I wonder how bad it would look if all the sleaze, maybe even just the expenses, rows from recent government history were all piled up into a chronology. Every month or even sometimes every week there is a new scandal. I resist the Tories-in-the-early-to-mid-1990s comparison, but then again there is that new scandal about the married Labour MP having a sex romp INSIDE the House of Commons!

Laurie – but, but – they have been like this for years!

Once they put Purnell in some form of charge, that was the cap that closed the tin lid.

New Labour IS Tory, end of.

“Bugger this. I want a better world.”

Voting for a party other than that of Purnell and McNulty would be an active first step towards one.

Well said!

By the way, see you at the march!

Heads on poles in Hyde park, I hope. Shame I can’t be there. McNulty is New labour to the core, and really cannot see that not only hbis behaviour but his weaselly explanations for it are plain unacceptable

I’ve always disliked McNulty on the basis of the fact that he is the person the government always sends in to defend the indefensible on TV. It’s no surprise to see that he has no sense of shame or honour.

What Tez said – there is another left-leaning party out there waiting for y’all

Once again it is the type of person who is attracted to politics which is the problem. Until the mid 80s , British politicians , when compared to othe countries were , on the whole honest. I think it is time we looked at the experience of people before they enter politics. We need people who are not going to be easily corrupted. No matter , how right wing a Conservative politician was , none ever accused Foot, Benn, Callaghan , Healey , etc of fiddling the expenses. It was the corruption and tawdryness of a few conservative MPs in 90s which did so much damage to the Major government. A comment which always remains with me was a tory councillor who resigned from the conservatives on a district council because of behaviour of which he disapproved. His comment was ” I did not fight the War for this “- he fought from the beginning of the war and ended up in the hands of the SS at the end.

People used to enter politics as a form of public services – this seems very rare nowadays.

Charlie, power corrupts – that is a very well known fact seen universally and across all centuries, also, people will try and get as much as they can for themselves and their families for the least effort – much like water always takes the path of least resistance.

More simply – people, lie, cheat and steal – not all people all the time but all people at some time. For me there is no difference between this MP and a benefit scrounger – both are working an imperfect system to their advantage – they wouldn’t be human otherwise.

This is why we should aim to have as little of our money in the control of others – less tax, smaller government with fewer of these useless MPs and their services. Let me decide what I want and who I trust with my money.

“one solitary iced damn”

Love it

On a related note about not caring, the government also seem to have whipped their back benchers into killing off the fuel poverty bill. I can’t imagine any earthly reason for this other than that they don’t want to see a good Lib Dem bill succeed. See my upcoming post on LDV this afternoon.

I really don’t think it is fair to tar all politicians with the same brush. Clearly there is a signifcant minority of McNultys who are breaking the spirit of the existing rules on expenses to feather their own nests. There are also some MPs who have no interest in the constituents and are purely interested in power/fame etc. However, to suggest that all MPs are thieving bastards is hugely unfair.

Lets be clear, being an MP is not a glamarous job. It is also not a fantastically paid one. While 60k is undoubtedly a good salary it compares very poorly to that received by doctors, judges, senoir policemen etc. It is also a very disruptive job for those who have a constituency some distance from London. While there are obviously many jobs which require workers to spend time away from their family, the majority of us get to come home and see our loved ones on a daily basis. Most MPs do not. The majority of MPs also work incredibly hard to help their constituents and can work unsociable hours. Not many of us are still in work come 10pm.

My general point is that we judge all MPs by the behaviour of the worst offenders against standards that very few of us meet. The problem is that the media is only interested in scandal which means that is the only thingl we hear about our MPs. ‘MP works hard and does good job’ does not sell papers

Wasn’t there a study done recently which showed that the vast majority of MPs would struggle to earn the same salary outside parliament?

I don’t know whether it is the fault of the “peanuts” but we surely do have monkeys…

Great article Laurie.

cjcc, according to Wikipedia, “Before becoming an MP [Tony McNulty] was leader of the Labour group on Harrow council and a senior lecturer in Organisational Behaviour, at the University of North London from 1983-97″. I wonder what sort of salary and expense account he commanded back then…

The Davies, it is true that some MPs do a good job. It is also true that some of them are liars and thieves. It is true that the salary of MPs is less than the salary for other public sector positions. It is also true that the salary of MPs is greater than that for other public sector positions. Many people in the public sector also work unsocial hours: nurses, for example.

Now they are proposing a £40,000 pay rise to cover the potential loss of their second home allowance, bringing their salary to over £100,000. Why don’t we pay nurses £100,000 a year?

