MP expenses - can the public ever trust their branded champions again?

Today, sweeping reforms are being announced concerning MP expenses. The restructure follows Sir Christopher Kelly’s heavily leaked report which set out the suggested proposals. The House of Commons speaker will urge members of parliament to accept the main thrust of Sir Christopher’s recommendations.

Recommendations include:

Banning MPs from using their second home allowance to pay for a mortgage. Instead they will have to rent or use hotels with a budget of up to £1250 per month.

A ban on claiming second home allowances for members who live within an hour’s train journey to the Palace of Westminster.

Limits on first class rail travel.

A cut on the amount of money MPs receive should they lose their seat. (Reportedly this “golden goodbye “currently ranges from £32,383 to £64,766, depending on age and time served. The first £30,000 is tax free).

Sir Christopher’s report will recommend to replace this with a small fixed sum, possibly a couple of months’ salary.

The £10,400-a-year communications allowance – the only allowance voted through by MPs without a recommendation from the senior salaries review board – is expected to be removed.

Repositioning MPs’ brand

From a branding public relations perspective, the big question is, “will the newly announced reforms be enough to swing votes and win back respect”?

That depends on whether the MPS follow the classic ‘AAA’ personal rebranding formula for fallen leaders:

Authentic
They must come across as authentic – both in policies and actions.  It won’t be enough to simply say they were just following rules. As the makers and influencers of nationally and internationally significant policies, they must be seen to go over and above what is expected of them.

Part of this legitimacy is be authentic even – and arguably – especially about the small details which help determine their perceived character – such as buying bathroom plugs.  (In branding, it is the small details that people remember before the big ones).

Accountable

Over the past months, commentators have noted that despite massive public opinion rallying against them, some MPs continued to act indignantly against constituent criticism of their behaviour.  Such MPs fell victims to a classic psychological trait: ‘sticking their heads in the sand’.  They simply reassured themselves that the whole situation would  ‘blow away’.

The more they fixated on that, the greater the problem swelled.  They should have accepted their failings and made amends – publicly. When the community sees a public figure from an MP to a TV celebrity, owning up to something and positively making amends, they tend to become more tolerant of that person.

The lesson here is one that just about every child learns at primary school: Before running the risk of doing something wrong, consider if you are prepared to have your choice of actions exposed to the people you care for and (in the case of a child) love.”

Another part of that accountability reposition was to get an independent body to reassess the rules.  This has been achieved.  However, the new system can only become law once the newly created Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), following yet another period of consultation, adopts it and not until after the next election.  (This prevaricating may leave a bad taste in the electorate’s mouths).

Accessible.

Anyone can use the Freedom of Information act to uncover truths. The more such truths are swept under the carpet covering over public opinion, the more obvious the propaganda becomes. Public, personal acceptance of responsibility helps to restore trustworthiness.  Therefore the MPs’ business affairs need to become even more transparent than ever.

One way to tackle this is for the MPs to take responsible control of social media – not a gimmick – but genuinely open channel that allows and encourages the public to question and hear for themselves what their elected representatives are up to.

For example, the US White House recently launched a website called, ‘Recovery.gov’ which provides trouble-free access to data related to Recovery Act spending and allows for the reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse.

Finally MPs need to understand that they are not just leaders of the public but public leaders – and their public expects  that their selected few set examples for the collective whole.

Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: