deemed a bit rich coming from a man whose inner team practically inhabit his office sofa.

She goes on to point out that

A consistent faultline in Project Cameron is that it is both devolving and centralising at the same time, and often on the same issues. The present mood has tipped the balance - without an assessment of the impact of how it fits with other Conservative goals. That's evident when the shadow education spokesman waxes Govishly about devolving power one day - and then starts insisting on traditional subjects and uniform practices across the board the next.

It is said that Tony Blair talked constitutional reform in opposition but didn't deliver in Government. Ignoring devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, an overhaul of the House of Lords, PR in non-Westminster elections and Freedom of Information, this is what passes for informed comment among political pundits. Blair introduced huge constitutional reforms with lasting impact (as MPs shamed over expenses know). But what he also recognised was that sometimes being Prime Minister required leadership from the centre; without it, reform rarely happened and was often stymied.

The problem for Cameron is that he has been making his limited proposals sound more impressive than they are. And when it comes to delivering reforms - such as those on schools - which are disliked by a professional establishment that includes many of his own agents of localism (that's Tory councillors in old money) he'll find (should he win an election) that he'll want to use any real levers available to him as a Prime Minister to get his reforms through.

Of course, by then, yesterday's speech will be ancient history.

Johnson is right on PR

Alan Johnson's article in today's Times rightly makes the case for the sort of fundamental political reform casually dismissed with typical selflessness by David Cameron as an 'irrelevance'. The AV-plus system recommended by the Jenkins commission would give voters a much greater connection with their MPs - as they must amass 50 per cent of the constituency votes after transfers - and the chance to register a protest vote whilst also backing a potential governing party.

It is an elegant solution to the crisis facing our democracy and one which deserves the support of Gordon Brown. That Alan Johnson, whose tenure at health has been an unsung success, may see this as part of his post-election bid for the leadership makes it no less worthy. Labour has been playing second fiddle to Cameron's breathtakingly self-interested use of the expenses crisis for weeks now. This is the sort of measure that could both restore the party's reformist credentials - and put it back on the front foot in the political debate.

Political parties are better for us than Esther Rantzen

As the drip-drip of Telegraph revelations continues, the cry goes up that we need an early general election to 'clear the air.' But this would be a big mistake. It would simply produce a parliament of extremists and policy-free independents. While the odd Martin Bell may be good for politics, a collection of people elected purely because of who they are not would be damaging to good governance.

The truth is that despite the fashion for extreme cynicism, politicians who stand on a platform tend to work towards achieving it, in areas as diverse as education, health, the economy and transport. Labour achieved over 80% of its manifesto commitments in its first term. The Tories with an alternative platform - given the time to formulate it - would work towards their alternative, as would the Liberal Democrats. But making politics a policyfree zone as a revenge for the moats and duck islands would lead to a lack of any such sense of purpose, substituting an ill-defined anger with politicians for the purpose of political parties. As Janice Turner puts it (pretty pointedly) about Esther Rantzen in an excellent piece in today's Times:

Do years uncommitted to a party make a celebrity admirably independent or mean that she simply couldn't subsume her ego to anything bigger than herself?

So, it would be folly to call an election at a time when perspective is so skewed. Instead, the parties should clean up politics, and consider other reforms which could improve confidence in MPs (such as an alternative vote or PR allowing both protests and effective votes). At the same time, all the parties must find the space to remake the case for party politics.

It is a lot stronger than the case for Esther Rantzen.

The speaker must go

I don't often agree with Nick Clegg. But he is right when he says that Speaker Michael Martin must step down. There has been a lot of nasty class-based criticism of Martin over the years, and that has been as distasteful as it has been unfair. But this is not the issue of the moment. The fact is that Martin has been in effective charge of the expenses regime that has become so discredited. He has also failed to prepare the ground for the inevitable publication of expense claims, preferring instead an ultimately futile battle in the courts. A radical overhaul of the system is urgently needed, along lines discussed earlier on this blog. Michael Martin cannot be the person to see it implemented.

Sir Christopher Kelly must report quickly

I hold no particular brief for Clare Short (quite the contrary given her erratic political behaviour) but the attempt by the Daily Telegraph to make something of her claim for full rather than interest-only mortgage payments, which she repaid three years ago when the Fees Office pointed out her error, shows how the paper is mixing the serious - as with Elliott Morley and the McKay-Kirkbride couple - with the rest to create an atmosphere that 'they're all it'; one which would justify voters in supporting mad and bad political parties like UKIP and the BNP.

