Matthew Henty

Following on from my earlier post, MPs expenses and seat safety.

All the information I was suggesting is in the public domain, and I did start putting it together using the theyworkforyou.com API but I didn’t get very far. I also won’t get very far anytime soon as I am off to Edinburgh for the weekend. However, if all that information was available in one spreadsheet then it should be possible to look at which MPs have expenses which are unexplained, that is, particularly high or low given the observable characteristics we can analyse such as constituency distance from Westminster (another one – constituency area, don’t want to penalise highlands and islands MPs).

This means that rather than base analysis on the information the Daily Telegraph has provided, we can try and work out if there is any obvious explanatory variables for the cases the Daily Telegraph has released, apart from “unacceptable” or “completely unacceptable” expense claims of course!

Mark Thompson of “Mark Reckons” has done some analysis of MPs expenses and how safe that MP is in their seat. He used a list of MPs who have had their expenses “illuminated” by the Daily Telegraph here and then split them into seat safety (raw number, not proportional to constituency population, I believe) quartiles. This seems to show that those MPs in the safest seats are the most likely to have “cheated” on their expenses, as defined by the Daily Telegraph.

It has been picked up all over the place, the Guardian datablog, by Polly Toynbee, and Mark has been invited onto Radio 4’s “More or Less“, I will be interested to know what Tim Harford makes of it.

This is all very interesting and adds to the debate about our current voting system, but the analysis is dodgy. First, the definition of what is and what is not cheating on expenses is entirely determined by the Daily Telegraph. Isn’t it reasonable to think that the Daily Telegraph is picking on the biggest names first, and that perhaps the biggest names have the safest seats? Second, the majority (seems to be) the raw majority, from here, but surely the key point is the majority proportional to the size of the constituency. For example, compare Aldershot with a Conservative majority of 5,334 and Aldridge Brownhills with a Conservative majority of 5,507. The first has a population of 94,422 over the age of 15 (age breakdowns are not helpful!) in 2007, and the second 66,058. This is a difference of nearly 50%, and makes a huge difference. And of course the size of the registered electorate also matters, and turnout. So perhaps the best figure to use is the percentage point difference, or the swing required to unseat the MP. Perhaps Mark did this, but it isn’t clear.

What would be interesting instead is some multivariate analysis, trying to control for all the other factors that matter and analysing not the Daily Telegraph’s views, but the actual data on MPs expenses. The Guardian have collated some info here but what I don’t think has been done is to put together a spreadsheet with all the MPs, alongwith possible explanatory factors. For example:

• expenses in all years since 2005;
• constituency majority (various measures);
• distance of constituency from Westminster (travel time, miles and cost);
• year of election to Parliament;
• gender, age, family, etc, etc;
• party;
• attitudes as demonstrated by their voting record on key issues;
• ministerial or shadow ministerial responsibilities.

There must be many more possibilities. When all that information is in one place, then we can see what might explain the expenses MPs actually claim, rather than this pretty dodgy Daily Telegraph based analysis.

All that said, good on Mark for actually looking at this, I haven’t seen many others bother!

[follow-up post: MPs expenses]

Unbelievable? Via ORG:

After sending a private note to his MP opposing the proposed “three strikes” law currently being debated in France, Bourreau-Guggenheim found himself hauled into his boss’ office. He was shown a copy of his e-mail, and he was fired for “strategic differences” with his employer.

Link to Ars Technica story. And a follow up reporting someone in the Culture Minsters’ office has been suspended.

I have just discovered that Lewisham has an assembly for each ward, mine being Rushey Green. Agreed priorities are:

• public drinking
• lack of youth facilities
• parking
• anti-social behaviour
• poor public facilities (toilets)

which seems about right. Next meeting on Monday 29th June in Catford.

From the minutes it looks like all the Rushey Green Councillors attend.

Peggy Fitzsimmons

(Labour)

Email:  Peggy Fitzsimmons

Tel: 020 8690 6772

More information

John Muldoon

(Labour)

Email:  John Muldoon

Tel: 020 8699 0219

More information

Helen Klier

(Labour)

Email:  Helen Klier

Tel: 020 8244 7042

More information

Surgery times

• 1st, 3rd and 4th Saturdays of the month 11am – 12pm, Room 6, Lewisham Town Hall (by the cashiers)

I hope Will Hutton is right, he says of the G20 in the Observer,

It is billed to be a huge disappointment, full of banalities and merely papering over the deep cracks between Europe and the US…. I beg to differ…. My understanding is that, extraordinarily, the G20 will decide to regulate hedge funds, register credit-rating agencies and their business practices, insist that derivative trading is undertaken in regulated exchanges, set a framework for bank pay and bonuses, require transparency and disclosure of information from tax havens and organise international “colleges of regulators”…. In addition there will be an agreed common template to address the alarming depth of the global recession, release credit flows, especially for trade finance, and assist the less-developed countries who have suffered from a flight of capital…. I am also blinking at the emerging unanimity over the IMF. It is to be doubled in size to $500bn, and given new powers to monitor national economic policies. Equally important is that less-developed countries will be allowed much more access to its “Special Drawing Rights”

Though most of the commenters don’t seem to agree.

