Oh. And another thing…
A couple of follow-ups regarding the farrago of sordid pilfering that is the British MP expenses scandal.
Firstly, it’s well worth pointing out that this kind of corruption isn’t unique to Britain. And you don’t need to look to West Africa or Southeast Asia for other examples. Here in Ireland, it’s not much more than a year since our Taoiseach (that’s Prime Minister to you, Johnny Foreigner) had to step down thanks to his own series of “accountancy mishaps”. Who could have imagined, when the Mahon Tribunal started to investigate petty corruption in local politics, that Bertie Ahern himself would come unstuck?
Secret bank accounts and 50 grand cash “donations” that end up as “loans” to Bertie’s mother-in-law. All presented against the backdrop of his strangely selective memory. And the strangely selective memory of everyone around him. He was absolutely certain he hadn’t accepted 50 thousand pounds sterling in cash from a group of businessmen in Manchester. Until it became clear that he had. Then, suddenly, he recalls the money — but it was a private loan between friends to help him out of a bit of a bad patch financially. If a friend of mine loaned me £50k, I like to think I’d have the good grace to remember it.
More than that, Bertie provided us with our very own “Hazel Blears and the 13 grand cheque” moment during his final days in power. At the very same time he was explaining to the nurses that their demands for a 10% pay increase were unrealistic, he was awarding himself a 14% increase. When a journalist wondered if it wouldn’t be a nice gesture of solidarity for him to forego his additional €38,000 (that’s a pay hike higher than the average national wage) he dismissed the idea as “tokenism”.
When the political classes can dash off cheques for £13k despite not really believing they owe the money in the first place, or can imply that 38 grand is a token sum of money, it might be a hint — and I’m just speculating here — but it might be hint that something is wrong. That far from the public becoming disengaged from politics, that politicians have become disengaged from the public.
Which, when you’re looking at the world from behind a moat, is always going to be a danger.
[Personal note: I paid significant amounts of tax into the British treasury during the 15 years I was based there. I’m not just some foreign agitator commenting from afar… I’m also wondering where Oliver Letwin gets off spending my money on his goddamn tennis court]
Rob makes a good counterpoint over at his place. Isn’t this all a bit of a distraction, he wonders in paraphrase, from the rather more important point that the gap between the richest and poorest in Britain has increased significantly of late? Even during the economic good times, “the real incomes of the poorest 10% of the population fell and those of the wealthiest 10% rose”. Isn’t “puppy-killer” Letwin’s two thousand quid tennis court repair, or Straw’s claim for unpaid taxes, kind of trivial next to that revelation? And shouldn’t we, the media and — gasp! — even the politicians be concentrating on that?
It’s a fair point well made. But I wonder if it really gets to the heart of the issue? Isn’t it just possible that a political class so willing to enrich themselves at the expense of the public might be part of that wider problem? David Cameron is leader of the opposition. He’s a very wealthy man from a very privileged background. His constituency is an hour from London by train… he lives just outside Oxford. So why does he even need “a second home” in London? One that he’s claimed over £80 thousand of public money to help pay for?
Yes, we know it’s “within the rules”. I’m not saying it’s not. But when you set your own rules of conduct, then pretty much everything you do is within the rules, right? Like a mafia boss insisting the murder he committed shouldn’t be punished because it was carried out according to the rules laid down by the Cosa Nostra code.
Cameron claims to believe that the public sector is wasteful. I can only assume he’s basing his opinion on a glance at his own finances. Within the rules or not, if the man had any sort of commitment to his own political beliefs — any kind of personal integrity — then he would have taken a look at that second-home allowance of his a long time ago. He’d have wondered if maybe the taxpayer wouldn’t be better served by him taking the train in from Oxford instead?
In some (rather more transparent) democracies, the state commissions a block of small but functional apartments for MPs to use while parliament is in session. The state maintains the place and the MPs live there rent-free. The politicians are allowed — of course — to buy their own place. Even start their own little property portfolio should they wish. But, like the rest of us, they have to dip into their own pocket for that.
But the expenses scandal isn’t like – at least as you describe it – like Ahern’s loan. There’s no suggestion that anyone was buying favours, just that people took advantage of a lacksidaisical expenses regime. If there was some kind of subversion of the political process going on, then the whole thing’d be less ridiculous. Nor does the ‘politicians are only interested in enriching themselves’ claim do any real explanatory work for the sustained rise in inequality since their expenses hardly account for all of the rise in the richest 10%’s real income growth or the poorest 10%’s real income loss.
May 17th, 2009 | 2:43pm
by Rob
Nor does the ‘politicians are only interested in enriching themselves’ claim do any real explanatory work for the sustained rise in inequality since their expenses hardly account for all of the rise in the richest 10%’s real income growth or the poorest 10%’s real income loss.
Oh good lord, I wasn’t suggesting that the expenses could account for the growing inequality. Apologies if it came across that way. I was suggesting that politicians who view public service as a chance to “work for themselves” rather than “work for the public”, are far more likely to oversee, and perpetuate, a system where such inequality is endemic.
Or put it another way; if we were electing people who genuinely felt they had an obligation to work for the public, then they’d be less likely to allow such inequality to arise / increase. Indeed they’d probably consider it a priority to reduce that inequality.
Regarding your first point…
It’s true that Bertie’s “accountancy mishaps” are rather different to what’s currently happening in Westminister. I was simply implying that they represent a similar willingness within the political classes to seek out underhand ways of enriching themselves.
Personally I view the whole, “it was within the rules” defence as a complete red-herring. Of course it was within the rules; the same political class — even some of the same individuals — drew up those rules. My own opinion is that those rules effectively “legalise” rank corruption within the political class (€80k for a second home in London when you live in Oxford!?) and those who exploited their expenses (i.e. almost all of them) are therefore corrupt.
May 17th, 2009 | 3:30pm
by Jim Bliss
I haven’t made the ‘it was within the rules’ defence, although the ‘a group you’re a member of did X, so you, regardless of your power within that group, are responsible for X’ attempt to rebut comes close to being an invitation to collective punishment. Nor did I mean the ‘expenses don’t account for all the rise in inequality’ reading of your attempted explanation to be taken seriously; I meant the claim you’re still making, the ‘oversee and perpetuate’ claim. What, exactly, is supposed to be the causal link being some MPs being loose with their expense claims and failures to address systematic inequality? Note again, that this isn’t MPs selling favours, which you might think would perpetuate inequalities, since selling political favours tends to give to those that hath. And what the fact that someone takes the piss with their expenses is supposed to show about whether they work “for the public” or “for themselves” I’m not really sure: if I push to the limit in salary negotiations, does that show that I’m going to disregard – or even be anything less than totally committed to – my employers’ interests once a sum has been fixed on? I don’t think so. Doing that, of course, wouldn’t be like adding to my salary by selling stock to competitors, which might well indicate that I was in it for myself, like it looks like Ahern was. What this comes down to is that there is a limited amount of space to be used for public debate, and obsession with petty moralising about politics uses a lot of that up, some of which might be better put to use dealing with genuine political problems. What then does have a causal link to the perpetuation and growth of systematic inequality, it seems to me, is that obsession: look how it’s ended up swamping the release of those inequality figures.
May 17th, 2009 | 11:10pm
by Rob