Aside from the more egregious examples, what we have is the following:
* Some relatively minor examples of expenses and allowances which the Fees Office should not have permitted - presumably this was supposed to be the job of the trusted employee who was too busy selling the information to the Telegraph for a six-figure sum; and cases where MPs submitted longer receipts apparently to cover some allowable items on them, a distinction ignored by the Telegraph to produce more salacious headlines.
* A system where a reluctance to pay MPs a better salary has led to a sense of entitlement over allowances and expenses, leading some to claim the maximum allowance, which seems to have been actively encouraged by the fees office.
* A pig-headed attitude of some MPs which delayed necessary reforms, and which seems to have found expression in the Speaker, whose time is clearly up
* An opposition which is successfully obscuring its nakedly partisan demands for an end to the communications allowance (perhaps we could reduce opposition Short payments to an inflation-uprated equivalent of what Labour worked with pre-97 too? No, I didn't think so) and a reduction in (Labour) MPs as an act of pure selflessness.
* A government party which has lost the ability to communicate its message effectively, which has meant that it has appeared to be playing 'second fiddle' to the Tories even though its proposals have been far more sensible - and that includes the much scorned £150 daily attendance allowance - the cost of a moderate London hotel room - as an alternative to second home allowances.
* A public distaste for the main parties which is likely to see support for UKIP and the BNP increase at the local and European elections (incidentally, if Tory support falls below 30%, there is surely a real crisis for Cameron there) and which has licensed saloon bar loutishness as an 'expression of public anger.'

That seems to me to be where we are. And it needs urgent action: the three main political parties must now get their act together to agree a way forward that cleans up politics - and its appearance - in a root and branch way.

If Sir Christopher Kelly is to present the solution, he must pull his finger out. Politics can't afford a vacuum, as Sir Christopher acts as if he has been given a commission for a long-term academic research report. There is frankly no reason why he should not report well before the summer recess. Doing so is vital to restoring faith in democratic politics - and the elected politicians who, for all their faults, are vital to its operation.

Full disclosure

Well done to George Foulkes for his pricking the pomposity of BBC interviewers in this gem from News 24. MPs earn £64,000 a year; but News 24 presenters get £92,000, reveals Carrie Gracie. She will be popular in the BBC News canteen.

Pay more, end expenses

Gordon Brown is right to join David Cameron in apologising over expenses. But I see little point in adding to the synthetic outrage of newspapers over the whole saga. I trust no journalist who has written or pontificated on the issue has ever fiddled their expenses (and, in consequence, the taxman) in the past, and that the proprietors of newspapers filling acres of space on the subject wouldn't dream of finding ways to avoid paying taxes in the UK.

That said, the whole thing is an utter mess for MPs and very bad for the image of parliamentary politics. Like state funding of political parties, it is an example of where fear of a day or two's bad headlines has led politicians foolishly to opt for the worst possible solutions. MPs should be better paid - £100,000 a year, fully taxed, would be about what a GP earns - and get no living expenses beyond travel costs (through a railcard for all).

Political parties, already heavily funded by the taxpayer, should be largely funded by them with donations above £1000 banned. Those two simple measures might cause a day or two of synthetic outrage. But it would do more to clean up politics - and its public image - than any of the absurdly complicated alternatives being bandied about at the moment.

Gordon Brown's plans on MPs' expenses are spot on

As John Rentoul says, Gordon Brown's proposals for flat rate daily allowances for MPs, with an end to second homes and John Lewis lists as well as cossetting of those living within the M25, are exactly what is needed to deal with the recent problems.

Of course, the media hate them. There will be no more receipts to trawl through or houses to inspire envy. The Sunday 'newspapers' will be bereft. But that's also why it is right. British MPs are not especially well rewarded compared to other parliamentarians. But the system they created for expenses couldn't have been more cockeyed especially for our FoI times.

Brown's simple but fair proposals - even if they upset those who wanted to spend months hammering out compromises in committee - are just the job. MPs should get on and introduce them quickly. Doing so can only improve faith in them in the long term.