Simon Caulkin is one of my favourite columnists. I turn to the page he shares with William Keegan in the Observer Business & Media section first of a Sunday morning. They both remind me of things I know, make me think, and help me understand things I only nearly knew or understood before.

Last Sunday, Simon Caulkin addressed the Healthcare Comssion report on the Stafford Hospital, amongst other things. Now, we know that targets distort behaviour. That is the purpose of setting a target, to focus effort and enterprise in a particular direction, towards a particular aim. We also know that this focus of attention in a particular direction leads to a reduction in focus in other directions. And we know that you can only set a target for something you can measure. Such as the average waiting time in the A&E of Stafford Hospital.

We know all these things. Yet, perhaps, we didn’t know that the result of setting targets (such as, to repeat, the average waiting time in the A&E of Stafford Hospital) would be 400 excess deaths between 2005 and 2008. That too is worth repeating; 400 excess deaths between 2005 and 2008.

Now, anybody with a hint of common sense (or any training in cost benefit analysis) knows that against this tremendously high cost we must measure the benefits of setting such targets. I don’t know what they are, though I imagine they are things such as fewer very long waits in the A&E of Stafford Hospital before admission to a ward. This probably saves lives. How many? Was it worth it?

Caulkin ends his article with a health warning for targets proposed within the pages of the Academy of Management Perspectives:

Goals may cause systematic problems in organisations due to narrowed focus, increased risk-taking, unethical behaviour, inhibited learning, decreased co-operation, and decreased intrinsic motivation.

Simon Johnson, former Chief Economist at the IMF, has written an interesting article in the Atlantic from the point of view of the IMF, looking at the United States in the current crisis. He notes that,

In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets (and only in emerging markets): South Korea (1997), Malaysia (1998), Russia and Argentina (time and again). In each of those cases, global investors, afraid that the country or its financial sector wouldn’t be able to pay off mountainous debt, suddenly stopped lending. And in each case, that fear became self-fulfilling, as banks that couldn’t roll over their debt did, in fact, become unable to pay. This is precisely what drove Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy on September 15, causing all sources of funding to the U.S. financial sector to dry up overnight. Just as in emerging-market crises, the weakness in the banking system has quickly rippled out into the rest of the economy, causing a severe economic contraction and hardship for millions of people.

The article doesn’t seem overblown, and some of the parallels are shocking and obvious,

Not surprisingly, Wall Street ran with these opportunities. From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

And concludes,

In my view, the U.S. faces two plausible scenarios. The first involves complicated bank-by-bank deals and a continual drumbeat of (repeated) bailouts, like the ones we saw in February with Citigroup and AIG. The administration will try to muddle through, and confusion will reign.

(…)

Our future could be one in which continued tumult feeds the looting of the financial system, and we talk more and more about exactly how our oligarchs became bandits and how the economy just can’t seem to get into gear.

The second scenario begins more bleakly, and might end that way too. But it does provide at least some hope that we’ll be shaken out of our torpor. It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central Europe collapses, and—because eastern Europe’s banks are mostly owned by western European banks—justifiable fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated, and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration’s current budget are increasingly seen as unrealistic, and the rosy “stress scenario” that the U.S. Treasury is currently using to evaluate banks’ balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.

Under this kind of pressure, and faced with the prospect of a national and global collapse, minds may become more concentrated.

The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump “cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.” This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression—because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.

There are many reasons that we need and have taxation and government.

The most obvious and necessary reason for taxation is the need to reduce the production and consumption of goods that have negative external effects. The most obvious and necessary reason for government expenditure is to provide the necessary underpinnings of the market – rule of law, property rights and so on – and to ensure the provision of necessary public goods.

Then there is taxation to enable the appropriation of national resources by corrupt rulers. And of course the taxation and government spending required to enable the redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor, which rather than being an economic necessity is a social or moral or ethical choice.

But what if you replace the words, “rich and poor” with the words, “lucky and unlucky”? Is that still a social or moral or ethical choice, or is it an economically efficient public provision of insurance for a risk averse population?

Because when a large bureaucracy can act with impunity, it will.

So, even if it isn’t his fault (I don’t know) SOMEONE has to take responsibility to ensure that members of the bureaucracy can’t just get away with making catastrophic mistakes. Otherwise, what incentive is there for an anonymous bureaucrat to improve their performance? None.

TV and radio interviewers keep asking if the HSE investigation will hinder future police investigations. This is the wrong question. The question should be; does the fact that no one has had to take responsibility for the murder of a completely innocent man make it more likely that an innocent man or women will be killed in the future?

The answer is yes.

This “non-responsibility” means that the presumption is more likely to be toward the shoot and ask questions later than it would be if someone took responsibility now. This is not an equation that we want to bias with free passes (or drastic measures in the other direction). This series of events does that.

Emily Maitlis just asked the question, “Doesn’t this mean that in the future the police will have to think twice before following their instincts in a future situation?” Yes, for goodness sake, they should have thought twice the last time!!

“But the predominant ideology of modern labour and socialist movements, insofar as they claim one, is based on eighteenth-century rationalism.

This is all the more suprising as we have seen the masses to have remained predominantly religious, and as the natural revolutionary idiom of masses brought up in a traditional Christian society is one of rebellion (social heresy, millennialism and the like), the Bible being a highly incendiary document.”

Eric Hobsbawm, “The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848″ (1962: 270).