The deranged witch hunts over MPs' expenses
The BBC displays a characteristically self-destructive cheek using the Freedom of Information act to make public the expenses of some MPs: When I think of the stories I could tell you about the expenses of some BBC journalists and managers, based on my time at the Corporation and what I have observed since, the taxis, the champagne and the vintage wines. I could blog all day about them. Indeed the lavish expenses of some of my good friends at the Beeb are a running joke amongst those who know. Fortunately for them, I like them and their generously funded institution too much to reveal all.
Evidently they do not share the same spirit in relation to MPs. Instead the opposite applies: Let’s treat them like crooks! Let’s reinforce the orthodoxy that they are all up to no good and hunt down their expenses!
The problem with these deranged witch hunts is that the context gets lost in the excitement. These MPs are often living away from home during the week. It seems to me entirely legitimate that they get expenses for housing in these circumstances. I remember when I lived away from home on attachment at the BBC I used to get paid all kinds of expenses and one of my many bosses told me to claim a lot more.
This is getting dangerous. We need to calm down about those we elect or else no one sensible will stand for election. We know what happens in those circumstances and an early victim would be the BBC.
High time someone made these points. Well done Steve. The BBC has just claimed on its Radio 4 "PM" programme that the newly released information "provides an intriguing insight", when it clearly does nothing of the sort. A poor justification for a witch hunt. John Prescott's claims for food expenses predictably get the headlines, but the fact that Menzies Campbell claimed more barely gets a mention. Moreover, MP salaries are rarely compared to earnings in similar jobs. For example, CEOs in local authorities earn more than the Prime Minister. I was previously a stout defender of the BBC, but it is losing my respect.
Posted by: Jim Mansfield | Friday, 04 April 2008 at 05:25 PM
I am self employed and also claim reasonable expenses as determined by the tax office. I also work away from home. When you say "These MPs are often living away from home during the week. It seems to me entirely legitimate that they get expenses for housing in these circumstances." Do you also agree that I should buy a second home, furnish it with works of art, completely revamp the kitchen and bathroom etc in accordance with the John Lewis list,and then claim it back or do you think that my tax inspector may disagree with you?
If I the sell the home do you also think that I should trouser the profits? Come on! this is about morals and having one set of rules. Will you respond to the tax position? I will gladly suport your argument with my local tax inspector.
Posted by: AJB | Friday, 04 April 2008 at 05:41 PM
Steve, some very good points. Blair claimed £116 for a TV licence- so what? Our MPs are underpaid for the hours they do and the importance of their job. I met my local MP at parliament that other day and he works 9-11 on the days he is there, has to travel from the north of england to london every week, and then spends all weekend at constituency events. He made the point that often gets forgotten- would we rather it be that MPs have to be very rich before they stand for parliament like the old days, or would we rather have MPs paid properly for their work, so anyone can stand? Surely this is good for democracy. This is just the media making daft stories for themselves.
Posted by: Nick Thornsby | Friday, 04 April 2008 at 10:17 PM
Rubbish. The Indy discloses this morning that that fat belligerent sot John Prescott claimed £4000 for personal groceries.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prescotts-grocery-bill-and-the-other-expenses-that-mps-fought-to-conceal-804889.html
In a country that wasn't run by Gordon-Is-A-Moron, the Govt would be going to this unpleasant bruiser with a demand for the refund of the entire amount OR jail him for fraud (which is exactly where he belongs).
But in Stalinist Britain, latter-day Berias like Brown get away with **stealing** whatever they wish from the public purse.
Blair claimed his Television Licence!!! I look forward to hearing how John "Zhdanov" Rentatool is going to justify that???
But let's not imagine that it's only the New Stalinists who've benefitted. Cameron has had a £21,000 subsidy from tax-payer's money towards the price of a second home!!!
You're very wrong, Steve. *I* can't get £21k given to me free to buy a flat. *I* can't have my groceries paid by the tax-payer, I have to buy them myself AND Fatso Prescott's too!!! God, I dream of the day I accidentally encounter Prescott in a public place. I hope he has a good dentist.
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Saturday, 05 April 2008 at 07:33 AM
Unlike BBC staff, MPs set the rules, investigate themselves and get to decide if anything untoward has been done.
I also get paid from public funds: I can be forced to work shifts of more than eighteen hours and if I need to buy an additional meal because I have done so, I have to provide a receipt and write a report if I want the money back - for the cost of a sandwich!
I am sure that some of their expenses are fully justified, I am just as sure that some are not. The real problem however, is the gulf between the way that MPs treat others and wish to be treated themselves.
