No choice of an honest MP .

[modeller]

I would like to vote for an honest MP .
We have 646 MPs of which only 29 didn't claim expenses and my MP isn't one of them.
What should I do ?

[modeller]

jno. Why do you chose to denigrate a group of MPs who don't rip off the taxpayers rather than praise their efforts.

[JimT]

The expenses situation, while revealing some clearly unacceptable practices, has clouded the debate somewhat. There seems to be a tendency to focus on expenses as a barometer of an MP's honesty and efficiency. Being an MP is a wide-ranging role and they should be judged against all aspects of that role. The excellent link posted earlier to the They Work For You site illustrates this - check out your MP's voting record etc as well as their expense claims. And as has been said, many expense claims are perfectly fair and reasonable - an MP can regularly claim them without abusing the system; it's that abuse that makes the difference.

And don't forget, your MP is also the parliamentary delegate for your constituency. Consider what they have done locally - are they making a difference for the better? They should be judged by the whole 3-dimensional picture, not just by how much they've claimed. What if you had an MP who had done good constructive constituency work, held regular helpful surgeries, regularly contributed to commons debates, had a voting record you largely approved of - but had a few excessive expense claims. Would you then vote against them?

[modeller]

Very good points jim . I suppose the definition of a few excessive claims is the crux of the matter. Many of those MPs now standing down because of their behaviour were described as good constituancy MPs.

[JimT]

It's a tricky one and yes, the definition of excessive or unacceptable is key. There could be good constituency MPs who feel they have no option but to stand down if there is pressure on them to do so. The pressure may, in some cases, be unwarranted - but because of the spotlight that has been shone on expenses, the voters and the constituency party may become over-sensitised to the issue and decide the MP should go. Few MPs would be arrogant or short-sighted enough to cling on in those circumstances. But some constituents have expressed regret at the demise of their MPs for this reason, because they genuinely found them to be good MPs.

I'm not just being an apologist for MPs. I know that some of those constituents will equally have felt let down precisely because they had a good MP, and were upset and disappointed to find they had abused the expenses system. And as I said, there of course some serious abuses of it. And there's no question, some MPs just drift along in safe seats, knowing they'll be voted back in just because it's a traditionally Tory or Labour constituency; some are hardly ever seen locally, or contribute to commons debates, and basically just don't seem to earn their keep. But the electrorate often have a lot to answer for, for keeping those seats safe - there's a lot of lazy voting out there, based on tradition, self-interest, ignorance, or whatever.

But we mustn't forget there are genuinely good, hardworking MPs. Ours is, and some of the people who comment here and elsewhere about how "they're all crooks" will also in fact have good MPs. Knee-jerk negative comments and ignorant cynicism are as unhelpful as lazy safe voting.

[modeller]

At the end of the day Jim. The public reaction is so negative because the MPs collectively made and supported the rules. They knew full well it was a rip off. That is why they tried to make themselves immune from the freedom of information act and even after revelations started to come out they tried to have much of it censored. Those were the actions of guilty people. Some no doubt more guilty than others.
I should mention all MPs get office , staff and travelling expenses which is not in dispute although some abused that as well.