Get ready to feel worse about our political class

Peter From Maidstone

The expenses scandal is all well and good. But why is the Spectator saying nothing about the explosive revelation that this Labour Government has deliberately engineered a decade of mass immigration to try and change our national culture forever? Surely there is nothing more important to talk about than this?

What is the legal definition of treason? Will it be possible to call those guilty of destroying England to account?

John Levett

There's a simple answer to this. Introduce proper rules to take effect from the next election. Anybody who objects to them does not have to stand. There are many others who would be more than happy to represent a constituency for the current inflated rate of pay and reasobable, properly documented expenses.

Vulture

I couldn't feel worse about our political class. What would make me feel better would be to see them shivering in Wembley stadium, waiting to have their kneecaps smashed by the rifle butts of the soldiers they have sent to die in Afghanistan.

Liz Brown

I have no beef with spouses working for MP's - they can be trusted to be discreet, know the consituencies and be loyal. given the unattractive hours that some MPs work, it is better for families to be together as much as possible.

Chuck Unsworth

What particular skills are required of MPs' assistants? Are there no suitable candidates outside of their families? If not, why not?

logdon

Or, better still, send them, en mass to Afghanistan, dropped in a particularly virulent Taliban enclave and watch them talk multiculturalism with the natives.

The old, heads will roll would assume a new and far more accurate meaning.

Whilst at it get Bowen, Doucet and Guerin to cover it with hand held cameras, devoid of any squaddies or whatever else they use as security on their biased peregrinations.

Verity

Employing one another’s relatives! So they really do view the governance of Britain as agrarian land to be farmed and harvested for the benefit of those who serve in it. I sense a huge sluicing out at the next election. Huge.

Peter of Maidstone … yes, indeed.

Vulture, I like your Wembley scenario.

Ray Burston

Why are we getting uptight about MPs employing relatives anyway? So long as everything is above board and, if necessary, the Commons authorities can request a break-down showing exactly what people on the MPs' payroll have actually done to justify being paid from it, then I don;t see a problem.

jon ryan

@Peter From Maidstone:
Under the 1351 Treason Act (which still obtains), anyone is guilty of treason if he “levies war against the Sovereign” or is “adherent to the Sovereign's enemies”. Her Majesty's Goverment, currently headed by PrimeMinister Brown, represents the sovereign. The BNP is the declared enemy of the government. The BNP and its supporters are therefore clearly traitors. Hope this helps.

jon ryan

SCENARIO ONE: HOTEL ROOM IN GDANSK. INT. 2AM
(MP is speaking to SPOUSE). Darling, I know it's late, bloody speeches went on and on. Can you help me write up my notes - oh and pour me a drink , would you? And if you could give me a back-rub when I've has a shower...

SCENARIO 2: HOTEL ROOM IN GDANSK. INT. 2AM.
(MP making phone call to SECRETARY) Hi, yes, sorry to wake you...yes, just past two. Well, tough, you're employed to work when I need you. Government won't wait. I need you to take some dictation, make me a drink and then give me a massages, OK?

Q1: Which of these would gain the greater headlines?
Q2: Which of these would make the most sensible arrangement?

eeyore

If MPs didn't waste most of their time on footling constituency work - acting as incompetent amateur social workers on £200,000 a year - they wouldn't have to make the taxpayer hire their wives as incompetent amateur secretaries as well. An MP's job should be to control the executive for his constituents' good, not chase up housing benefits for unemployed proletarians in the hope that those same U.Ps. will vote for him next time round.

Verity

I know this sounds crazy, but I think this jon ryan, suddenly of this parish, is Tony Blair posting in disguise. I'm not kidding.

jon ryan

Wrong, Verity. Flattering but wrong. I write my own stuff for a start...

Judy

The idea of the "one relative allowed" is a disgrace. It basically acknowledges that employing relatives is nepotism and therefore wrong, but deals with it by allowing a more limited amount of nepotism to each MP. Really unacceptable, and it is only being proposed because of the cowardice of the political leadership of all three main parties.

This could easily be dealt with by the following:

When a Parliament ends, each MP's tenure comes to an end, along with all their personal admin staff. If they are not re-elected, all receive the usual redundancy payments.

In the next Parliament all MPs will be newly elected, even if they were previously MPs. Some in fact will become MPs for new constituencies. Their admin staff will all be employed by the Civil Service and interviewed, and the appointments made via the usual procedure. Staff who were previously appointed for particular constituency posts do not stay in their post if a new MP is elected. So if these previous staff are not appointed it's hardly very different. It's just that the appointment process is being put on an appropriate and unbiased basis where questions of nepotism will not arise.

Such practices would not be allowed in any other sphere of public life.

If the leaders of each party declare that MPs who resist this ruling will not be able to stand as MPs for their party, that will prevent the threatened rebellion. There is no shortage of potential candidates to replace any who insist on nepotism.

We vote for MPs, not for their wives or husbands. It is an appalling sign of the extent of their sense of entitlement that we now see news reports of wives making the same sort of threat as their spouses about their assumed right to stay in post after the election. Interestingly no political husband or unmarried partner employee has yet had the cheek to try that one on.

The electorate is not impressed by all this. And giving in to the MPs on this point will just drive more people not to vote, or to vote for the BNP.

This is another test of David Camerion's leadership. I would be absolutely astounded if Gordon Brown put his foot down on this issue, but it would be a pleasant surprise if he did. I don't expect Cameron will show the necessary courage and leadership--too many of his friends; toes to tread on. But it would really show that he meant business--and had led rather than reacted to his party on this issue --if he did.

anne allan

Don't be silly, Verity - can you seriously see Cherie doing anything so useful? She's be out doing supermarket sweeps in Gdansk's classier emporia.

Verity

Well, Judy, Cameron could soften the blow on the Conservative side by promising that all the wives and daughters who had been secretaries would be put forward to stand for Parliament for the Conservatives. The press is already calling his hare-brained scheme Cameron's Cuties anyway, so could it get any worse?

Cogito Ergosum

No MP's expense item should be paid until it has been put onto a public website.

Verity

Anne Allen - You make a fair point. I think I read that she dragged three trolleys up to the cashier (to get the items bagged, silly; not to pay for them!) at that department store in Oz.

Paul M

The only rules for Parliament that the British public will accept are the same rules they themselves are subject to. So if MP's want to hire family members, then fine: any manager in any private sector company should be allowed to do the same. House flipping to be tolerated? Fine, eliminate all capital gains tax on short-term buying and selling of houses, and kill off stamp duty as well. No criminal prosecution for mis-claiming expenses and falsely claimed mortgage expenses? We'll have that too. And let's end the pensions apartheid, now. You want our respect? Do all of the above. Or else shut up and move on.... you've made a mess of things in any case.

Herbert Thornton

jon ryan seems to think, on the matter of what constitutes Treason, that anybody who is opposed to the government of the day commits Treason. What laughable nonsense. By that standard the Leader of the Opposition commits Treason.

On the other hand, we now learn the government, with Jack Straw playing a large part in it, secretly engineered the virtual abandonment of immigration controls so as to allow and actually encourage the immigration into Britain of vast numbers of immigrants - the bulk of them undesirable - without any open or parliamentary discussion and that their intent was to dilute the existing British population for political advantage.

The immigrants have included criminals, bogus asylum seekers, and in particular religious fanatics and others hostile to Britain's constitution and to Britain's whole way of life: immigrants who are contemptuous of Britain and British society, & dedicated to destroying everything British and substituting an Islamic Theocracy. The results have been predictably disastrous. Straw and company's policy has allowed the creation of communities in which there is considerable support for terrorism and which have actually produced terrorists who have murdered many innocent people in the London bus and tube bombings. Others have gone to Pakistan and Afghanistan to be trained in terrorism and to kill British soldiers, - and according the Security services, similar kinds of terror plots are continuing to be hatched.

Whether that surreptitious engineering of the abandonment of immigration control amounted to Treason or not may be moot, but around 50 years ago and earlier it would quite likely have been regarded by the courts as a public mischief heinous enough to support charges against Straw and the rest of a criminal conspiracy.

The courts have since receded somewhat from their view of what can amount to a criminal conspiracy, so it is now unlikely that such charges would stick - unfortunately.

2trueblue

First bring back E Filkin, she wa right about all of them and they knew it. The trouble is that they really still do not get it, and until they do they are not to be trusted. They are living on another planet and fail to see that they have done very well out of the system and that they are overpaid for their efforts when everything is taken into account. what they have done is totally immoral and why we should have to put up with all their whinging is beyond me. Get over it, pay it back, move on , or be prosecuted.
They get elected and go up to Westminster, have the opportunity to meet some people who are really talented, inovative and can make a difference, and think that they are the same. Well we have seen the resluts chaps and you are not making the grade and you have spent your time and efforts fleecing us, shame you couldn't be so clever at you real job we sent you up to do.

Noa Zrk

Paul M: well said!

Jon Ryan: What they do in the privacy of their Gdansk bedrooms is their own concern, (Why Gdansk?). However I do not expect to pay for MP's to be massaged by either their secretaries, their wives or their civil partners or their pet ducks.

Naomi Langford-Wood

Ho Hum!

Swingeing reforms eh? Won't work.

The reforms need to be set up in much the same way as the rules apply to the rest of us, as ever.

So, you can employ a relation for real work at a normal rate for the job - nothing more, nothing less - to quote good old Humpty Dumpty.

Why should it be any different?

We all submit expenses claims if we work whether we are self-employed or working for a multi-national. It should be the same.

But a ban on rellies manning the pumps? A step too far, I say.

Time sheets and the normal rate for the job, as clarified by local wages for similar work, would fit the bill - and of course, get a receipt for it too!

Minnie Ovens

I must say that I find it amusing that MP's wish to maintain the media glare on their activities.
Out of touch, self centred, greedy and blinkered.
It's rather like watching lemmings jump off the cliff.
It is obvious that there has been a misuse of family members in patronage or sinecure positions. Yes, there are the few who have done this with honourable intent but they must remember that not only have MP's to be honest (there's the rub!) but must be seen to be honest.
Their former and present contravention of the spirit of the rules makes it paramount that Kelly shows no major give on this matter.
These new rules should commence after the next General Election.
In that way any present or prospective MP will decide whether they can or cannot lives under the new regulations.
If they cannot then step down or don't stand.
Anyone thinking that we might lose MP's of high calibre because of this should remember that we need them to have above reproach moral principles as well.
Lookming at the present quality of Westminster, reaching an acceptable level of intellect should be reasonably easy.

Ian Walker

Sigh. The socialist doctrine is to make a rule for everything, and to draw a line in the sand. Once you make a rule, then people start finding loopholes and workarounds.

Much better for things to be judged on their own merits. Nobody really has any objection to an MPs spouse doing a genuine secretarial job for them. It's the student sons getting tens of thousands of pounds for doing sweet FA that's the problem.