Some good news in the polls

Today's Sunday Times/YouGov poll shows the Tory lead reduced to seven points and a boost in Gordon Brown's personal ratings. It now needs Alastair Darling to do the goods with the Budget to consolidate this position. I've been surprised by the sourness of the Tory reaction this week: it is all-advised.

But the Government also needs to show the confidence that has been on display at the G20 this week across other policy areas: Labour has much stronger welfare and health policies than the Tories and should say so; on education, Labour academies are showing the way forward but they are not being promoted by Labour 'children's ministers' whose message on education has been lost in recent months. Here too, Labour must regain the initiative, not least in the wake of LSC incompetence over college and post-16 funding.

On a separate note, it is encouraging to see that voters have a saner attitude towards the whole issue of MP funding - and Jacqui Smith in particular - than has been exhibited in the sexist bile dumped on the Home Secretary in recent weeks. But Gordon Brown must sort the expenses issue out quickly if it is not to become a running sore that damages the government and not just the public perception of MPs.

The corrosion of politics

I'm with Hopi Sen on the ludicrously overblown 'Jacqui Smith affair' and I also think David Aaronovitch (as ever) gets to the heart of the matter. But I do worry about the corrosive effect all this talk of MPs' expenses has on people's already low opinion of politics and politicians. In part, it is the absurd media reporting which conflates staffing costs with MPs' salaries and expenses, as in some of last night's TV news. In part, it is a side effect of the greater transparency wrought by FoI and other changes. And it also seems as if it may be the result of corrupt dealings and disgraceful leaking by someone close to the Fees Office.

But it is also a product of the way in which the expenses system is constructed as a poor substitute for salaries. Gordon Brown needs to get together with his fellow party leaders to sort this out quickly, whether through single payments that are taxed or through attendance allowances which could cover a hotel bill and meals. One way or another, these needs sorting....and quickly.

Time to simplify and cut MPs' allowances

The Mail on Sunday's campaign against politicians continues today in its attack on jobs minister Tony McNulty. Like Jacqui Smith, he has been pilloried for how he has allegedly used his second home allowance. Next week, doubtless someone else will be picked off by the paper. Neither McNulty nor Smith were breaking any rules - but they are victims of a ridiculous system of allowances which should be scrapped forthwith.

Instead, there should be a very simple flat rate payment to MPs who live outside London - McNulty suggests himself a 40 mile radius would make sense - for accommodation, utilities and transport which should be enough to run a decent flat and cover rail or air fares (perhaps banded for those living furthest away). It should be significantly less than what is currently paid, but sufficient, with no John Lewis lists.

But it should then be entirely up to MPs whether they use it to pay rent, stay in hotels, pay a mortgage or stop in a youth hostel. In other words, rather than encouraging creative interpretations of the rules, it would be seen as a part of their salaries. And how they spent it would be nobody's business but their own. For those living closer to London, there might be a free rail season ticket and the occasional overnight hotel room where business demanded it.

The whole thing would be a lot cheaper - a target of halving the total cost should be set - as the size of the allowance would be cut, and as there would be far fewer administrative overheads, with no need for ever-expanding audits. And we would not have the absurd weekly attempts to portray politicians who are decent, hard-working and honourable people - as both Tony and Jacqui are - as corrupt chancers. The only losers would be certain Sunday papers. But I think we could live with that.

Time to simplify MPs' allowances

The latest stories about MPs' allowances - and attempts by some papers to bring down the Home Secretary over her claim - highlight once again the absurdity of the current system of MPs' pay and allowances.

Instead of allowing MPs to tie themselves in knots over their housing allowances and what they spend at John Lewis to equip their flats, there should be a flat rate accommodation allowance which would allow an MP to rent a decent central London flat and equip it. How they choose to spend that money should then be of little concern: it should be treated like a 'London weighting' cost. The same rate should be paid to any MPs from constituencies outside the London Underground boundaries, and those within but in the outer suburbs should be allowed exceptionally to claim up to £160 for a hotel room if the House sits after 10pm.

All other accommodation allowances should be scrapped. The only real losers would be prurient Sunday newspapers who would be bereft of their pseudo-scandals. The rest of us might benefit from some real news instead.

Return to 1995?

John Major on the radio. Nannygate with a senior Tory. Dodgy dealings (allegedly) with Tory parliamentarians. Unconvincing petulant front bench Tory making excuses for it all. So it is just like 1995 all over again!