« rope for MPs but hook for reform | Main | Politicians and political commentators call for radical reform »
May 18, 2009
The safer the seat, the more likely the MP is to be involved in the expenses scandal
Below are the links to the research that has been going around the blogosphere this weekend. The original research was done by Mark Thompson and then taken on by another blogger. The research takes all the MPs implicated by The Telegraph (the list from the Telegraph used was the version updated at 3:00pm Sunday – 94 MPs in total) and then looks for patterns by comparing it with the list of MPs ordered by their majority from the 2005 election.
The main findings are: that the safer the seat, the more likely the MP is to be implicated.
Here, the list of MPs ordered according to majority has been split into 4; with the highest majorities in the top quartile. The other numbers refer to how many MPs written about in The Telegraph fit into each quartile. The pattern is very clear.
There is further number-crunching done on the blog. And then some statistical analysis to show what has been found isn’t a fluke. In fact, on two tests it is either 1 in 1000 or 1 in 3000 that the effect witnessed (ie correlation between safe seats and expenses) would have arisen by chance. So fairly robust we feel.
Mark’s initial post is here: http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2009/05/has-our-electoral-system-contributed-to.html
and an update which includes some more detailed statistical analysis from another blogger here:http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2009/05/mps-expenses-and-safe-seats-correlation.html
There are two caveats to the research – two factors that may have an effect on the result. Firstly, the longevity of the MP’s service. It may be the case that he less marginal an MP, the longer-established they are and the more bad habits they will have. Secondly, The Telegraph may have chosen to run first with MPs who are more high profile (ministers, opposition spokespeople, senior backbenchers) and these people tend to be ones who are in safer seats. But in both cases the lack of marginality and accountability is key. You’d expect MPs to have served longer if in safe seats; and why should ministers etc be promoted on basis of how secure their seat is, especially as that makes it harder for people to hold them to account?
Please make use of this data and analysis however you feel most appropriate. It is already out there on the blogosphere (even Iain Dale is linking to it), but the wider we can push this link the better.
I have also posted on Saturday about the early stages of the connections between expenses and wider electoral reform http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/blog/archives/2009/05/rope_for_mps_bu.html
Plus in the Observer yesterday:
Such arguments are music to the ears of mainstream proponents of electoral reform. Malcolm Clark, of Make Votes Count, says the expenses row has exposed the weakness of a system that guarantees MPs in safe seats a life tenure, regardless of what they do. "If there is a strong feeling against some people because of what they've done, why should it be so hard to ditch them?"
There is a lot of traffic on libdem blogosphere esp (their activists’ passion for campaigning on electoral reform has been strengthened) but also wider – in tweets, blogs and other mentions that aren’t connected to LibDems. As one of the MVC supporters entitled an email to me today: “Opportunity”. Exactly.
Posted by malcolmclark on May 18, 2009
Comments
I wonder what this looks like for the other parties?
(Honestly, I think the reason is more along the lines of safer seat -> more blinkers on, more used to 'this is the way it is' rather than 'I can get away with it here')
Posted by: Murk at May 19, 2009 07:12 AM
Re earlier comment -
Nowhere here does it mention the tories only.
I saw 'Telegraph', I saw the blue graph and my brain filled the gap.
Now, I find that quite an interesting bit of psychology - such strong associations that I looked past what was said!
I wonder, if the graph were coloured differently, would it affect the perceptions of the reader in that way, or is it just me?
Posted by: Murk at May 19, 2009 07:17 AM
"I wonder what this looks like for the other parties?"
This Green Party candidate is on board for radical reform action, and I am pretty sure that the rest of the GP is too.
Posted by: Richard Lawson at May 21, 2009 10:19 AM
Mark,the reliance on a selected data set is a major shortcoming.Although you have currently found an effect,the reasons for it are not defensibly to do with the relationship you surmise. You either need all MP's data or a random sample. Even then,there may be other covariates that cause the relationship,rather than it being explicitly due to calculation on the MP's part.
------------------------------
kavin
office jobs
Posted by: kavin at May 22, 2009 10:55 AM
Kavin
The best is the enemy of the good. However we reanalyse this data on a fuller data set, in practice it is long odds ( high likelihood if you want to be statistically respectable and appropriately Bayesian) that it will give pretty much the same message:
"If your seat is safe you tend to relax your standards."
Posted by: Diversity at May 24, 2009 10:31 PM
Although it would be prudent to treat the statistics cautiously at this stage and not overly rely on something that may not be substantiated later, there seems to be enough evidence to justify more detailed research by qualified statisticians as information becomes available about more MPs. I hope that research will be undertaken.
In the meantime, it seems to me that, although PR of any sort would have some advantages over FPTP, choice voting would have more effect than PR in itself on controlling expenses abuse. STV in multi-member constituencies, a version of choice voting, lets voters place the candidates in order of preference; they can choose the scrupulously honest and careful over those who are less so and the slightly careless over the very careless or dishonest. It also allows voters to choose between different candidates from the same party. This enables them to vote against individual candidates who have abused the expenses system without voting against their own party. STV in multi-member constituencies also happens to be proportional.
Posted by: Anthony Tuffin at June 6, 2009 03:30 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
