I used to work for a large global bank.
Travel expenses were a tiny fraction of bank revenues.
Yet not only were there strict policies, but everyone had to produce a receipt for every item.
And any false claim would have led to dismissal.

You obviously don’t understand the problem (most) people have with this kind of behaviour.
It boils down to do as I say, not as I do .

I also agree that this could seem like a witchhunt, although it seems appropriate to apply the principle of accountability first on those whose job it is to enforce the rules (which has been part of Spelman’s remit – we shall see whether she survives the test).

Perhaps we are discussing at cross purposes in that you are emphasising how the representative ability of our democracy can be diminished by adequate and transparent funding mechanisms, while I pointed to how the legislating process is undermined when the system in place is bypassed or perverted either for fair or foul purposes. These are both serious concerns regarding political funding and standards in public life, neither of which can be ignored.

On consideration I think it is wrong for us to argue amongst ourselves and allow the debate to be divided along false lines because the reality is that these issues are conjoined and can only be satisfactorily resolved when they are treated as one.

It’s fair enough to complain that there are pigs with their noses in the trough, but we must still answer how then the political system is to be constituted and run.

Maybe. But it does seem to me that child care is a legitimate expense for an MP. You, on the other hand, do not. Is there a rule that says it’s not a legitimate expense? If so, I’d argue that the rule ought to be reviewed.

Otherwise we’d be prejudicing women with kids from standing for Parliament, wouldn’t we?

All I’m saying is that it’s not particularily sleazy. Unlike the case of the MP that was paying his son through Uni.

I don’t think it harms faith in our political class as a whole for individuals to be exposed for their behaviour, rather it shows the institution works. It does do harm to any group to which a pattern of behavior can be adduced, and doubly so when the members of that group who were indulging in said illegal behavior were taking of advantage of their privileged positions to do so.

These are all conservatives who have been shown to be corrupt and include those with anti-corruption responsibilities – the rot goes to the top of the tories.

I will be interested to read the next opinion poll results.

That’s a rather weak comparison, isn’t it? There are 646 MPs, and I know not how many hangers on, at whom parliamentary expenses are directed. There are some 60 million people in the UK, at whom “wider government spending” is directed. Of course spending on the former is paltry compared to the latter – 646 is more than paltry in comparison to 60 million.

It’s interesting that you talk about it being our money. I always find it strange how much people are fixated on the administrative cost of government: the staff salaries, the expenses, the red ministerial boxes, offices for the politicians to sit. People make out as if there is something deeply scandalous about it, as if the politicians are bleeding the nation dry and should be willing and able to do their jobs (whilst suffering our abuse) without these things. But when you weigh up expenditure on MPs salaries and the expenses which they receive against wider government spending, you realise how paltry that spending is.

do real harm to any ideology which relies on a positive conception of the state.
With any luck!

Undiscriminating cynicism and mistrust will be the result, and that can only hurt our political culture and do real harm to any ideology which relies on a positive conception of the state.

To read my ideas at greater length, link to my blog at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

What, you’re telling me you don’t watch Friday night Newsnight? It’s the shit.