Sleaze

How They Suffer

Sleaze, UK politics
Published on

Only the principle that it’s only fair we should see what we paid for, the new shiny technological Telegraph has published a Google Earth gallery of what MP’s bought with their expenses.

Totnes MP Anthony Steen, for example, claimed more than £80,000 from the taxpayer over four years for work on his Devon estate:

Anthony Steen sought help from the taxpayer to inspect 500 trees on his land

To well-off Tories like Steen the allowances scheme must’ve seemed like just another wizard tax wheeze, just like all those other little wizard tax wheezes Tories’d been using from time immemorial to avoid their full tax obligation and maximise their income stream; just business as usual.

But it’s getting quite hot for some MPs now That we know exactly what kind of lavish lifestyles the taxpayers have been funding all this time, and less well-off Tory Nadine Dorries, whose expenses are also being questioned, has been expressing concern that the media pressure and invasion of privacy may lead to a suicide in Westminster:

“People are constantly checking to see if others are OK. Everyone fears a suicide. If someone isn’t seen, offices are called and checked.”

If MPs want to kill themselves, well, that’s their choice – but far from being suicidal, Steen’s openly defiant. We’re all “Just jealous” (I’m sure he meant envious, but whatever) he says, a view I suspect is shared by many MPs of both parties.

One thing I don’t understand. MPs are just as subject to envy as anyone and Labour members are better at it at than most, so why did none of them ever publicly question the lifestyle their colleagues were suddenly living? MPs are acutely status conscious, always checking out their colleagues to see they aren’t one-upped in some way. Why did no-one object to the sudden acquisition of wealth?

I can only conclude that Labour regarded expenses as the licensed union scheme to beat all licensed union schemes, all the Christmases and birthdays of a lifetime rolled into one. At last former civil servants, union officers and junior lecturers could have the lifestyle they always felt they deserved. Qualms? What qualms? The public voted for them, the public must have wanted them to have the money, QED. Besides, the public would probably never know. As usual few Labour MPs considered the long-term effect of their own legislation.

Now their greed’s been exposed, MPs are threatening suicide. I certainly don’t want anyone to die, for heaven’s sake, but I find it hard to have any sympathy for the poor suffering members. They must have known the voters would think what they were doing was greedy and wrong, but they still chose to do it; and those colleagues who said nothing about the suddenly comfortable lifestyles of formerly cash-strapped MPs condoned the wrongdoing by their silence. What else do they expect? Applause?

It’s no use Dorries trying to blame the media for the pressure MPs are under either. She may have some justification; journalists have always known the allowances scheme was a cover, she says, and for the media to be whipping up outrage now is hypocritical, which is true, and it has been common knowledge that MPs were on the make, witness Alan Duncan’s complicit smirk to camera and response of “Great, isn’t it?’ when tackled by Ian Hislop about excessive MPs expenses on Have I Got News For You.

But ‘everyone knew’ is no excuse: journalists couldn’t publish such wide-rangingly explosive accusations without the actual evidence to back it up and MPs fought tooth and nail not to be forced to reveal that evidence to journalists. So rumour was not substantiated. Nowthe evidence is beginning to be revealed and we all know now, not just a coterie of Westminster insiders.That’s where the pressure coming from, not the media, the voters. No complicit smirks from the voters.

MPs have only themselves to blame: they chose to claim what they did because they thought they wouldn’t be found out. What MPs choose to do now is their choice too: they should stop theatrically threatening suicide like a spoiled teenager who’s had their allowance stopped, and act like responsible adults for once, vote no confidence in the current government and force a general election. Maybe then we might let them leave this discredited parliament with a tiny little bit of respect left.

We’re Not Having It, Either

Sleaze, UK politics
Published on

noifsnobuts-1

If anyone’s looking for tips on how to move ahead investigating our MPs and their expenses, this old post of mine from 2008 has some good ideas:

I now want the Action Squad to co-ordinate a new drive against the hard core of ‘hard nut’ cases.

That car of theirs? is the tax up to date? Is it insured? Let’s find out.

And have they a TV licence for their plasma screen? As the advert says, ‘it’s all on the database.’

As for their council tax, it shouldn’t be difficult to see if that’s been paid

And what about benefit fraud? Can we run a check?

How could any MP object to such investigation? Those aren’t my words, those are Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s in a speech by to the 2008 ‘Anti-Social Behaviour: We’re not Having It‘ conference.

Of course she was admitting to using the power of the state to harass individuals because they behave in ways the government disapproves of or finds politically inconvenient, not because they’re committing any crime.

But we’re told that if you have nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear, so I’m sure Honourable Members, especially Labour Members , won’t mind such close scrutiny at all.

Bolting the stable door after the horse has resigned

Sleaze, UK politics
Published on 1 Comment on Bolting the stable door after the horse has resigned

so after he finally resigned, Speaker Michael Martin returned to Parliament just long enough to read out some tough new measures he had negotiated on with the leaders of all parties. From Hansard:

This afternoon I convened a meeting of party leaders—both major and minor parties—and members of the House of Commons Commission to make decisions on the operation of parliamentary allowances pending the recommendations of Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Chairman of the Committee on Members’ Allowances was also present to advise us.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life will come forward with long-term reforms to the current allowances system. All parties are now committed to implementing its recommendations as a whole, subject to the formal agreement of this House, provided that these reforms meet the tests of increased transparency and accountability and reduced cost for the taxpayer. We have today agreed a robust set of interim measures which will take effect at once and do not pre-empt any more substantial changes to be put forward by the Kelly committee.

