A reflection of society?

WHEN I entered parliament in 1987, MPs were paid £18,500 per annum plus expenses. By 2020 they were receiving £81, 932 a year, plus expenses. A big rise, even after taking into account the ravages of inflation.

Many people believe that if you want to attract the best into Westminster, you have to pay the rate to attract them. I can see the argument for that, but I am not sure that it has worked. Might it be that you also run the risk of attracting people who do it entirely for the money? Or those who have never worked in other than politics?

I admit, the expenses available in 1987 were generous, but strictly controlled by the Commons Fees Office.

They made clear what was permissible and decided if claims were valid. More recent years claims appear to have operated under a more lax regime, one MP

even claiming for a bird house on his duck pond!

Then some MPs switched their “main home” from constituency to London (and vice versa) to claim the cost of furnishing the “second home” — effectively twice. Technically permissible, but hardly in the spirit of why such claims were originally allowed for MPs with a constituency home outside London and a necessary London base when attending the Commons. No wonder the public looks on aghast.

Is it corruption, lax administration of claims, or legal (but inventive) interpretation of the rules? I believe UK politics (and most politicians) are still, by far, the least corrupt in the world, but public perception is all. Could it be that whatever Westminster’s faults, it is merely a reflection of the society that elects it? I suspect it is.