Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 16 May 2012

A Parliament of Thieves

Monday, 11th May 2009

Like any sensible person I've been thoroughly amused and appalled by the scandal of MPs expenses. Appalled because the extent of MPs' avarice is sufficient to shock even an iron-souled cynic; amused because watching MPs try to justify their gluttonous appetite for taxpayer-funded freebies affords a certain pleasure that one might consider vindictive if only it weren't so entirely merited. This isn't a tragedy, it's a stinking farce.

The dreary pretense - duly repeated by every sticky-fingered parliamentarian - that it is all ok because "no rules were broken" could hardly be more priceless. Nor could it do more to underline the essential fact that these people are fools who in turn treat the public as though they are fools themselves. Only the blindest dolt would think that boasting of obeying the rules might minimise the public's entirely-justified sense of outrage (a wrath that is, I suspect, under-appreciated at Westminster and in the media) when it is the laxness of the rules themselves that occasions so much incredulity and anger.

For it is now clear, if it weren't before, that we are governed by a parliament of thieves for whom no expense is too small or too trivial to be borne by the taxpayer. These knaves and charlatans are strangers to shame and decency. Astonishingly, they make journalists and estate agents seem paragons of probity by comparison. Who'd have thunk that possible?

In a startlingly complacent and tendentious editorial (thoughtfully brought to my attention by Mr Eugenides) the Times claimed that "only an idiot" would enter parliament "in order to get rich". Logically, then, parliament is stocked with even more idiots than you might have thought since, whatever else it is, life at Westminster seems a very good way of becoming pretty rich indeed.

MPs may be paid more poorly than many newspaper columnists but they still make rather more than rather more than 90% of the population. The poor house does not beckon. And that, of course, is before one considers their lavish expense arrangements and the potential for building a serious property portfolio at a serious discount, all subsided by the public purse.

So, yes, sympathy is as thin on the ground as it should be. Perhaps they are not all "at it" but it is clear that many of them are. It is not, whatever Kerry McCarthy (Lab, Bristol East) may say in an otherwise interesting post, an accident to claim for dogfood or biscuits or horse manure for your garden. Nor, evidently, can it be an accident to a) claim for the 5p cost of a carrier bag and b) keep the money. It is the relentless nature of the money-grabbing and its cheapness that grates. Every penny that may be milked from the system must be - and is - milked. And why not, it's all free money innit?

Who knows how many MPs have behaved in a fashion that renders them unfit for office? Dozens certainly, perhaps even hundreds. How is it possible to even think that paying for gardening can be a legitimate parliamentary expense? I cannot see how Alan Duncan can plausibly remain in the Shadow Cabinet, nor why the good voters of Rutland and Melton should return him to Westminster at the next election.

Not that Mr Duncan is alone. Francis Maude and Chris Grayling should, assuming the Telegraph's story is accurate, go too. And so, naturally, should the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all the others who have enriched themselves through their ingenious use of the second-home allowance. At the very least these MPs are guilty of ignoring the spirit of the regulations. You might very well go further and accuse them of fraud and theft but I, of course, could not possibly comment on that. What's also clear is that at the next election we're going to need an awful lot of independent candidates in White Suits.

In fact, some of the most telling details are the expense claims that the Fees Office actually rejected. Thus the Foreign Secretary tried to claim £199 for a child's pram while another Labour MP reportedly complained to the Fees Office in these gobsmacking terms:

"I object to your decision not to reimburse me for the costs of purchasing a baby's cot for use in my London home...Perhaps you might write to me explaining where my son should sleep next time he visits me in London?"

Let that sink in for a moment. Astonishing, isn't it? Your flabber should be well and truly gasted. As with Jacqui Smith's household, it seems that many MPs are of the view that the default presumption should be that all expenditure should be charged to the taxpayer unless there's an unfortunate reason for having to dip into one's pocket oneself. This may not count as corruption in the formal sense, but many MPs are clearly and quite literally on the take. I'm only surprised they haven't been trying to claim their childrens' school fees too...

