Do MPs know what they're there for? Expenses and stuff

by Chris UnLimited 7. February 2010 17:20

STUFF BY ME WEEK-ENDING 7 FEB 2010

So it's been another good week for those of us who love to hate the political class, which, these days, is surely everyone but those within that privileged group.

First, for us Blair-baiters and we'll-never-let-it-lie Iraq war-haters, we got Clare Short getting right down to business in dissing the former PM big time during her moment in the spotlight as part of the ongoing Chilcott Review.

The recent pleasure of watching Tony Blair and his truth-twister-in-chief Alastair Campbell sweat under that spotlight was countered somewhat by both men's undeniable ability to deliver a good performance even when under intense scrutiny (not that the Chilcott team's scrutinising is all that intense for anyone with experience tackling the questions of Paxman or Humphries).

But Short's mini-tantrum, while all very predictable, was rather good fun to watch, pandering, as it did, to those of us who just want as much dirt as possible thrown in the general direction of our former leader and his core team during this review (which, at the end of the day, is unlikely to even properly consider what for me is the most important question regarding the 2003 Iraqi misadventure, but more of that in a future blog I expect).

Short's Blair critique this week was almost bold enough to enable us war-haters to forgive her for failing to resign from government at the crucial moment seven years ago. If only Robin Cook had lived to speak during Chilcot.

The other event that enabled us to beat down the political types once more was the latest development in the ongoing parliamentary expenses saga, the news that four MPs, including three Labour members of the House Of Commons, would be charged for their dodgy expenses claims. Bad news both for the four accused and for parliamentarians in general, giving, as it did, another chance for the media and the population at large to ponder on just what a bunch of greedy, self-seeking, dodgy gits those politicians all are.

As the expenses story reappeared on the news agenda once more, again a handful of MPs tried to defend themselves and the majority of their colleagues (minus the biggest offenders and the four to be charged) regarding past use, or misuse, of the parliamentary expenses system. I heard at least two on the BBC this week. Of course most MPs have taken the probably wise decision to eat a big helping of humble pie on this issue, release an apology about any perceived dodgy dealings, and move on from the whole furore. However, you do get the impression that those who attempt to defend the majority of MPs whose expenses have been questioned are actually voicing what many of those humble pie eaters are secretly thinking.

Those who do speak out in support of the expense claimers argue that many of those criticised in the media, and forced to pay money back after last year's scandal, were guilty of nothing more than following the rules that were in place at the time, and/or following the guidance of the parliamentary office that oversaw expense claims. They add that it is unfair that a new harsher interpretation of the old rules has been applied with hindsight - most notably by Thomas Legg - meaning that what was deemed OK under the rules two years ago is now consider wrong. They also often reserve some criticism for the media, and the Daily Telegraph in particular, for their role in turning the expenses scandal into a witch hunt, where the MPs who enjoyed the benefits of an overly generous and badly run expenses system were equated with those who deliberately set out to abuse that system.

On one level these MPs - whether they are outspoken on this issue or merely secretly think these things while eating their humble pie - are right. A key purpose of rules - and indeed of the entire legal system - is to provide predictability, a framework that advises people on what is deemed 'right' and what is deemed 'wrong'. It is wholly unfair to rewrite rules and then reapply them to the past (and interpreting the same rules from a harsher standpoint is as good as rewriting them), because when that's allowed to happen there's no predictability at all. And, with that in mind, some, possibly most, of the criticism from commentators and Legg about MPs' expenses claims is probably wholly unfair, moving, as it does, the parameters of acceptability with the benefit of hindsight.

So to conclude: it was the rules that were bad, not the MPs who may have benefited from the way the system worked. We should be angry with the rules and rule enforcers, not the parliamentarians who put in the expenses claims that we might, with hindsight, consider inappropriate. Why are we so angry with people who were just following the rules?

But then, hang on, what exactly is parliament for? Why does it exist in the first place? Why are we paying 646 people sixty-four grand a year each to wander the corridors of the palace of Westminster?

