MPs' salaries

It is difficult to establish the right pay for MPs, but here goes. We do have to attract people with ability so it must be high to do that. Possibly they could earn differential salaries depending on age and years of service in Parliament. How about this: Under 40. First term in parliament. £65,000 (novices but learning, we hope) Over 40 First term. £80,000 (i.e. people who have already had half a career) Second term all ages £90,000 (many potential ministers) Beyond two terms £100,000 (people who are not ministers but professional MPs) The price paid by MPs for the higher salaries should be: No expenses at all except when on official business, but keep additional salary for select committee chairs. Limited outside earnings as Labour suggests. All to show tax returns. This would attract decent people, but salaries would not be high enough to attract 'chancers' - they can go into the city and earn much more with less effort. But a key issue here is the way we structure political careers. We can learn from the USA here. We find virtually all our ministers from one single pool - the House of Commons. The Commons is full of people earning £65,000 which does not represent a ringing endorsement of their ability, these days about two thirds what a GP earns and probably half that of a solicitor or dentist. No wonder we complain about the low calibre of people on the front benches. If we could recruit ministers from OUTSIDE parliament we would be fishing in a much bigger pond and might hook some big fish where they are needed. There is a nonsense that says government must be accountable so ministers must be members of parliament. This is the result of a piece of traditional absurdity that does not allow 'strangers' on the floor of the House. Why on earth not?! Non parliamentary ministers could be summoned before the House or select committees and become accountable. What is more parliament could get rid of the incompetents, rogues and vagabonds simply by impeaching them or just voting them out of office. This is difficult when ministers are constituency-elected. It is complex but some of the principles need to be re-examined.

Labour and monopoly capitalism

The Labour leadership's inept performance continues, I'm afraid. Michael Heseltine got it right in yesterday's Question Time when he said that, were it not for Ukip, the Conservatives would be well ahead in the polls and heading for an easy victory. Anyone in Labour who thinks they are doing well - and Caroline Flint in the same show thought they were - is living in cloud cuckoo land. Labour secured 29% in 2010 and are now running at 33% in the polls. Hardly a ringing endorsement. The problem, I believe, is that Labour is trying to attack the Conservatives at its strong points, instead of its weak ones. One of its weak ones is the Tory association with unacceptable behaviour by monopoly capitalism. The litany of current concerns about market failure and exploitation by big business is quite startling: -The behaviour of banks of course. Market rigging, secret accounts, deceiving retail customers, poor service etc. etc. -Financial institutions that charge hidden and inflated costs for pensions, annuities and investment products -The energy companies overpricing and also deceiving customers through complex tariffs. -The railways with poor and deteriorating quality of service. -The secondary ticket market that rips us all off with overpriced tickets and admin charges -Tax avoidance and evasion. - Price comparison sites that deceive us - Petrol companies that fail to pass on wholesale price reductions in full to customers -Payday loan sharks The public now finds itself having to fight a constant war against such practices, and it is a war that cannot be won without government help. The list goes on. The deregulatory policies of the Conservatives support these iniquities, with the connivance of the Liberal Democrats - but Labour's attack is lame. I constant, unrelenting attack on such market exploitation would yield better results for Labour than trying to compete on economic management. Time also that the Conservatives stood up to be counted on these issues. Then the fruits of their successful economic management might be more evenly spread.

Political Deadlock- Not such a bad thing

Most commentators are predicting some kind of political deadlock after May 7 and they are likely to be right, whether it be minority government, unstable coalition or a prolonged period of uncertainty and another quick election. But is this such a bad thing? People I know who work in education or medicine find that the greatest problem they face is constant churning as new 'reforms' are introduced. The reason is often because new ministers feel they have something to prove and the only way they can do it is to push through some sort of change. Michael Gove, for example, was addicted to this trait. If we do experience a longish period of political deadlock this may come to an end and nothing will happen. Oh how these institutions crave for at least five years of no change, save perhaps for more generous funding and the training of enough good staff. Sadly no party or individual is likely to propose such a moratorium. They think there are no votes in it, so hopefully circumstances will force their hand.

Falling off a log - 2

It's falling off a log time again for Balls and Miliband. The point of Labour is to control capitalism when it isn't operating in the interests of the community. It should be encouraging business when it is to the benefit of the community but not if otherwise. Therefore there is a straight forward clear message they can offer when asked, 'Is Labour friendly to business?' It is : Yes it does want to encourage business with these there conditions: That they pay the taxes they should. That they do not exploit their workers. That they do not use market power to exploit consumers. Simple really and nobody, including representative of business, could argue with these conditions. Furthermore, Labour is promising to keep Britain in the EU and out of the euro, both of which policies are supported by most businesses. I also think the party should start to distinguish more clearly between earned and unearned income in the tax system. Example - who should pay more tax of these two? : A builder builds a house and sells it to Mr X at a £100,000 profit. Mr X keeps the house unsold and unlet for a year then sells it at a £100,000 profit. As things stand they will pay approximately the same tax. The builder corporation tax or income tax and Mr X capital gains (unless Mr X's clever accountant avoids the cgt, of course, in which case.....). It's a no brainer really. Furthermore the builder has created something of value. A family can live in it, it adds to the asset wealth of the nation. Mr X has produced nothing except a profit for himself. Simple. So tell it to the electorate!

Je suis William Godwin

The debate over censorship and the Charlie Hebdo affair has gone quiet but the issue won't go away. I have said in a tweet today that the measure of a civilized society is not how many laws it has but how few it needs. I think we can apply this to this debate. William Godwin, the early anarchist-leaning philosopher of the later eighteenth century talked of the need for the exercise of 'private judgment' in a moral society. He meant that the exercise of self restraint in the interests of others was far preferable to man made laws enforcing such behaviour. I once met Geoffrey Howe, the (in my opinion) underrated Conservative cabinet minister under Thatcher who told me that he believed something similar - that democracy will only truly work if there is widespread 'obedience to the unenforceable'. He was suggesting that we must all take into consideration the freedom, opinions and feelings of others before we act, whether or not laws exist to force us to do so. George Orwell called this 'common humanity'. I have no problem criticising evil behaviour carried out in the name of religion but it does seem uncivilized to criticise people's faith gratuitously. (in the way, for example, Richard Dawkins does). We should exercise private judgment, obey the unenforceable and respect common humanity before criticising another's beliefs as long as those beliefs exist in a peaceful context. So, yes, I would criticise anyone who mocks a religion for its own sake but oppose the passage of laws to prevent them doing so. If we are a civilized and democratic society, we should not need censorship.