In one sense, mind you, one can understand the anger MPs feel in these instances. After all, everything else seems to be ok, so why not a bay's cot too? Is that really so very much more outrageous than the expenses they can get away with? Perhaps not since we pay for MPs to eat too. Until April this year, MPs were able to claim £400 a month just for food. Fat cats bingeing on the public purse, indeed. The entire racket is organised as though MPs were a bunch of travelling salesmen, constantly on the road rather than, you know, parliamentarians who live and work in London.

And yet to hear the poor buggers talk you'd think being an MP the most miserable, soul-destroying job in the world. And of course much of the time it must be. To begin with, you're surrounded by crooks and liars. If being a parliamentarian is less satisfying than perhaps it once was, MPs largely have themselves to blame. After all, it is they who have happily tolerated the sidelining of parliament. Then again, the opportunities for lining your pockets are considerable and the severance payments - of which one trusts there will be several hundred next year - startlingly generous too.

As I say, I rather suspect that, if anything, the Westminster Village underestimates the fury this scandal has caused. There's going to be a nationwide shortage of torches and pitchforks for there's a mob building and there's going to be a riot.

As there should be. The extent of the graft is remarkable and, as the Americans say, it's time to throw the bums out.

Filed under: Britain (736 more articles) , Westminster (186 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (12)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

nadezhda

May 11th, 2009 3:09am Report this comment

I don't follow UK politics very closely, but I can't help but be struck from this side of the Atlantic by the juxtaposition of how the political class interprets "rules" for their own benefit and how the government is interpreting the "rules" that apply to the Ghurkas.

Watching Joanna Lumley's face was truly priceless as she listened with an expression of total disgust to that revolting dweeb whinge on in the worst sort of langue de bois about how the letters "refusing" the Ghurka claims weren't "rejecting" the claims, and it all would have to be taken into account in "guidelines" to be developed with the input of the campaign, but would all have to be in accordance with the "law".... Sweet Jeebus!

Since it's an indictment of much of an entire political class, who is in a position to lead the "throw the bums out" movement?

Laura Dalton

May 11th, 2009 8:11am Report this comment

Arbitrary and fraudulent rules were made, by the (dis)honourable members. To argue they were - only obeying their own rules - is akin to a robber arguing that he wiped his feet, before emptying your home.

Richard T

May 11th, 2009 9:25am Report this comment

I entirely agree with your analysis. Indeed, bearing in mind that some of the Conservative names are, lets say, more than comfortably off, then their screwing the taxpayer for every last penny is perhaps more blameworthy than some of the Labour offenders (Barbara Follet and Sean Woodward excepted).

In that connection, Mr Duncan is a case in point. He is a millionaire and as such, he is of course a sharp cookie. But, if he thinks that his little games on abusing the council house sale rules have been forgotten, well they haven't.

Paul B

May 11th, 2009 9:37am Report this comment

Good article article Alex.

The "it was within the rule" whine, is now becoming akin to the infamous Nuremberg plea, its iniquitous and totally pathetic. As for the MP you quote above, using moral blackmail on fees office, I feel utter utter contempt.Its no co-incidence that she is a Labour MP. Its a striking example of how Socialists frequently operate, thats playing the moral blackmail card to bully opponents into submission.

Those MPs that use the Nuremberg plea, demonstrate they have no further right to hold what is a privileged public office. Those MPs that can demonstrate true remorse and pay back the money, can be forgiven. There a few MPs, that appear to have made genuine mistakes- Phil Woolas`s tampon claim being one- and we the public should be big enough to accept that.

A danger is that public & press lose a sense of perspective and that this becomes a witch hunt, and I caution that my witch hunt radar is twitching. The corrupt need to be weeded out and booted out, but the British tradition is not to assume guilt. I think we need to remember that, I don`t want to see bricks flying through windows, that would actually give the bastards a real excuse to hide their affairs away. We need to stay calm, cold and forensic in our dealings with MPs.

Ed Bell

May 11th, 2009 12:39pm Report this comment

Excellent article. I may be alone in my naivety but I was shocked to discover a few weeks ago that MP's are paid to sit on their stupid little committees. With hindsight it was immediately obvious that they would never actually consider it a privilege to be asked. I expect that these expenses are the tip of the iceberg and if there was *absolute* transparency of all the perks available there would be a revolution.

