In the early stages of the MPs expenses scandal, the Times ran an editorial or two arguing that it wasn't that big a deal. One of the points it made was that anyone who entered Parliament with an eye on getting rich was an idiot. Well, the past week has shown that the biggest idiot is the editorial page editor at the Times who saw fit to publish that piece of nonsense. Really, what was he/she thinking? To take just one example, can anyone imagine that Tony Blair would have made anything like the kind of money he's making now if he hadn't gone into politics? There aren't many modestly qualified lawyers pulling down six-figure retainers from JP Morgan et al.
MPs from all the main parties have been gorging from the expenses trough, but somehow it's the Labour offenders who look the worst. Sure, there are plenty of laughs to be had with the likes of Douglas Hogg's moat cleaning bills, but really, that's just petty cash. (By the way, where do you look in the Yellow Pages to find a moat cleaner?) Much of the real gaming of the system has come from the Labour side. There's the aforementioned Blair, mortgaging his constituency home at the taxpayer's expense for almost ten times what he paid for it, and in effect using the proceeds to make a downpayment on his London mansion. There's Hazel Blears switching residences at dazzling speed and failing to pay capital gains tax on properties she sold. There's Elliot Morley, "forgetting" he'd paid off his taxpayer-supported mortgage, and also double-dipping by renting his London property to another MP, who (needless to say) also charged the taxpayer for his rental costs. And there's the MP for Luton (40 minutes by train from London), claiming a second homes allowance not for a place near Parliament, but for one in Southampton, because her boyfriend lived there.
Now there are signs that the scandal is spreading away from expenses per se, to encompass MPs' financial dealings in a wider sense. This time it looks as if the Tories will come off worst. One of their MPs apparently has no fewer than ten jobs outside Parliament. If this is in any way common, it certainly goes some way to explaining why there are so few people in the House of Commons most of the time. Even quite senior Tories -- William Hague for example -- admit to these outside interests, which you'd think would raise all kinds of conflict of interest concerns.
Why is this important? Well, MPs claim that their salaries are inadequate, despite the fact that their base income of £64,000 puts them in the top 10% of earners, even without taking any account of expenses, pension rights or the remarkably generous transitional payment they receive when they leave the Commons. Most people earning £64,000 a year put in a full week's work for 48 weeks a year and pay their own commuting costs. They certainly don't take half the year off or use their main job as a platform for a whole range of nice little earners elsewhere.
It remains to be seen how the expenses system will be reformed, but there are already distressing signs that this whole ghastly episode will do lasting damage to the UK political system. In the near term, it's very likely that fringe parties, ranging from the Little Englander UKIP to the racist BNP, will pick up votes and seats in the local and European elections at the beginning of June. There's also a very high likelihood that a large number of shamed or simply dispirited MPs will step down at next year's general election. Sadly, it won't just be the crooked ones that go.
And that piece of Latin in the title? The love of money is the root of all evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment