Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Spin, not
face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary
people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question
which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member
might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like
us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she
might tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September
16, 2004
|
£8m
in MSPs' expenses, but what do we get for it?
HAMISH
MACDONELL - SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR - THE SCOTSMAN, December
22, 2004
Key points
•
Figures released yesterday show MSP expense allowances of £8
million.
• Travel expenses between constituency and Holyrood make
up bulk of claims
• Call for 'value for money' assessment to reduce excess
Key
quote
"From
a public relations point of view, it would be beholden on them
to try to restrain expenses. We are all being asked to hold back;
we are asking local authorities to, and the civil service."
BILL
ANDERSON, FORUM OF PRIVATE BUSINESS IN SCOTLAND
MSPS
have recorded an inflation-busting rise in the amount they claim
in expenses, according to figures released yesterday which showed
that the tax- payers’ bill for Holyrood allowances rose to
almost £8 million last year. The
politicians immediately faced demands that they take part in a
"value-for-money" audit after details of their expenses
claims for 2003-4 were published.
The
statistics showed a huge range of claims from different MSPs,
but top of the list was Keith Raffan, a Liberal Democrat. Mr Raffan
is one of the MSPs representing Mid-Scotland and Fife, yet he
managed to put in travel expenses totalling £41,154.64 for
the 2003-4 financial year.
With
MSPs’ mileage expenses calculated on the generous rate of
49.3p per mile, this works out at the equivalent of 84,000 miles
in a year - or three and a half journeys around the world - when
his electors are just over the Forth Bridge in Fife.
The
travel bill submitted by Mr Raffan, who lives just a few hundred
yards from the parliament in Edinburgh, dwarfed all the others
to such an extent that the next most expensive travel claim was
half that, from Alasdair Morrison, the Western Isles MSP, who
claimed £22,567 for travelling to his constituency and back
for the year.
Mr
Raffan said he had to claim such a large amount in travel expenses
this year because he had failed to claim as much as he should
have in previous years. He said the £41,000 should be spread
over the past five years to get the true figure for his yearly
travel bill, not seen in isolation in just this, latest, year.
It
is true that Mr Raffan claimed virtually nothing in travel expenses
in the first two years the parliament was in existence, but he
had been claiming substantial expenses for travel for the previous
two years, totalling £10,000.
So
while he may have had some ground to make up from the first two
years of the parliament, he still managed to claim more than MSPs
from the same region even before he put in his huge £41,000
claim this year.
Mr
Raffan, however, remained unrepentant, insisting that he travelled
all the time around his region, the second biggest in Scotland,
in his Skoda Fabia car.
The
Liberal Democrat MSP said: "My constituency region is the
second biggest in Scotland. I go up and down to my office in Perth
four times a week before I get anywhere else. What do you expect
me to do - sit in my office and see nobody in the constituency?"
The
total bill for MSPs expenses and allowances was £7.9 million.
This represents a rise of £400,000 or 5.3 per cent - more
than twice the rate of inflation - on the previous year, 2002-3,
which in turn saw a rise of £300,000 on the year before.
Business
leaders warned that MSPs could not continue to urge restraint
on the rest of the population and squeeze local government finances
while splashing out on themselves to such an outrageous extent.
Bill
Anderson, from the Forum of Private Business in Scotland, called
for MSPs to be assessed to find out whether they were performing
as well as they should be.
"Are
we getting value for money?" he asked. "Should we have
a value-for-money analysis of MSPs’ performance?
"From
a public relations point of view, it would be beholden on them
to try to restrain expenses. We are all being asked to hold back;
we are asking local authorities to, and the civil service.
"It
would be a wise thing for them to show restraint on expenses like
everybody else."
Mr
Anderson said some of the MSPs were doing a good job and obviously
justified their allowances, but he questioned whether all were
performing to the same standard. His comments echo concerns which
have arisen from several areas of Scottish society in the last
few days over the quality of Scotland’s MSPs.
The
debate was prompted by Lord Sewel, the former Scottish Office
minister, who called for the Scotland Act to be changed to allow
non-MSPs to be appointed as ministers to "widen the talent
pool".
The
rise in expenses, at a time when many people are questioning their
quality, will do nothing to enhance the reputation of the Scottish
Parliament. The average claim for each MSP was about £70,000
last year, but this covers staff salaries and office costs in
the constituency and the parliament, as well as expenses.
Mr
Raffan’s high travel expenses made him the most expensive
MSP in the country, costing the taxpayer a total of £108,825.99
last year. Jamie Stone, another Liberal Democrat MSP, claimed
the second highest total overall. His bill for the taxpayer was
£92,187.64.
Mr
Stone’s claim was pushed up by £15,901.11 of travel
costs to his remote constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and
Easter Ross. He also had equipment and supply costs of £5,571.32.
Alex
Fergusson, a Tory MSP, was third on the list with an expenses
claim of £90,285.27, caused largely by travel costs of nearly
£13,000, as well as a claim of £7,749 to cover costs
of accommodation in Edinburgh. MSPs can claim the cost of staying
overnight in the capital if they live more than a standard commuting
distance from the parliament. However, some use the money to pay
mortgages on flats in the city - even though the flats will not
be returned to the taxpayer after they leave the parliament.
