Clemency suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

Zero tolerance for Tory sleaze

Wednesday, 11th June 2008

The Spectator on why there should be zero tolerance for sleaze

‘What gets me,’ said David Cameron in a speech to the CBI last November, ‘is the deliberate extravagance committed by the people at the top of the government machine, the administrators and managers and quangocrats who administer public money.’ He went on to name Home Office officials who had blown £800,000 on taxis in a year, the MoD, which spend £2.3 million on a headquarters for itself while soldiers in Afghanistan had to do without their proper kit, and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which ate its way through £1.6 million in just six months on hotels and conference centres.

It was a fine and timely speech by the Conservative leader, striking a chord with an electorate increasingly shocked by public sector waste. Unfortunately, it has now become clear that there is one class of extravagant public servant which Mr Cameron omitted to mention: his own MEPs, and to a lesser extent, his Westminster MPs.

It would be difficult to underestimate the effect that the stories of the past week must have had on wavering voters, not least the 300,000 pensioners and the parents of the 100,000 children revealed this week to have sunk below the poverty line over the past year. Having turned against the government in protest at rising mortgages, food bills, motoring bills and stealth taxes, the floating voter looks inquisitively once more at the Conservative party — only to read that the party’s EU ‘sleazebuster’, Giles Chichester, has been driven to resign as the leader of Conservative MEPs for inexplicably paying £445,000-worth of staff allowances into his family’s map-making company. Until last week, few voters could have named Mr Chichester at all, let alone explained what he does; his dubious achievement now is to make even the Foreign Office’s taxi bill look good value.

As much as the Tories made any advance in the first ten years following the 1997 debacle, it was on the European front. And the first sign of any kind of recovery in their electoral fortunes came in the 1999 European elections. This was no accident, and neither was it a protest against Tony Blair, who remained very popular at the time. The Conservatives won the 1999 European elections because a majority of the public is still unconvinced by the institution that is the EU. They see laws issuing from Brussels without the democratic debate which precedes Westminster legislation. They see officials’ extravagant spending, and the EU’s auditors refusing to sign off the accounts for the past 12 years. And they see — or they saw — the Conservatives as the party most likely to hold it to account.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page

Richard Holden

June 12th, 2008 9:49am

The MoD spent 1000x as much as the article suggests on its headquaters, spending £2,3 Billion, not million. That could have been spend doing up our service personnels body-armour and accommodation, rather than improving offices.

Melanie Whitehand

June 13th, 2008 4:23pm

It is a shame that these rather damning examples of sleaze may undermine all of the good work done by Team Cameron. If any thing it should add weight to the argument that the E.U. is a gravy train and there is no justification for it! The average Conservative voter is quite possibly furious that these reports will not be helpful in the present political climate.

John James

July 4th, 2008 1:54pm

Our MPs are correctly referred to as "The Honourable..." and are elected to represent us.

It is therefore quite reasonable to expect our MPs, of all political flavours, to behave honourably. That means claiming expenses that those they represent (and who ultimately pay their expenses) would consider reasonable.

It doesn't mean "flexible interpretation" of the rules to fill their pockets to the maximum allowed, let alone dishonesty.

But, perhaps more importantly, a truly honourable man or woman would do his/her best to improve those rules to ensure they are seen to be fair and reasonable. And thereby stamp out any opportunity for abuse by any less-honourable members.