We've written almost nothing about the recent and ongoing MPs expenses scandal, mainly because other people are doing it for us - often far better than we could. That doesn't mean we aren't enjoying the show, though. Frankly we think this is the best thing to happen in British politics for many decades.
However, even our usual tactful reticence and tasteful restraint can't prevent us from drawing your attention to what, in our minds, is the most flagrant abuse of all, worse than flipping homes or spending public money on a "duck island".
Iris Robinson is the Democratic Unionist Party MP for Strangford and her husband is the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. The News of the World reports that the couple earn six salaries totalling almost £600,000 plus expenses between them, and employ four family members as staff.
Mrs.Robinson earns £63,291 for her position as an MP, £24,296 as an Assembly member and as chairwoman of its health and social services committee and £9,550 as a councillor for the Castlereagh borough in Northern Ireland.
Mr Robinson takes home £63,291 as MP for East Belfast, £71,434 for his role as First Minister plus a third of the £43,101 salary for being an Assembly member because he is also an MP.
They also claim more than £150,000 for the salaries of their staff with Mr.Robinson employing their daughter Rebekah as office manager and private secretary and son Gareth as parliamentary assistant. Mrs.Robinson employs their other son Jonathan as office manager and daughter-in-law Ellen Robinson as part-time secretary.
According to the newspaper, the couple claimed the controversial second homes allowance last year, receiving a total of £40,342. They own three homes in Belfast, London and Florida worth more than £1.3million. The couple spent almost £20,000 on flying between Belfast and London
They are said both to have claimed the same £1,223 when they submitted claims in 2007, the two separate claims being written in the same handwriting. However they failed to get a claim approved for £10,860 of mortgage interest, because no mortgage interest statements had been submitted to back up the claim.
Of course, neither has broken any rules.
Meanwhile Totnes MP Anthony Steen may be regretting his outburst when criticised on the radio for claiming £87,000 for tree-care on his "very, very large" Devon property. “What right does the public have to interfere with my private life?" was not, on reflection, the best way to respond to questions about his disposal of public money. When the Western Morning News published a story about Mr.Steen's expenses claims in 2008, he sued and won £10,000 damages.
While we've been giggling irresponsibly at the pigs scrambling over each other to avoid being caught with their snouts in the trough, a regular visitor to this website (needs to get out more?) has been having a serious and rather effective think. M*** J****** writes ...
Since we now recognise that all MPs are greedy, corrupt, self-serving hypocrites, why not clear out the stable and cart off the guilty (i.e. all of them) to the guillotine?
What then? What do we do when the new People's Parliament of do-gooders, cranks and single-issue obsessives is found incapable of dealing with the mundane issues of government? Initiate another round of blood-letting?
As we wallow in the feeding frenzy of hatred directed indiscriminately against the political class, we forget the purpose of the political system, which is to provide us with competent and accountable government. We may well believe that the current incumbents are neither competent nor particularly accountable; but we did (God help us) vote New Labour into office and we will soon have the chance to vote them out.
But what good will it do us if we replace Broon and his crew with a motley alliance of the BNP, UKIP, Esther Rantzen and that angry bloke on Question Time last night?
What exactly is it that we are so angry about?
Much public anger is rooted in envy. MPs are paid more highly than most of the people they represent. But most MPs are articulate, energetic and committed people who could command good salaries in other professions. Those who advocate cutting the level MPs' remuneration believe (incredibly) that this will result in a Parliament of 'ordinary' people. In fact the reverse will occur. Millionaires will still be able to indulge their political ambitions and acquire the longer term gains of a life after politics. Saint Tony Blair is hardly short of a bob or two now he has left the House of Shame. On the other hand, 'ordinary' people of talent will be discouraged from participation in national politics if this involves an unacceptable drop in living standards for themselves and their families.
So we have to accept that MPs should be reasonably well-paid. So the amounts of money at stake are not the issue. But we are, with justification, angry about a so-called expenses system that allows MPs to purchase duck-houses at public expense.
At this point we should pause for reflection. How would we behave in such a situation? I would be very interested to know whether any of those who criticise so vocally would ever work 'for cash', or pay cash to get a reduced price for a job, or whether as students they 'signed on' for the summer without any real intent to work; in each case making an inappropriate claim on the public purse. Is it not the case that most of us will claim whatever benefits the system reasonably allows? So are we saying that we want a parliament of saints? Perhaps we are better-represented by our MPs than we think.
