I have been doing a bit of thinking on this. People have been saying that moving the power of pay and expenses to an "independent"* quango will make the process fairer and transparent. What they are trying to imply and for the ordinary person to think is that it will be harsher on MP amd pay them less.
It might well do that.
But what happens if it says "we believe MP should be paid as much as top civil servants, heads of quangos, CEOs of hospitals, etc" and says they should also have allowances.
Just to put on the record: I don't believe you can do democracy on the cheap, I believe we have a more vibrant parliament with well staffed MPs and that legitimately employing your partner as your secretary is a good idea. Also if constituents expect their MP to do a lot of case work, surgerys, etc in the constituent, rather than being the constituent's representative in parliament (not the other way around) then a constituency home with rent paid for by the tax payer is justified.
That would mean pay over £200K and allowances. The public/press/voters/tax payers would rightly say no, no, no. But realistically there is nothing that could be done. You can't vote them out. They are meant to be independent of politicians so you couldn't vote your local MP out on it. Stuck? Yep.
This is where I totally disagree with Guido (but I'm sure he doesn't know it, never even met the bloke) but as soon as you take powers away from parliament you are taking them away from the people who elected them. Where I do agree with him is that sunshine is the best disinfectant. I know for a fact that if one as an MP knew that anything that you claimed could be seen by anybody it would make you think (long and hard if your in a marginal) when you submit claims.
* It's never independent because someone has to appoint the chair and who would that be except an elected MP.