Let’s see what those messages are shall we? My comments in italics.

  1. Second homes: there will be no more claims for such items as furniture, household goods, capital improvements, gardening, cleaning and stamp duty.
  2. The following only should be claimable: rent, including ground rent; hotel accommodation; overnight subsistence; mortgage interest; council tax; service charges; utility bills, including gas, water, electricity, oil, telephone calls and line rental; and insurance—buildings and contents. Which leaves all the running costs of a second home still to claim for — wish I could do that.
  3. Designation of second homes: no changes to be made to designation of second homes in the years 2009–10, with a transparent appeal procedure for exceptional cases. Good, but there’s a sting in the tail with that “transparent appeal procedure”.
  4. Capital gains tax: Members selling any property must be completely open with the tax authorities about whether they have claimed additional costs allowance on that property as a second home and are liable for capital gains tax. You would think this was done already.
  5. Members should make a declaration in respect of any property on which they claim for expenditure that it is not—and will never be—their main residence for capital gains tax purposes. Whether such a declaration has been made will be made public. You would think this was done already.
  6. Couples: Members who are married or living together as partners must nominate the same main home, and will be limited to claiming a maximum of one person’s accommodation allowance between them. You would think this was done alrea — never mind.
  7. Mortgages: all those Members claiming reimbursement must confirm that the mortgage continues, that the payments are for interest only, and the amount claimed is accurate. D-uh. The fact that several members have actually been caught doing this says enough about both the greed of your average member and how lax the controls were.
  8. Mortgage interest claims will be capped at £1,250 per month. In the view of the meeting—and subject to the recommendations of the Kelly committee—this maximum figure should be reduced in the longer term. The same cap will apply to rent and hotel accommodation. christ. and that’s just interest; we’re paying much less on our whole mortgage.
  9. Staffing: we confirmed the enforcement of deposit of staff contracts and the registration of any relatives employed. Again something that should’ve been done much earlier and something which you wonder is going to do much good.
  10. While the Kelly committee recommendations are awaited, there will be no specific changes to other allowances. The Department of Resources is instructed to tighten the administration of all claims and apply a clear test of “reasonableness”. If there is any doubt about the eligibility of a claim, it will be refused and there will be no appeal. They’ll still be able to claim that 400 quid in food allowances then, subject to an as of yet unknown test of eligibility. Colour me unimpressed..
  11. In future, all authorised payments will be published online at transaction level on a quarterly basis by the Department of Resources. Good, but needs to be done already.
  12. All past claims under the former additional costs allowance over the past four years will be examined. This will be carried out by a team with external management; the external manager will be appointed after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General. All necessary resources will be made available. The team will look at claims in relation to the rules which existed at that time, and will take account of any issues which arise from that examination which cause them to question the original judgment. Four years takes us back to the last parliamentary election, which is reasonable. Much will depend on who will look at them; having an external manager for the task does mean the end of self-reuglation however (not that Parliament has shown itself capable of that).

Speaking of self regulation, the final part of the Speaker’s speech said that this was indeed to end:

The meeting also received a paper from the Prime Minister, which was endorsed by the other party leaders, calling for a fundamental reform of allowances—moving from self-regulation to regulation by an independent body. The Government will consult widely on this proposal. Further to this, the Leader of the House will be making a statement tomorrow, which will allow the House a full opportunity to ask questions, and Members to air their views on the decisions we have made and the proposals for the future.

This is all still just damage control, a set of measures that is the minimum anybody with common sense would’ve had in place already. If Parliament thinks that with the resignation of the speaker and these new measures their troubles have ended, they’re wrong. I hate to say it, but David Cameron was right that a new election is needed soon. This won’t cleanse Parliament either, but is a necessary first step. What needs to happen is a cultural change in Parliament, which has bigger troubles than just dodgy expense claims. Parliament needs to return to its primary function as overseer of the government and prime source of legislation.

Respect and Galloway

Sleaze, UK elections, UK politics
Published on

With the unexpected victory (to them) of George Galloway over Oona King last week, there have been some fairly desperate attemps made to explain away this victory. The key factor, as Dead Men Left explains is a belief that:

rational individuals could not possibly have voted for Respect. What both imply is that voters in Bethnal Green and Bow had every reason to be happy with their lot, were they not driven by their irrational urges. Both are slurs, in particular, on the Bangladeshi community in East London.

The most disgusting and insulting “explanation” of Oona King’s defeat has to be the idea that she lost because she was part Jewish and part Black –and the white racists and anti-semitic muslims in her district couldn’t handle that. But, as the following letter, quoted by both The Ghost of Wat Tyler and Jews sans Frontieres:

After Oona King’s defeat, I found comments by Tony Banks and others patronising and insulting to us British-Bangladeshis/Muslims. Contrary to the pathetic excuses they were making for her, we did not vote against Ms King because she was a woman, or because she was black, or Jewish. She was all those things when we voted for her in 1997 and 2001. We voted her out because she did not listen to us on Iraq. If she had done her job and represented her constituents (rather than pursue her personal ambitions by following Blair) she would still be our MP. Simple.

Suber Akther

London

Hear hear.