It seems that if Lord Foulkes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8045371.stm
and Stephen Fry http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8045040.stm are one one side of an argument, as my friend Stu indicated to me they were today, it's quite hard to take the opposite viewpoint. But personally I have to stick to my guns. The row over compensation claims by MP's is not a storm in a teacup. The first point to make to Lord Foulkes is that £92,000 is not twice £64,000. No wonder they can't cope with expenses claims, if that's the level of numeracy. But actually MP's know perfectly well how to add up; as repeated calculating behaviour has shown.
When Stu expressed to me his sympathy with Foulkes, I felt compelled to respond because I am genuinely angry about this. And it is not personal either. I'm not the man without sin casting the first stone. The Telegraph revelations were hidden, deliberately, from public scrutiny. I told Stu:
"This is the single most important breach of trust (and there have been many) in my living memory and it is multi-party, root and branch corruption. It's not the amounts that matter. It's trusted public servants on the fiddle. They made the rules they're now blaming. No one will stand up and say, "yes I played the system". Only four MP's did not make an expense claim on their second home. They are the only ones who should be re-elected when this parliament dissolves (and I agree with Lord Naseby, it ought to dissolve now).
AND they tried to cover it up. In this so called freedom of information age, it took a mole to air their soiled laundry in public (whoever leaked this should get a knighthood, but unfortunately politicians choose who gets those). We used to throw out parliaments for less. This is "Rotten Borough II" - - subtitled just when you thought it was safe to start expecting probity from public officials. And there are no Levellers now to lay siege to them, because the tabloids have gone all "Katie and Peter". Maybe all those numbers and all that corruption weren't as good a story (which tells you all you need to know about what an intellectually moribund apathetic celebutard culture this country now promotes).
Or maybe journalists are also on the take and were scared that MP's would flag up a few of those costly lunches. But why should that be? Journalists have commercial employers and a commercial employer can choose to can your ass for stuff like that. Some employers search employees bags, or have CCTV inside offices, or ping you on dodgy emails. Most tell you how to dress and almost all censor what you can say, and generally run your life like they own it. But who governs MP's? They made the very rules they have bent; rules that would never make it past the first draft of a company policy for A&M Nitwit Window Cleaning Company Ltd, let alone the mother of all parliaments. Examine those claims, tell me they don't stick in your craw - moat cleaning, claiming Tesco staff discounts, switching your second home three times in a year and a half just to get repairs done, claiming that the taxpayer fund undersoil heating for your tennis court?
If it was an excuse that we're all of us on the take, and that they're merely reflecting society, well how is that qualifying them to lead us or direct us? And if so, they can drop the honorific Right Honourable from the parliamentary form of address right now, and become plain old Dave Cameron, Margret Moran, Stuart Jackson (who I voted for) and Gordon Brown from now on. And even if that were an excuse, which it isn't, I don't swear an oath to do my job and they do. I sign a contract of employment and I know exactly what might happen if I breach the terms. They have a contract of trust with every British citizen, and all but four of them breached it, and had barely a qualm about it, and are apparently most annoyed because they got found out. The kind of blustering fuffle they have been spluttering, from Michael Martin downwards, hardly constitutes the reasoned dialectic the House is supposed to be famous for, either. Any decent magistrate would shut them up on a witness stand for wasting the courts time.
I commute to London daily for my job, which pays a damn sight less than a backbenchers job. I don't claim a second home at tax payers expense or get taxpayers to do up my other house for free, whilst I reside in a posh London flat. I get up in the morning early enough to get tow rok on time and stay on late enough to get my job done. I sometimes stay on without overtime beyond that; out of a consienctious desire to do my job properly. Contrast that with the times I get home, turn on the telly and see a mostly empty commons debating chamber talking nonsense and achieving eff all. And with the times I have written to ministers and received scant or pat responses (Stuart Jackson excepted, to be fair to him). I don't have my hand in the till at work and nor would I ever condone it from a colleague, however small the amount. Theft is theft, and theft is literally taking something to which you are not entitled. I take my salary and this year I took a pay freeze and my basic bonus was frozen (and at a time when MP's voted themselves a payrise, something most of hard working Britain is unable to do). I am completely comfortable with that, despite the inflation lies I'm told (we can all see how many things have gone up), because I know that it means my colleagues won't lose their jobs. I also claim only the expenses I believe that the firm should meet, not spurious ones. I expect - actually, I demand - that a member of parliament who I, or my fellow citizens, elects meets the same standard. No more - who could ask for that in this day and age - but certainly no less".
Stu then responded with the point made by Stephen Fry (bless him and his luvvie bretheren. If this crisis presages a dissolution, Labour will not even crawl back in to power) that MP's have more important things to deal with than this. I was outraged - not Stu's fault, but this is an even bigger nerve - the sciatic to my previously tweaked median.
"If Stephen Fry thinks there are more important things for them to do than sort this mess out (and can I just say they are making a right hash of all of those things by the way), and he doesn't seriously believe our democracy hangs by a thread, how does he know this bunch of self serving bastards will work for the things he thinks ARE important? They can be bought and sold. We presumed this, but never voiced it until now because it was always just one individual and not a quorum as it now is. Now we know they will not need olive oil and leather pants before grappling with their consciences, because they vanquished ithem years ago. They remind me of children who throw stones through already broken windows; absolved of the need to question their own participation by the throng. They grab a loophole with both hands a swing from it, whilst mooning the general public. They lie and cheat and finagle. They have more fiddlers than a missing symphony orchestra getting pissed in O'Neils. They have failed their duty, and been caught out, and we need to elect new ones, not keep this shabby lot. I wouldn't keep an incompetent employee just because they are honest. But I certainly wouldn't permit a dishonest employee to continue, no matter how effective they are.
And if they can't sort out a simple thing like how to make a rule for themselves that disallows them the opportunity to fleece the tax payer for personal gain, they cannot have the wit to sort out the big things like global warming and getting us out of this recession. When bankers screw up, we demand their heads and their jobs, not defend them. MP's should be no different".
The beeb tonight is concentrating on the value for money of some of these claims - you can get horse manure for free, clean chandeliers for much less, and probably should pay much more than £100 to get rid of moles. They make this point like the money is the thing (or maybe I'm the only one who doesn't think that the amounts don't matter). The parliamentary rules on expenses say that one should avoid extravagance and maybe some of these claims don't interpret that accurately, but why fondle such sophistry when we know that MP's themselves have already stated that the rules are flawed. I resent the use of "flawed" or "misguided" as well. These are our rulemakers. THEY make rules for US to follow. When those rules are flawed or misguided, we get rid of them.
Cameron has at least got stuck into his own party and got them to pay it back. Alan Duncan reckons his end is £4,700. He says he'll pay it back just as soon as there is a system to do so (like we all need more of their blessed systems). I don't care for Mr Duncans smirking hand-in-the-till gesture much. Give it to charity, because we're not actually talking about the money. The principle is the thing and giving back the money only balances the fiscal accounts, not the moral ones. An accounting exercise must not be allowed to make this all go away. It must be the start of the process towards reform. And if parliament cannot approach that reform honestly and earnestly, with a sincere desire to root out any opportunity for abuse of our trust, then we need new parliamentarians.
Addenda: Hazel Blears has written a cheque to the Inland Revenue for the money she should have paid in capital gains tax for flipping her homes. She says "what is important to me is what people think". That is the crassest thing I have ever heard and so typical of the modern focus group loving media hugging politician. What people think is not what should matter to them , what is RIGHT is what matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment