The Expenses Scandal

[poliphilo]

Stephen Fry is right; the expenses scandal is trivial. It isn't like faking the evidence for a war or buggering up an economy. Besides, everyone fiddles on their expenses, don't they? If we're getting so aerated about it, it's not because we're really so shocked by these particular infringements but because those other, badder things have happened.  The intensity of the furore is a sign of how deep into injury time this government now is. Early on in the history of Nu-Labour Tony Blair could (and should) have been kicked out over the Bernie Ecclestone affair- you know, exempting Formula One from the ban on tobacco advertising at just the time that Ecclestone was making a million pound donation to party funds; that was much worse than this- but we let him get away with it because he still carried our hopes for renewal and reform. Now, it's a decade or more later, we're sick to death of these people- and we'll beat them with any stick or switch that falls into our hands. 

Comments

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

I think that some of the specifics that are being raked up are trivial - but not all of them.

But the really scandalous thing is that MPs - who are now paid a very decent salary, and who are no longer expected to be in the Chamber at all hours of the night - seem to think it's all right tomake rules for themselves which are quite unlike the rules they make for the rest of us.

It's apparently too much to expect an MP who gets free rail travel to commute from outer London to Westminster - do you think someone on JSA would be allowed to turn down a job because 'that's too far to commute'?

I think MPs have known all along that their expenses are disgraceful, which is why they have tried so hard to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act. You're quite right that the fuss shouldn't make us forget all the other things, but this isn't about a few people 'fiddling their expenses', this is about deciding that if you make the laws, you can make yourself a special case.

- It's OK, I've stopped now.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree :)

The Daily Telegraph has saved the worst until last- and the cases it has unloaded on us today include ones where a criminal prosecution may well follow.

Gordon Brown doesn't seem to get it- and is dithering over his response- as we've come to expect of him. This is a government at the end of its rope. It seems almost inconceivable that it can limp on into next year.

[(Anonymous)]

Expense scandals aren't politics. They're a distraction from real issues.
Tom F

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

That's what Fry is saying, I suppose.

But they do expose the calibre of the people who are running the show.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess they do, although there are probably very few people who wouldn't do the same (to a greater or lesser extent). There's a lot of envy involved in the anger.
Tom F

[jfs.livejournal.com]

I live in Zone 4, and commute to Zone 1 each day.

My MP, making much the same journey, claimed £22,000 last year for his additional living allowance. And then claimed £3000 or so on travel costs.

I'm fuming over that.

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

er... no we DON'T all fiddle our expenses.

Besides, we have a SYSTEM for our expenses. Everything we want to expense goes on a company credit card, the items pop up on our computer screens and we have to provide a receipt for each item and add a description of what we were doing when we spent each item and, if for meals and drinks who else we bought for. No receipt or explanation, then the item is taken out of our salaries to reimburse the credit card company.

And it isn't trivial. These are the people we pay to make our laws. If they are dishonest in their expenses, are they bribeable in other matters? Remember the "cash for questions" thing?

And the Ecclestone thing was heinous too.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

You should send him a bill.

[(Anonymous)]

You anger me more than the politicians. Get over it :p
Tom F

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

get over what - having a conscience? Grow up.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

That's shrewd- and probably true.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

This is the Nu-Labour equivalent of cash for questions.

Only, of course, it touches the Tories and the Lib Dems too.

I wonder what would have happened if we'd have ditched Blair- as he was afraid we might- after the Ecclestone thing. Would Brown have taken us into Iraq? I suspect not. He's proved himself useless in so many ways, but I'm not sure he'd have done that.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

He was within the rules, I guess- but the rules suck.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think Blair would have had much choice in the matter, so Brown would have done the same
Tom F

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Blair made a decision to stick by George Bush no matter what. A aide has said he did it to stop the Conservatives slipping in ahead of him and selling themselves as America's best friends in Europe. If true, this means we fought that misbegotten war for reasons of party politics- which is a horrible thought.

I don't think there was any compulsion for us to back America the way we did. Harold Wilson kept us out of Vietnam- in spite of being put under considerable pressure by LBJ- without relations between the two countries being irretrievably damaged.

Brown might have made the same call as Blair, but I think his ideological distaste for Bush and the neo-cons (he is much more of a tribal politician than Blair ever was) could have swung him the other way.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think there's much point speculating on it based on the limited information and misinformation we have access to. For us mere mortals it's just groping in the dark.
Tom F

[qatsi.livejournal.com]

I wonder what the Telegraph is really looking to achieve - after all, it's not as if the Tories are any cleaner on this matter. Is drip-feeding the story getting them much more in sales? I rather doubt it, as it's one of the lead stories every day when I turn the radio on. And then they will no doubt do some editorial with faux soul-searching when the turnout is low in the European elections, or if (heaven forbid) the BNP get themselves a seat.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm just being a realist. You may not fiddle your expenses, but then you probably don't want to be a politician, which is arguably a personality disorder on its own.
Tom F