5,669
edits
Difference between revisions of "Flipping (United Kingdom)"
no edit summary
(Created page with "'''''Original Text: Jonathan Webb, University of Sheffield''''' In the context of UK politics, ‘flipping’ refers to the practice of MPs manipulating the classification of...") |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
As the allowance system relied heavily on trust and was subject to light auditing, it became easy to systematically abuse the system. A weak system of auditing in combination with the comparatively low rate of pay offered to MPs resulted in many MPs viewing the expenses system as a supplement to their salary. Consequently, allowances were understood as an entitlement and MPs sought to gain financially from practices such as flipping. While the media has widely represented flipping as a ‘corrupt’ practice, many MPs believed their behaviour was legitimate within the context of Parliamentary culture (Kelso 2009: 330–331)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>. | As the allowance system relied heavily on trust and was subject to light auditing, it became easy to systematically abuse the system. A weak system of auditing in combination with the comparatively low rate of pay offered to MPs resulted in many MPs viewing the expenses system as a supplement to their salary. Consequently, allowances were understood as an entitlement and MPs sought to gain financially from practices such as flipping. While the media has widely represented flipping as a ‘corrupt’ practice, many MPs believed their behaviour was legitimate within the context of Parliamentary culture (Kelso 2009: 330–331)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>. | ||
In spite of the complex systemic origin of flipping, the British media has overwhelmingly portrayed the practice as unethical and even immoral, with little attention given to the institutional mechanisms that have allowed MPs to take advantage of the system. Although the practice is technically legal and within Parliamentary rules, it is commonly presented as a form of corruption. The issue of flipping has further been problematised in the context of a perceived decline in the integrity of British politics (see also entry on | In spite of the complex systemic origin of flipping, the British media has overwhelmingly portrayed the practice as unethical and even immoral, with little attention given to the institutional mechanisms that have allowed MPs to take advantage of the system. Although the practice is technically legal and within Parliamentary rules, it is commonly presented as a form of corruption. The issue of flipping has further been problematised in the context of a perceived decline in the integrity of British politics (see also entry on ''[[cash for access]]'' in this volume). In 2015 public trust in politicians stood at just 22 per cent and at the height of the expenses scandal it reached an all-time low of 13 per cent (IPSOS Mori 2015a)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015a. ‘Politicians Trusted Less than Estate Agents, Bankers and Journalists’, 5 January, https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3504/Politicians-trusted-less-than-estate-agents-bankers-and-journalists.aspx</ref>. | ||
Few solutions to eliminate the practice of flipping have been presented, despite an extensive review of the Parliamentary expenses system being promised. To reduce the occurrence of flipping, one solution may lie in recognising the resources needed by MPs to serve in a modern democracy, as well as the salaries typically available to such individuals in other professions. By failing to significantly provide these resources on a personal level through a competitive salary and attempting to supplement pay through a poorly regulated expenses scheme, flipping became a parliamentary norm (Kelso 2009: 335)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>. As a consequence, a review has recommended that the salaries of MPs increase whilst the existing expenses system is much more tightly regulated (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 2015)<ref>Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. 2015. ‘MPs' pay in the 2015 Parliament. Final report’. http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Pages/default.aspx.</ref>. However, increasing MPs’ salaries is also unpopular with the public. In 2015, 72 per cent of people thought that MPs should refuse the 10 per cent pay increase that had been recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSOS Mori 2015b)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015b. 'Most believe MPs should refuse 10% pay rise recommended by IPSA', 22 June, https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3590/Most-believe-MPs-should-refuse-10-pay-rise-recommended-by-IPSA.aspx</ref>. | Few solutions to eliminate the practice of flipping have been presented, despite an extensive review of the Parliamentary expenses system being promised. To reduce the occurrence of flipping, one solution may lie in recognising the resources needed by MPs to serve in a modern democracy, as well as the salaries typically available to such individuals in other professions. By failing to significantly provide these resources on a personal level through a competitive salary and attempting to supplement pay through a poorly regulated expenses scheme, flipping became a parliamentary norm (Kelso 2009: 335)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>. As a consequence, a review has recommended that the salaries of MPs increase whilst the existing expenses system is much more tightly regulated (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 2015)<ref>Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. 2015. ‘MPs' pay in the 2015 Parliament. Final report’. http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Pages/default.aspx.</ref>. However, increasing MPs’ salaries is also unpopular with the public. In 2015, 72 per cent of people thought that MPs should refuse the 10 per cent pay increase that had been recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSOS Mori 2015b)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015b. 'Most believe MPs should refuse 10% pay rise recommended by IPSA', 22 June, https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3590/Most-believe-MPs-should-refuse-10-pay-rise-recommended-by-IPSA.aspx</ref>. | ||