MPs Expenses: Is Standardisation the Way Forward?

With a pestilent, persistent and puny stalker gracing every post's comments box with silliness it is a real pleasure to have some real quality visiting and commenting too. Ex-Campaign Group MP Harry Barnes certainly falls into that category with a response to the annual ritual of vilification of MPs expenses:

The areas covered by MPs expenses are, in general, justified. The problems of the present system are (a) that it is open to abuses as well as to essential uses and (b) it is easy for the media to misinterpret what it is about.
On the issue of employing Staff, there is a clear alternative. Each MP should be entitled to employ up to a given quantity of Staff (or Staff time). Those they appoint should hold minimum relevant qualifications. They should then enter an appropriate spot on the salary scale and move into a system involving annual increments. The whole of the financial arrangements (under clear rules) should be operated by the Commons and not as an expenses system for MPs. It is possible to operate other provisions on the same basis - such as the hiring of Constituency Offices and the supply of Office Equipment. The latter is already done with Parliamentary PCs.
MPs would thus draw down from a list of available facilities, but would not be called on to otherwise act as accountants and then have to submit appropriate income tax returns on these matters.
These type of arrangements would cut out the two basic problems I started from.

These are good suggestions I think. Similar to my thoughts on limits by items not cost on election print, and also the "producer" for the leaflets.

Though these are aimed at real problems of fiddling the accountancy whereas the main effects of standardising an MP's staff are in impression management and in helping standardise the service offered.

Less of a postcode lottery on MP's effort and staffing!

Having said that Guido Fawkes - who is coming back to form I think - had an interesting post today about an MP name of Philip Hollobone (Con, Kettering) who claims next to nothing staff-wise and does everything himself. Should that MP be forced to have a staff? Is he really doing a brilliant job? Or just blessed with a humungous majority and constituents who "sleep through" four years at a time and are not bothersome?

Quite a contrast with Sarah Teather who justified her exploitation of bondslaves interns by admitting that even with four staff she is letting the people of Brent down and not delivering on her forky tongued election promises.

UPDATE: See comments. Hollobone is in fact blessed with a tiddly notional majority after boundary changes. He must be hoping that his ruse of saving national tax payers cash by cutting services to his constituents will go down well and that he will be seen as a mighty conquering hero rather than a know-all maverick loner. Ms Teather will just be a Let Down and you can quote her on that.