Some of the behaviours revealed by the expenses scandal border on the criminal. But before we rush to judgement we had better establish what we believe to be an acceptable standard of behaviour under the circumstances.
Do we believe our MPs should have refused to claim any expenses to uphold a moral principle?
Or claim only what they could clearly demonstrate to be necessary to enable them to fulfill their duties in the House?
Or claim honestly within the rules?
Or claim whatever they could get away with?
My own view is that I cannot accept the last of these. I believe that claims for non-existent mortgages are fraudulent. Claims for duck-houses are simply foolish and demonstrate poor judgement.
But there is a final point to consider. The drip feed of sensational stories in the Telegraph deprives any allegation of context. Operating in a highly ambiguous and ill-defined system, an MP might honestly claim all sorts of legitimate expenses over a prolonged period. But a single, poorly-judged item makes the headlines. If we exclude such a person from public life, who is the loser? The MP will probably find better paid and less onerous work. We, the public, will be deprived of his or her talents and experience.
So what do we conclude?
The expenses system must be swept away and replaced with something appropriate and transparent.
We should examine the past behaviour of MPs, identify the criminal and prosecute.
We should also identify the foolish and deliver our verdict in the ballot box.
But if we fail to exercise sober and balanced judgement, if we refuse to listen to explanations, if we insist that all politicians are corrupt, if we seek to replace party politicians with citizens selected only for their ignorance and fervour, if we wish to be governed by the Greens, the BNP and an assortment of well-meaning amateurs, the outcome may well surprise us.
Be careful what you wish for.
The GOS says: A well-thought-out and reasonable discussion of the subject - for my taste, rather too reasonable. Being governed by an assortment of well-meaning amateurs sounds pretty good to me, compared with being governed by a bunch of self-serving, grasping, out-of-touch bullies as we are at present.
I don't believe for a moment that "most MPs are articulate, energetic and committed people who could command good salaries in other professions". People don't go into politics in order to serve their fellow men, they go into it with their eyes open and firmly fixed on the main chance, the main chance being to earn a fat wad and keep away from any heavy lifting.
The usual route into politics these days is to get involved with political life at university, then get elected to a parish or town council - not too hard to do as few people are interested, and in some places there are borough councillors who don't live anywhere near the place they're representing - then a county or city council, serve on a few committees, lick a few influential local arseholes and then get selected to stand for parliament. Then lick a few more arseholes and slip neatly into a junior ministership.
Gone are the days when MPs actually represented the people they sprang from. I suppose a few Tory MPs still come from the landed gentry and might be said to represent their upper-class chums as Tory MPs traditionally have, but precious few Labour MPs are sponsored and supported by the unions these days, so their claim to represent the working man is a bit shaky. And who the hell do the Lib-Dems represent? The chattering classes? Damned if I know!
As for MPs finding "better paid and less onerous work" so that "we, the public, will be deprived of his or her talents and experience" - dream on, mate! How much experience did Anthony Steen display, the stupid plonker? Since when has John Prescott been known for his talent? Of course the majority of MPs seem to spend their time in parliament doing exactly what M**** J***** suggests - finding better paid and less onerous work in the form of seats on the board of directors, fat consultancy fees and enormous pensions to see them through the lean years to come. I've yet to hear of an MP who lost his seat and had to sign on.
And for the record, I never signed on either when I was a student - I got summer jobs that involved a certain amount of work. I'm not too sure I actually knew you could sign on. And if I pay the chap down the road a couple of twenties to cut my hedge for me, in what way is this "an inappropriate claim on the public purse"? This is a sensible, traditional, private agreement between two country gents. If I promised him a few trays of eggs instead of the twenties, it would be no different.
And if he chooses not to declare my twenties to the tax man, that seems fair enough: why should he donate some of the sweat of his brow to provide parliamentary duck islands or aristocratic moat clearance for people who have a great deal more money than he has? Our tax system is not some moral obligation sent from God or created by the combined power of our public consciences - it's an artificial device for raising money to be squandered by the government, a device that they wield with cynical impartiality, popping a few pence on petrol without a moment's thought every time the coffers look a bit thin. It was originally introduced to pay for the war against Napoleon, at a penny to the pound. That's an old penny.
Put like that, it's clearly our duty to avoid paying, isn't it? And in so doing, of course, we are just following the example set by our betters in industry, commerce and banking.
And politics. Especially politics.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2009 The GOS