*This post is co-written by Mark Thompson **and Will Straw. It is cross-posted at the Mark Reckons blog
*

Last May, Mark did a series of blogposts which analysed the data from the expenses scandal and suggested that there could be a link between the first-past-the-post electoral system and the likelihood of an MP being involved in the scandal. New evidence from the Legg report suggests this is the case.

As the graph below shows, **the average majority of the worst offenders is higher than that of those expenses-sinners who wrongly claimed smaller amounts.**

Mark’s first post was published on May 17 at which point The Telegraph had named 74 MPs. The second post (an update to the first one) was published the next day and the number of MPs implicated was 94. The methodology used was that if an MP had been mentioned negatively at all in The Telegraph’s coverage with relation to expenses then a 1 was put next to their name otherwise there was a 0. The groups of MPs were then split up into quartiles ordered by how safe their seat was. **The initial analysis suggested that MPs in the safest seats were 3 times as likely to have been implicated in the scandal as those in the least safe.** A further update a week or so later by which point the number of MPs implicated had almost quadrupled to 243 suggested that the figure had come down to a bit less than 2 times as likely.

With the release of the Legg report yesterday – possibly the most definitive word we will get on the scandal – we decided to have another look at this situation and whether there still seems to be a link. The main problem is that more than half of all MPs are implicated in the scandal. There is also a disparity between the lowest erroneous claims, from Mike Gapes in Ilford who was asked to pay back 40p, and some MPs who are paying back £30,000 to £40,000. For this reason, and given all the data we now have, the original methodology seemed a bit blunt. **Using Mark’s original analysis, there is still an observable effect but it is now very small** (there are 87 MPs in both the safest and second safest quartiles, 74 in the third and 80 in the safest) as the Chart below shows.

In the original Telegraph data it was not possible to be robust about the amount of money MPs were going to have to pay back. This is because the amounts were not always listed or were disputed. Now, however, we have all the amounts down to the very last penny.

We thought about introducing a cut-off point to isolate the worst expenses excesses. **If you take only those MPs who claimed £5,000 or more then the ratio of 2-1 between the highest and lowest quartile is still there **(the figures are 21 MPs from the safest quartile, 13 in the second, 11 in the third and 11 in the safest). The selection of the cut-off point though is arbitrary and hence probably not greatly robust.

So in order to try and find a better way to see if the safety of an MP’s seat could be correlated with the amount of expenses money claimed we listed the 328 MPs who (after appeals and adjustments) have been asked to pay money back and ordered them by size of payment. This way we are now taking into account this wide range of difference in amounts paid back and including all the implicated MPs.

We then split this data into quartiles and looked at the average size of the majority for the MPs in each quartile. What we found is that for MPs in the top quartile (including Barbara Follett, Andrew Mackay, and many of the most controversial claims) the average majority is 8,678. In the second quartile the average majority is 7,534. In the third it is 7,705. And in the lowest quartile (including people like Mike Gapes and his 40p) the average majority is 7,276. So there is a fair bit of difference here but there is another point to note. The average size of majority for all 328 MPs implicated is 7,798 (7,613 for all MPs). **This means that the top quartile is quite a way above this average (by nearly 1,000 depending on from which point you measure it) and the bottom quartile is a fair way below it (by close to 500).** The two middle quartiles are clustered near the average(s).

As with Mark’s original posts, there will likely be debate over what these figures tell us the degree of statistical significance, but we feel that, at the margin, they show that there is a link between the expenses scandal and the size of an MP’s majority. **Of those MPs implicated, on average the safer their seat, the more they wrongly claimed.**

Credit: Jessica Asato and Bhumi Purohit of Progress for compiling the data.

UPDATE 11:05

With MPs’ expenses still dominating the political agenda, **there is just under one week left of the IPSA consultation on the new expenses rules.** The consultation closes next Thursday, February 11th, so it is not too late to have your say. The consultation website is at www.mpexpensesconsultation.org.uk

UPDATE 13.05

For those interested in doing their own statistical analysis, the data is available here.

*
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
*

*
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 117 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
*

## 21 Responses to “Worst expenses claimants have safer seats”

## Rick Muir

RT @leftfootfwd: Worst expenses claimants have safer seats: http://is.gd/7Kqvb – The higher an MP's majority, the greater their propensity to fiddle

## puddlepie

Why not see if there is a significant correlation? use a spearmans correlation (non parametric). Put all MPs in, including those that haven’t been cheating the system (they obviously score 0 on the amount to be paid) and the size of their majority. Or even swing, if thats available.

But do the stats properly, or you’re not proving anything – by cherry picking the method to show a correlation you’re cheating!

## Alan Douglas

Interesting work which sadly, so far, proves almost nothing.

There might be some traction in doing the figures BY NUMBER OF ERRORS requiring repayment, ie if one MP has to pay back 4 separate claims for Mars Bars, and another for 1 mortgage false claim.

Or, do that, then see if there is a correlation between the combined figures for number of, and value.

I’m thinking here that the various MPs will have different “rogue” quotients, some will aspire to frauding a million, while others only dare steal paper clips.

Hope I’ve made sense here.

Alan Douglas

## Max

If you are urging people to respond to the IPSA consultation, can I please draw your attention to the response that we have made as the trade union branch that represents MPs’ staff. We will be greatly affected by the decisions that IPSA takes, and we have a clear interest in creating modern work conditions in Parliament.

Max Freedman

Chair – UNITE branch 1/427 representing staff of MPs

http://www.epolitix.com/fileadmin/epolitix/stakeholders/IPSA_consultation_response.pdf

## Mark Thompson

@puddlepie – Fair point. As I made clear in my original posts I am not a statistician. On your suggestion however I have just put all the data through an online spearman rank correlation calculator and the result is a “weak positive correlation”. I think this confirms my gut feeling about this that there is something there.