E-Representation

It is easy to criticise MPs, however for many there are various jobs they have to balance in order to do their job. A good MP will pay particular attention to the constituency, after all they are (as some state on Facebook profiles) their employer, but also because that is the fundamental purpose and justification for the British electoral system. However, being able to be a constituency MP can be a challenge. Talking to Jim Knight prior to the 2005 General Election about his promotion of the almost 6,000 pieces of casework he had dealt with since 2001 one got the sense of a very hard working MP but also that this was helped by the fairly easy journey between London and Weymouth (compared to many areas) and also his backbench status. The real challenge is for all MPs to find was to connect to their constituency and so represent their constituents fully.

Tom Brake may have found one solution that allows direct live contact from anywhere, the use of Facebook chat and messaging facilities. His first online Facebook surgery was held last night and he says it was a success and an experiment that will continue: "it was a great success and I'm delighted to speak to so many of you. People raised really interesting issues with me about parking, speed bumps, housing, disability services, care services, crime and schooling. I was delighted to be able to help answer you questions and will make online surgeries a regular thing". Tom brake is not a Minister but he is Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson and a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee so is required to be in Westminster more than a backbencher. His seat of Carshalton and Wallington is marginal (1,068 votes) so perhaps a driving force, though that is an entirely cynical view. But, if this was the success he suggests it perhaps offers a model of MPs; finding how to reach a section of constituents and using that to enhance their representative role. It can only be a supplement, not everyone is on Facebook, but it can also draw people to Facebook and so increase the amount of people he has access to. Of course in terms of his own personal standing, this additional level of accessibility cannot harm is reputation either. So, could this be a valuable addition to the communication tools of an MP?

Return on Investment?

The release of MPs expenses is often an occasion to marvel at either the strange, the exorbitant or the minuscule. With the Conservatives publishing the whole MPs expenses for the last three months (see here) as part of the transparency equals trust agenda, it is interesting to see how much MPs spend on communications. This category of spend is sadly most frequently an undefined general amount, so we know that Jonathan Djanogly spent £18 April to June; while David Davies (that's Davies of Monmouthshire) spent £7494.76. The problem is we do not know how that £7000+ is broken down. Other MPs are far more transparent and offer a full breakdown and this is fascinating in terms of their communication priorities and the potential return on investment.

Surprisingly, flicking through the report I estimate at least half spent absolutely nothing on communication, this suggests that either their communication (such as updating or maintaining a website) is free, or it is purely media relations and swallowed within the budget of a staff member. Staff may also be updating the website etc and so there is no extra cost. The major spend is the Westminster Report, the MP's newsletters which vary in frequency (2-4 per year) and in delivery method (TNT, Royal Mail). The average cost for this is £2796.

Websites are the next priority and, for those that have an associated cost, are far cheaper. While it is not defined exactly what the spend is, of the 17 that have a cost associated with the website all but three are below £1000, and seven are below £500. The disparity is interesting, one does wonder why Tony Baldry's website cost £1882.94, though an excellent site it does seem high. This is particularly when contrasted with David Cameron who pays £246.25 to Reaper Enterprises Ltd for his constituency website a separate entity to WebCameron.

For me this is interesting as it displays a shift in priorities to some extent. Interviewing MPs in 2002 as part of a project working for Ralph Negrine, few talked much about websites or constituency newsletters, the majority were concerned about media relations. The Liberal Democrats were alone talking about the Focus newsletter, this seems now to becoming a widespread practice. However the question is on return on investment. Is up to £5000 per quarter or per annum (I did wonder if some of the expenses declared were one-off or yearly payments; some say they are, some are unspecified) a good investment for something that may line a budgie's cage, cat litter tray or go straight into the bin? Well the answer is yes as somewhere in that process the recipient may recognise that their MP has communicated with them, assume this means they are working on their behalf, and so the MP gains an incumbency benefit. Equally, and aside from winning votes, it is a good thing that MPs demonstrate they are acting as representatives. But can websites overtake the newsletter? This would be highly cost effective and perhaps have more impact on that incumbency value. The few MP's websites I looked at are very good, very much about the constituency, but do they have a pull factor that will get a constituent visiting and interacting with the MP?

Not a public servant it seems!

Common sense seems to have prevailed on the MP's pay review, a below inflation rise of 1.9% fulfils Harriet Harman's suggestion that they show "the same discipline in terms of pay increases as other public sector workers". One MP who will not be happy, however, is Conservative MP for Torbay Anthony Steen, he has claimed that MPs are treated like dirt and, in a report in today's Western Morning News is quoted as stating:

"If people want a democracy you have got to value them, and how much you are paid is linked to how much you are valued. If they are going to treat MPs like dirt, pay them badly, and have a filthy old time and struggle against every possible obstacle, we end up with a civil service mentality."

He also railed against travel allowances:

"There needs to be a more realistic provision to enable MPs to take taxis to and from London train stations. It is neither reasonable nor practical to expect Members of Parliament who are not in the prime of youth to carry heavy cases on the Underground. While I believe taxi fares can be claimed from the office cost allowance, if one visits one's constituency most weekends this could reach £1,000 each year."

The article did not get massive response but clearly his constituents are not happy about his attitude either to public service or him wishing to be set apart.

1. L Crawford writes "I am disgusted that an MP supposedly representing Devon could make these comments when there are serious issues in the county surrounding low incomes and unaffordable properties for local people"
2. Adam points out Mr Steen "For 2006/7 Mr Steen claimed an additional £148,885 (Ranked 100th out of 645 MPs). This includes a £22,110 claim for "additional costs allowance" (joint 1st place on this!). "
3. Daz tells him "this man is meant to be a servant of the people, me in fact, so I tell him this - WALK!!!!!" remembering Steen was also caught illegally parking in a disabled bay earlier this year.

They go on, the clear message is that his comments seem to have not gone down well among those who he is meant to be representing; perhaps this indicates that the MPs constituency service role is increasingly important and that there is a law of censure at play in local as much as in national politics and that the public will reject statements and claims that do not fit with their model of the role of an MP.