Ah, MP's Expenses. Such fun. I am glad we're represented by such honest and upstanding folk.
Or something. Actually, I don't much care any more. I've more or less reached the point of apathy, it being my defense against despair.
However, something that seems rather odd about today's events: Jacqui Smith was ordered to apologise to parliament for some £160,000 claimed in mortgage payments, but she was not required to pay that money back.
Surely, if she hasn't done anything wrong, then she has nothing to apologise for?
Conversely, surely, if she claimed inappropriately, but it was an honest mistake, then she should indeed apologise, but she should also be paying back the money, or at least the bulk of it?
And, finally, if she claimed inappropriately, and deliberately did so knowing she should not, then surely she shouldn't be apologising, but rather should be paying back the money, and then spending some time at Her Majesty's pleasure?
I don't see any other options, so I really don't see the logic that brings us to this point.
(There is, of course, the argument that she couldn't afford to pay back the £160,000. After all, who has that sort of money available? The problem with that line of reasoning is that that money was spent on a very large and luxurious property. If that is, indeed, our money that was claimed inappropriately, then it may well be that she would have to sell that property to return the money. It seems harsh, but there it is.)
However, despite all this, I can't help the feeling that, actually, Jacqui Smith has been nominated as the official scapegoat, the MP who will be thrown to the wolves in order to take the flak for the rest of them. I'm half expecting to see her spectacularly and 'shockingly' lose her seat at the next election (while most of the rest of Labour's 'big guns' scrape by), in the same way that Portillo did in '97.
Oh, and also: apparently, the list of MPs who have to pay money back, and also the amounts and what the claims were for, is not going to be published. I am extremely angry about this. We have a General Election coming up in under a year, and it would be really good to know if the incumbent is actually an upright and honest man, or if he's been cheating the system. In my case, that's especially important: Eric Joyce is the most expensive MP in the country, but that by itself doesn't mean anything; it's just possible that all those claims were justified. Oddly, that's something I would like to know.
#52: "Devil May Care", by Sebastian Faulks (writing as Ian Fleming)
2 comments:
There was an MP on t' radio this morning discussing the expenses stuff.
He refused to say how much had been "brought to his attention" in his letter from Sir Legg, and when the radio presenter said that surely he had to as it was a matter for public record (being public money) he defended himself saying that nothing final has been decided yet, the current calculations are provisional (they are), and that in 3 weeks time, when the MPs have all had chance to reply to Sir Legg's personal letter and he has had chance to reconsider the calculations, then a final assessment will be published that will (probably) be public.
He accused the presenter of being confrontational. The radio presenter didn't respond by accusing him of being evasive (he should have).
All in all though, maybe a fair point. If Sir Legg makes a mistake that is published at this point then that MPs reputation could be damaged unfairly. Don't you think?
I've also been pondering how claims that are within the system (and even verified as such) can be wrong. Saying that the system was wrong isn't good enough, it was the system whether it was right or wrong. I reckon the answer is that there is a moral imperative to justify claims made from the public purse. I don't think that judgement is actually all that difficult.
The thing is that "the system" was built on a gentlemen's agreement, and itself based on the notion that MPs were honourable, reasonable people. As such, there was no letter of the law here, only the spirit of the law.
It turns out that some (many?) MPs are not honourable, reasonable people. And, indeed, being ex-lawyers, many of them were very good at pushing the letter of the law to its limits, all the while trampling on the spirit of the law.
All in all, I'm actually less concerned with forcing those involved to pay back the money than I am with the findings being made public. (You can't legislate on the spirit of the law, so there's no legal means to actually force them to account.) We may have to accept all the money that has been paid out as a (very expensive) mistake.
However, when the election comes in June, we should all be made well aware of the character of the people who are standing for re-election. Most of us never get to meet the candidates, because they no longer bother to campaign, and the party manifestos are full of wild promises and outright lies (the bits that aren't lifted whole-cloth from the other side, that is). So, we mostly have no basis at all on which to cast our votes. But here is something clear and meaningful for people to consider; we should be allowed to do so.
Post a Comment