Some
MSPs put in big claims for office equipment last year, but a parliament
spokesman said that was part of a rolling programme of "IT
refreshment".
Some
were given the chance to change the computer equipment in their
constituency offices this year, while others will be given the
same opportunity next year.
Public
to pick up £80,000 tab for members' restaurant
SCOTTISH
taxpayers are being asked to pay up to £80,000 to subsidise
a restaurant in which they are not allowed to eat. The
MSPs’ privately run restaurant in the new parliament building
at Holyrood is making substantial losses and is in danger of going
out of business.
But
parliamentarians on the ruling Corporate Body have decided to
extend the taxpayers’ subsidy for the restaurant, to keep
it going and subsidise their fine dining. Official
figures have revealed that the restaurant ran up losses of more
than £13,500 in the first two months of its operation.
The
parliamentary authorities had originally set aside about £60,000
a year to subsidise the MSPs’ restaurant but they have now
increased that provision to £80,000. Meals
are subsidised to such an extent that MSPs can enjoy a three-course
lunch for little more than a fiver but business has been so poor
that MSPs have been asked to fill out a questionnaire to find
out why they are not using it.
There
are more than 1,100 people working in the new parliament but only
the 129 MSPs and their invited guests can use the restaurant,
which contains the only bar in the complex. Staff can use the
restaurant on Mondays and Fridays when parliament is not sitting,
but it has not proved popular to restrict them in such a way and
very few bother using it.
A
spokeswoman for the parliament confirmed yesterday that the subsidy
was being extended but insisted business was picking up. She said:
"As is common practice with many large organisations, some
financial support is required to ensure that catering can be provided
for visitors and all those who work in the building. November’s
figures show a marked improvement on the initially slow start
to business."
The
spokeswoman said MSPs had decided to relax the restrictions on
the use of their bar but they wanted to keep the restaurant to
themselves - a move which is unlikely to save the facility from
more financial hardship. She said that both the bar and the restaurant
would be given a makeover to help make them more appealing.
The
report to the Corporate Body warned that the subsidy would have
to be increased from £60,000 to between £70,000 and
£80,000. The
parliament spokeswoman said she expected the final subsidy to
be between £60,000 and £70,000, rather than £70,000
and £80,000.
However,
Donald Gorrie, a Liberal Democrat MSP, hit out at the Corporate
Body’s stance. He
said the subsidy should be scrapped and the MSPs should pay the
going rate for their food. "It’s nice to have a reasonable
restaurant, but we have a reasonable salary so we should pay our
own way," he said.
The
number of lunches taken in the restaurant has fluctuated from
286 a week to just 114 and dinners from 108 to 39. In the first
eight weeks of the new parliament’s operation, the target
of serving 240 lunches and 90 dinners was met only in week one.
Many
MSPs prefer to eat in the main canteen with the rest of the staff.
It is often crowded, but MSPs feel it has a better atmosphere
than the restaurant which some have complained feels frosty and
aloof. It is understood that, in answer to the parliament’s
questionnaire, MSPs complained that the food portions were too
small and the restaurant not appealing enough.
Figures
for the first two months show the restaurant required an extra
subsidy of more than £6,000 beyond what had been budgeted
for.
For
the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom,
must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign
Such
defiance of the democratic process and the will of the majority
of we people of the UK, must be exposed by voters as a matter
or urgency, and not just in the two by-elections we have had this
July and the European elections in June 2004. But how can this
be done?
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would
be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of
Commons and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be
a penalty if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies
need to write a letter along these lines to their local Labour
MPs:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year
of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's
'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair
has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that
critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence
in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take
immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable
thing and resign without delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and
help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in
Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave
the PM with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue
to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances
I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of
issues could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and
increasing voters' interest and participation in politics. Download
a printable copy of the above letter here.
There
is another way for the voice of the silent majority to be heard,
a voice that made sure broken promises would not only be revealed,
but punished in subsequent elections.
In
the year available before the General Election expected in 2005,
many topics are available as ammunition, each one asking questions.
A weapon for our purpose will be the results of Opinion Polls
in individual constituencies using ICM, NOP, Gallop, Mori
or YouGov.
Questions
suggested for this purpose are listed here.
CAST
YOUR VOTE ON A VARIETY OF OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.
Current
and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running
for election could share a platform at public forums in every
constituency. They would be presented with the results of
polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that
constituency.
The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their
Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they
intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.
Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged
and the results published on this web site.
Here
is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in
the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective
MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote.
This example deals with the proposed
EU Constitutional Treaty.
Your
letters would end: "If you do not answer
this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government
line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election.
Or
why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates
in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions
of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).
Download
a printable example of the questionnaire.
It
is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing
themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives
in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in
their own constituency, even if this means going against their
personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their
case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency,
they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view
of those who elect them.
It
will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters
don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important
subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy.
We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters
do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form
an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of
Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.
Most
important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their
latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that
the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance
with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be
the result.
Contact
your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public
forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant
topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005.
You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of
your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject
being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected
by your representative in that assembly.