Posted by: Darren Howell | Saturday, 05 April 2008 at 07:42 AM
I've got a mate who's an MP (how many peope can say that?) and he says it's a hard job for the pay and they need those nice little expenses and allowances. I pointed out to him that the monthly old age pension is less than he gets for food alone (truly!) but he said old age pensioners don't work as much as he does. I pointed out that he's in 'recess' (is that another word for holiday?) for 16 weeks each year, yes 16! (they're all in 'recess' now until the 21st)- but he said he was
working hard at his constituency all that time. I pointed out that the working day in the House doesn't start until 09.45 at the earliest and finishes about 5.30 p.m., whereupon he used a very rude phrase and said he was off to buy some booze. 'Keep the receipt!' I shouted.
Posted by: john problem | Saturday, 05 April 2008 at 08:58 AM
I'm self employed. Following my MP's lead I'm off to buy a second home, a nice cottage in the Lake District, and claim it as expenses. You tax payers can pay for it. Thanks.
Posted by: Martin | Saturday, 05 April 2008 at 09:55 AM
Since I posted my comments, there has been some predictably idiotic ones added, not least from the ranting "Stalinist" Neil. What do you all want? We can cut the pay for MPs, reduce the amount they can claim on expenses, and then you might be happy. Except you won't. Because you'll find in no time that nobody wants to be an MP. Compare MP's salaries and expenses to what senior local government officers get. A director of social services at your local council gets paid more, for heavens sake! And where does that get us, if nobody wants to be an MP? Now, that WOULD be Stalinist.
Posted by: Jim | Saturday, 05 April 2008 at 10:32 AM
Come on--this is a leg-pull to get e-mails. MPs pay and extras come from the tax-payer's pocket. No other elitist group can claim the same. As for working hard! This is another evocative fallacy--have a look at attendances in the House of Horrors--many are running businesses at the same time and are on on company boards. India has fewer MPs than Britain and is far larger. Political representation in Britain is a scam--only the dull, and indolent British public would put up with such junketing at its expense. "Carry on Politician"--a comedy beyond belief.
Posted by: Diogenes | Saturday, 05 April 2008 at 05:47 PM
So what's your answer, Jim? Keep winking at MPs on the fiddle, because "perhaps no-one will want to be an MP"?? Give me a break, mate. Prescott fiddles four ground on groceries... and you're all in favour? That's worth six grand, of course, since he's had it tax-free.
Most of them have got a string of private directorships on the side anyhow.... ask Tessa Jowell how her mortgage got paid-off, and who paid it? And she'll say she "can't remember"... when she lives in the house? And "can't remember" who paid for it?? And this was accepted as a reasonable excuse???
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Saturday, 05 April 2008 at 07:08 PM
Just to clarify for simpleton Neil, and others, that don't seem to understand. The MPs are NOT on the fiddle. They are entitled to claim those expenses, as part of their terms and conditions. None of them has broken any rules. If you're saying they shouldn't be entitled to those perks, then I'll agree. And then we'll increase their salaries instead. But the point made by Steve Richards remains. MP earnings must match those earned in similar jobs. Otherwise, MPs will move on and find other jobs. And then we'll be left with the likes of Neil to fill the vacancies.
Posted by: Bob | Sunday, 06 April 2008 at 09:38 AM
Oh well, if you say so Bob--then it must be the vast majority of the population which must be wrong about MPs.
Have yet another poll, concerning the nation's opinion on MPs and their trustworthiness and credibility. Also try to rise politically without the help of the crooked political selection machine--and without forfeiting honest principles. Now stop sucking your thumb. Those who choose to be MPs do so wittingly--nobody forces them. Moreover, they know that it is a certainty, that if they play their cards correctly (according to political chicanery) they will have doors opened to them for even greater offers in private companies, or higher paid jobs for the boys. See Blair (Bliar)the Middle East envoy, for any further reference. Ironic eh? Or did he earn it for his "peace" credentials and love of God?
Posted by: Diogenes | Sunday, 06 April 2008 at 10:19 AM
Message to Steve Richards. You make some excellent points. We should now use the Freedom of Information Act to find out details of expenses paid to employees of the publically-funded BBC. But you must be hugely disappointed at the quality of some of the comments. For example, you can choose to become an MP "wittingly".
Posted by: Julian | Sunday, 06 April 2008 at 11:09 AM
Let them claim expenses, but let them also be open to scrutiny by HMRC, they pursue the rest of us for every penny, be it earned or benefit it kind, the same rules must apply to all, especially the law makers.
Posted by: russ | Monday, 26 May 2008 at 06:52 PM