Magicians often pull off their cleverest tricks through distraction - and politicians are no different.
As tricks go - the latest one is a blinder. As more and more MPs are exposed for their lavishness at the taxpayers expense what are the prime movers of the main parties talking about?
Constitutional Reform!
What does having fixed term parliaments or proportional representation have to do with excessive or fraudulent claims on the taxpayer? How has continental PR helped clear up the scandal of MEPs allowances?
Another distraction has been the party leaders trying to out-do each other than being tough on errant MPs.
David Cameron has now said that some MPs should 'feel the full weight of the law' regarding their claims for fictitious mortgage interest. But isn't this stating the obvious - could this not have been said weeks ago? - could this have not been acted on by now? Isn't this just posturing to look 'tough' to show that he has 'got a grip' on the story.
This is merely sleight of hand to distract people from asking why their MPs have not been deselected immediately, booted out, and a by-election called. That is to say, if a politician has admitted he has done the wrong thing, and agreed to stand down - why wait?
Hague's answer on a recent Question Time was that if their call for an immediate election was honoured then these MPs would effectively be gone within a month. But everyone knows that an immediate election is highly unlikely. It requires Johnson to make a move on the leadership, and although there are tentative signs this is happening, he will be outmanoeuvred by Brown, no matter how much the prime minister is embattled.
The result is that we have politicians who have made incorrect claims on the public purse who will remain in office for another year to leech more in salary and expense claims.
The distraction is need to conceal the fundamental weakness in Cameron's grip on constituency parties who are notoriously independent and sometimes unforgiveably out of touch.
It is not necessarily easy, but he should be exerting more pressure on these constituency parties to hold expense enquiries in the open, in the full glare of media publicity and public disapprobation. Although Gove and Mackay had their enquiries conducted in such a way - Hogg, as an example, did not. He also then needs to speak directly with these constituency groups, face to face, and explain to them the need to consider deselection of their MP if the claims cannot be justified and the public mood is clearly against them continuing.
The distraction may well pay off - but it leaves a bitterness in my mouth. When Cameron made his bid for the leadership he said that he wanted to make people feel good about voting Conservative again.
For a little time I did... but I can feel very little joy about voting Tory next week.
Saturday 30 May 2009
Sunday 17 May 2009
Cameron's Addiction
Human beings tend to remember first impressions.
In conducting their story on expenses the Telegraph focussed almost exclusively on Labour MPs and Ministers during the first three days of coverage. This was justified in quite moral terms; as the present Government of the day they should be the first under the spotlight of scrutiny. However, even for someone like me, on the right hand side of the political divide, it is clear that the commentary has not been even-handed. This has resulted in a quite spectacular collapse of support for the Labour Party, whereas the Tory lead has remained - partly because of this biased commentary. Not all of this has been down to press bias – it has been helped along by the fact that two Labour MPs have now claimed on non-existent mortgages or loans and the woeful lack of action by Gordon Brown.
In contradistinction, David Cameron has been presented as quite frugal in his claims for expenses and showing ‘leadership’ in making people pay back their quite unethical claims. His plaintive cry at his recent press conference was that he was paying back the £680 claim for Wisteria removal (his one and only claim for gardening maintenance ever - please note that kind members of the press!).
What he did not say was that he was going to pay back the £19,626 claim for Additional Costs Allowance for 2007/08.
The ACA is there to support an MP in conducting his duties away from his main home. The ACA Maximum for 2007/08 was £23,083; that is, Cameron was pushing the limit in what he could claim for mortgage interest.
It has become established wisdom that MPs have to have a second home as they are required to attend Parliament, which might be hundreds of miles away from their constituency. Indeed, much to the ire of his colleagues, who have had to pay back thousands, Cameron seems quite happy to keep his ACA. One might say it was an Addictional Claims Allowance; when Brown recently tried to reach a consensus with other party leaders on a new set of rules it was the ACA which proved to be the stumbling block for the Tory leader.
We really need to start questioning this wisdom. Does it stand up to any kind of scrutiny? Is the ACA a habit which needs to be broken?
As Kate Hoey said on today’s “Andrew Marr show”, MPs could claim a subsistence allowance for staying overnight in a Hotel – ‘just like other businessmen’ – well quite!
Harry recommends the Premier Inn, Euston (do I get any commission for advertising?). At current rates a Sunday to Thursday night stay would be £546. Cameron’s ACA would allow for 35 weeks stay – more than enough for the 33 weeks that Parliament actually sits. Naturally, MPs do not attend Parliament every day in every week - so the actual amount spent on such a Hotel will be a lot less than claimed via the ACA.
In addition, and I think I am right in saying this, the telegenic MP for Shrewbury, Daniel Kawczynski, has mooted the idea of getting group rates for stays in Hotel – further reducing the burden on the public purse. A lot of buying power could be afforded by 500 MPs could it not?
In the future we also need to consider whether actual physical presence is required. Business meetings can, nowadays be conducted over the internet. If an MP is not speaking, and is merely attending a vote, would there be scope to introduce text voting? Are we making the most of current technologies to reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer?
If tradition is standing in our way, we need to strike it down; we are no longer in an era of extravagance.
In conducting their story on expenses the Telegraph focussed almost exclusively on Labour MPs and Ministers during the first three days of coverage. This was justified in quite moral terms; as the present Government of the day they should be the first under the spotlight of scrutiny. However, even for someone like me, on the right hand side of the political divide, it is clear that the commentary has not been even-handed. This has resulted in a quite spectacular collapse of support for the Labour Party, whereas the Tory lead has remained - partly because of this biased commentary. Not all of this has been down to press bias – it has been helped along by the fact that two Labour MPs have now claimed on non-existent mortgages or loans and the woeful lack of action by Gordon Brown.
In contradistinction, David Cameron has been presented as quite frugal in his claims for expenses and showing ‘leadership’ in making people pay back their quite unethical claims. His plaintive cry at his recent press conference was that he was paying back the £680 claim for Wisteria removal (his one and only claim for gardening maintenance ever - please note that kind members of the press!).
What he did not say was that he was going to pay back the £19,626 claim for Additional Costs Allowance for 2007/08.
The ACA is there to support an MP in conducting his duties away from his main home. The ACA Maximum for 2007/08 was £23,083; that is, Cameron was pushing the limit in what he could claim for mortgage interest.
It has become established wisdom that MPs have to have a second home as they are required to attend Parliament, which might be hundreds of miles away from their constituency. Indeed, much to the ire of his colleagues, who have had to pay back thousands, Cameron seems quite happy to keep his ACA. One might say it was an Addictional Claims Allowance; when Brown recently tried to reach a consensus with other party leaders on a new set of rules it was the ACA which proved to be the stumbling block for the Tory leader.
We really need to start questioning this wisdom. Does it stand up to any kind of scrutiny? Is the ACA a habit which needs to be broken?
As Kate Hoey said on today’s “Andrew Marr show”, MPs could claim a subsistence allowance for staying overnight in a Hotel – ‘just like other businessmen’ – well quite!
Harry recommends the Premier Inn, Euston (do I get any commission for advertising?). At current rates a Sunday to Thursday night stay would be £546. Cameron’s ACA would allow for 35 weeks stay – more than enough for the 33 weeks that Parliament actually sits. Naturally, MPs do not attend Parliament every day in every week - so the actual amount spent on such a Hotel will be a lot less than claimed via the ACA.
In addition, and I think I am right in saying this, the telegenic MP for Shrewbury, Daniel Kawczynski, has mooted the idea of getting group rates for stays in Hotel – further reducing the burden on the public purse. A lot of buying power could be afforded by 500 MPs could it not?
In the future we also need to consider whether actual physical presence is required. Business meetings can, nowadays be conducted over the internet. If an MP is not speaking, and is merely attending a vote, would there be scope to introduce text voting? Are we making the most of current technologies to reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer?
If tradition is standing in our way, we need to strike it down; we are no longer in an era of extravagance.
New Political Blog
This is my new political blog. I will be posting fortnightly on political issues.
I would describe myself as Libertarian, and sceptical of the direction David Cameron is taking the Tory Party. At the moment the consensus against Cameron comes from the 'old right' and I want to bring a libertarian perspective to the table.
I would describe myself as Libertarian, and sceptical of the direction David Cameron is taking the Tory Party. At the moment the consensus against Cameron comes from the 'old right' and I want to bring a libertarian perspective to the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