Conservative Cabbie

May 11th, 2009 1:44pm Report this comment

To anyone interested, I've had a few days off and have decided to have a go at this blogging lark. If you feel so inclined, feel free to take a look. Comments are most definitely welcomed and if you do choose to comment, please try to use your speccie names so that I recognise you.

www.conservativecabbie.com

dearieme

May 11th, 2009 3:35pm Report this comment

And remember: the bulk of the money they've fiddled is almost certainly in the pay for the jobs they've filled with friends, mistresses and family. The difficulty of proving corruption there means that only the twit with the two boys away at University has been shamed.

jpeeps

May 11th, 2009 5:27pm Report this comment

To add some meaning to the figures being bandied around here, it is sobering to be reminded that the one-off lifetime payment of £15,000 that Mumbai terror victim Will Pike received from a government-backed Red Cross fund (as reported in yesterday's Observer), is actually less than one quarter of the amount claimed since 2001 by Tom McNulty, Employment minister, for his second home in Harrow (belonging to his parents), located just nine miles from his main home in Hammersmith.

Trish

May 11th, 2009 7:45pm Report this comment

With whatever respect is due to you, Mr. Massie, your self-righteous judgment of VP Cheney is just one more example of the effete elitist snobbery to which we average folks have grown wearily accustomed. Mr. Cheney is a true and honest statesman, gentleman, and patriot. He has more intelligence, experience, and knowledge in his little finger than do all the crazed Obama-devotees in the media both on your side of the Atlantic and ours. Regrettably, I believe we will live to see events that corroborate every warning the Vice President has issued. When that time comes, I do so hope you will be as gracious in recanting your judgment of this fine man as you have been harsh towards him in your disrespectful rant.

Hayward Maberley

May 11th, 2009 9:53pm Report this comment

Trish,
Mr Cheney, aka Five Deferment Dick, was a serial draft evader. When asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." Cheney testified during his confirmation hearings in 1989 that he received deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, owing to sub par academic performance and the need to work to pay for his education. Initially, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was only taking older men. When he became eligible for the draft, he applied for four deferments in sequence. He applied for his fifth exemption on January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant. He was granted 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft. Courtesy of Wikipedia.
How interesting that both he and that other seial draft evader The Faux Texan would say, looking in the rear view mirror, that they regarded the Viet Nam Farrago as a "noble cause" but obviously not noble enough to put their bodies where their mouths were. No the poor, black and hispanic were shipped out to that "noble cause"
Just as happened and still occuring with the Afghan Imbroglio and the Iraqi Fiasco.
I can imagine no time when anyone will ever have to aplogise to Five Deferment Dick. Perhaps when he apologises to the US public and the rest of the world for his mendacity.
He is still spouting the Big Lies concerning the Iraq Fiasco viz. Iraqi involvment in the events of 11 September, he is being more than mendacious concerning torture and its "effective results"
His connections through Halliburton with Big Oil and the House of Saud make one wonder just "cui bono"
Finally are you aware that over his four years as Secretary of Defense, Cheney downsized the military and his budgets showed negative real growth, despite pressures to acquire weapon systems advocated by Congress. The Department of Defense's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291 billion to $270 billion. Total military personnel strength decreased by 19 percent, from about 2.2 million in 1989 to about 1.8 million in 1993.
That of course allowed for a lot of outsourcing to Halliburton, KBR and other contractors.
The man is a charlatan.

Alf Tupper

May 11th, 2009 10:15pm Report this comment

Surely these people have only done what has by degrees become the natural - the desirable - thing to do throughout our society this past 30 years: Greed is good and so grab everything whether you need it or not?

Swine fever indeed.

As a result of all this, I think we should stand by for sea-change returns in the coming elections.

Esther

May 12th, 2009 11:46am Report this comment

Whilst being furious at Westminster MP's, lets not forget to be even more furious at those of our MEPs who have been milking the lax EU expenses system for our taxpayers' money.

Post comment