Surely the principle job of parliament is to review, consider, evaluate and, where necessary, amend the rules of the land - ie our laws. To assess whether these rules as they are currently or newly written are appropriate to the needs and mood of modern society, and whether they adhere to society's unwritten ethical code. And then to oversee the creators and enforcers of these rules - ie government, its ministries and authorities, and the courts of law themselves. The executive and the judiciary are, after all, constitutionally subservient to parliament.

So, to conclude once more, parliament, and therefore MPs, are in the business of rule assessment. That's their job. That's what they're there for. And unlike every other list of rules that sit within the vast realms of English law, the expenses rules were one set of regulations that every single MP should have had an informed opinion on. When any MP says that the rules are to blame for the expenses scandal - or, even, the enforcers of those rules, the expenses office - what they are basically saying is "we are fundamentally incompetent at our principle job".

And this, for me, is the bigger story with regards the whole expenses saga. I don't really care about the expenses abuses themselves too much - the sums of money involved are nominal in the wider scheme of things - and while it's been fun watching our political leaders having to justify duck houses and moat maintenance and dodgy mortgage dealings and excessive biscuit budgets, most of the offenders were within the rules as they were written and enforced prior to last May. The issue for me is this: if the 646 people who are paid by the tax payer to assess the rules of the land, can't even spot that a simple set of regulations regarding their own expenses system is so fundamentally flawed (and far too few went on the record to criticise the system before the 2009 scandal), are these people actually qualified to properly assess the big laws, new and old, that fundamentally affect the rights and responsibilities of ordinary citizens?

Some MPs might argue that it was because their minds were focussed on the big laws that they didn't have time to give consideration to the little matter of the parliamentary expenses system, and that's probably an acceptable excuse. But it stands that any MP who blames the expenses rules for causing much of last May's scandal is completely missing the point. And also, that a review of the expenses system in itself is not a sufficient response to the scandal. Rather, a more wide-ranging and radical review of what it is that parliament is there to do, and how MPs should and can assess and control the rule-making process, both of big law and simple parliamentary regulations, is what is needed. Such a review is planned, though I fear it will not be wide-spread or radical enough.

Many MPs now see a seat in the House Of Commons as a means to an end - a career step to a role in government. And because, in this country, we all tend to use our votes in the parliamentary elections to select the people we think are most fit (or least unfit) for the role of government, rather than the people who we think will best perform the role of parliament, too many mediocre MPs (mediocre in terms of their abilities as 'rule assessors') get through the electoral system.

My overriding conclusion of the expenses scandal isn't that most MPs are crooks, but that too many aren't up to the job of being in parliament. Some are, of course, but are enough? To steal a phrase that was popular in political circles a few years back, is parliament in its current state 'fit for purpose'? The upcoming General Election, and the new untarnished faces it will bring into parliament, might help the MP community shirk the crook reputation, but will it really solve the mediocrity problem and ensure parliament at large is capable of doing the rule assessment job it is there to do? I'm far from convinced it will.

PS: As for blaming the Daily Telegraph for some or all of the scandal - well, perhaps if parliamentarians hadn't spent two whole years trying to block the expenses information from ever being published, while trying to exempt themselves from the transparency rules they'd applied to the rest of the public sector, they wouldn't have delivered such a gift to Fleet Street in Spring 2009. Once again, no one to blame but themselves.

--------------------------------------------------

STUFF I DID THIS WEEK
The training division of UnLimited Media is going through a period of rapid growth at the moment, more by chance than design really, though it's an area where I have put quite a bit of effort since Christmas, so expect to see a number of new training programmes being run by or involving us later this year.

I had a very exciting meeting on Wednesday about one new training venture, which will hopefully see me packaging the best bits of my various digital media seminars into one full day event, primarily aimed at PR people looking to understand and utilise the changing media landscape. Alas I can't really say any more than that just now, but I'll no doubt blog here once anything can be confirmed.

Meanwhile, I can confirm that the new CMU training programme for music business people - despite having a slightly delayed start - will now kick off on 24 Feb. This is very exciting! There's more info at www.theCMUwebsite.com/events. If you can let as many music people know about these events as possible, that would be much appreciated!

Stuff By Me

A blog of sorts from Chris Cooke of UnLimited Media

Do MPs know what they're there for? Expenses and stuff

Welcome...

Recent Posts

This is me

Stuff I tweet...

My websites

Blogroll