I have always looked forward to Budget day.

Long before I became an MP I enjoyed the drama of the occasion and the swift calculations as to whether I was a winner or a loser in the process.

Like all great stage artists – successive Chancellors leaving the best to the last – some exciting new announcement – a rabbit pulled from the hat – the key talking point to deflect attention from the inevitable bad news buried deep inside the minutia.

2008 will go down for its – well complete dullness. I sat with pen poised to see whether Alistair Darling’s first budget would be a memorable one.

Alas after 50 minutes of monotonous computer like speak – nothing. If the hallmark of Brown’s stewardship had been prudence – Darling’s was humdrum!

Perhaps, he actually planned it this way, knowing that as the Budget was debated in the Commons – events across the world, particularly in the USA were taking on drama of epic proportions.

The collapse of the fourth largest investment bank in America Bear Stearns, sent shock waves round the world as all banks pulled in their financial lending horns and governments poured billions of dollars, pounds, euros and yen into financial markets to maintain liquidity.
What went almost unnoticed was the speed by which the ailing Bear Stearns bank was taken over by JP Morgan in sharp contrast to the torturous dithering over Northern Rock.
The US government acted to support the market, not an individual institution allowing the market to resolve the problem of the ailing bank. A lesson ‘Prudence’ and ‘Humdrum’ should well remember.

What is interesting about this episode is the vulnerability of even huge economies like our own against global activity and how in future we can protect ourselves from financial tidal waves.
The most obvious lesson is that age old mantra –‘live within your means’ or as I prefer to call it the Micawber doctrine "Annual income £20 – expenditure £19.19.06 – result happiness".
Many readers will remember when the supply of credit especially mortgages was rationed – saving was a pre-requisite before borrowing.

The idea of a 100 per cent or 125 per cent mortgage was unthinkable as was the ability to borrow five or more times one’s salary.

Equally the idea of limited but unsecured consumer credit was an anathema. I suspect we will never return to the financial strictures of the 1960s but hopefully lessons will be learned that property and wage increases are by no means inevitable.

What of course is also inevitable is that MPs’ expenses will be subjected to yet more scrutiny – and quite right too.

I confess that until revealed this week I knew nothing about the so called ‘John Lewis list’ – and nor did most colleagues I have spoken to.

What this episode revealed, however, is the increasing disdain with which politicians are regarded and how important it is to win back public respect for the important job we do.
Few would deny that when living away from home, support is needed but somehow asking the recipients of that support to design their own packages is not right.

I do not agree with the current proposal for a committee of MPs led by the Speaker to reform the current arrangements – too much vested interest to get public support. Instead a totally independent review is needed – as is happening with the Sir John Baker review of pay and pensions.

Only by bringing objectivity, professionalism and common sense to bear will we have a situation that will win public acceptability.

Phil Willis MP
Harrogate Advertiser - July 2008