It’s genuinely baffling that MPs can’t see the problem with this kind of thing. Is there any other job, public or private, where anyone would seriously argue that they need two homes in the same city to carry out their job? I’m sure taxpayers would happily stretch to annual all zone travelcard.

I’m generally a bit less cynical about politicians that the prevailing public/media mood but when you see stuff like this you just think ‘what can he possibly have expected people to think?’

“Lets be clear, being an MP is not a glamarous job. It is also not a fantastically paid one. While 60k is undoubtedly a good salary it compares very poorly to that received by doctors, judges, senoir policemen etc.”

Yes but that’s just the basic salary – what would it be with the bonus (sorry – expenses!)

@ 3, 9 – I have become increasingly glad that, since I live in Lynne Featherstone’s constituency, I’m damned if I’m going to vote for anyone else.

@ 16 ‘They’ aren’t proposing anything. Alan Duncan floated the idea but as far as I know not one of the parties or the house authorities are proposing such a thing. The use of the word ‘they’ is exactly what I was talking about. Judging all MPs by the comments of one.

@18 I agree that the second home allowance and the IEP need to be reformed but lets not conflate the reasonable with the unreasonable. More than half of MPs ‘expenses’ are for staff. Is that a bonus? Is travel from the constituency a bonus? Are office rental and staionary costs a bonus?

@18 I agree that the second home allowance and the IEP need to be reformed but lets not conflate the reasonable with the unreasonable. More than half of MPs ‘expenses’ are for staff. Is that a bonus? Is travel from the constituency a bonus? Are office rental and staionary costs a bonus?

yes if by staff you mean – a nanny – which the rest of us have to pay for out of our salary and
yes if by stationary you mean a state of the art huge home intertainment centre etc

surely you can’t be that gullible?

Oh look, here’s another one at it…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5963145.ece

I’m not from the UK, so the events portrayed mean very little to me. But your rant about them has to be the best I’ve read in ages. You’ve inspired me to detest the hypocrisy of Tony McNulty, whoever he is.

and I agree whole-heartedly with the statement:

How dare he tell Britain’s poorest and most disadvantaged young people that they do not deserve the paltry £48 of jobseekers’ allowance they receive every week, when he himself has been claiming at least £270 per week in additional expenses on top of his salary.

I do suspect the rage against MPs’ expenses is more to do with a hostility toward MPs and toward this particular government than an actual concern with how our money is being spent.

I pointed out on my blog that the Windsors spend far, far more of our money for the most trivial and frivolous reasons, yet the media shrug it off most of the time.

At least our MPs are actually working for their money (well, most of them).

http://www.republic.org.uk/blog

@21 – thanks for proving my point. 1 MP using staffing allowance to pay for a nanny means that all MPs must be doing exactly the same. Clearly!

A home entertainment centre could only be bought by IEP, an allowance I agree needs reforming. Stationary does not equal home entertainment unless you are suggesting pleasuring yourself with a pencil constitutes ‘home entertainment’, in which case I defer to your greater experience.

@ 10 – People used to enter politics as a form of public services – this seems very rare nowadays.

And that is the crux of it all for me. In the main ‘ideology’ is dead so all you get are MPs that are in it for themselves rather than to make a difference.
If 40k or 50k or 60k is not enough then get out and do something else. If you are in it to make a difference then the salary is good enough, and bloody far better than most. And don’t give me that old flannel about how if the salary isn’t good enough you don’t get the right caliber of people – which is also used for banking – as there will always be someone more than willing to step into their shoes and do the job for the current going rate. And that goes for bankers too.

Things like this is why our turnouts at elections are so low – the average person thinks most MPs are self serving gits! I say vote for ‘none of the above’ (see old eddie murphy The distinguished gentleman), until the return of ideologies at least.

#19 – a shame if your mind is already made up; the Lab candidate for that constituency is a fantastic candidate – she’s a national officer for UNISON; led the campaign to get the breast cancer drug Herceptin paid for by the NHS; she’s anti-war… It’d be worth meeting her and asking for her views on welfare reform etc.

@ 16 & 18: Quite so. This is what I’ve been saying, largely to anyone who doesn’t interrupt me fast enough – is it really a great idea to be paying such gargantuan wages to the people occupying positions which afford such lease for corruption, should the occupants be unscrupulous (read, largely, greedy) enough to bend the rules in their own favour? Seems foolish. Would it not be more sensible to pay teachers like CEOs, or GPs like consultants, rather than relying on abnormal virtue to draw the skilled into these vital jobs?

@ 20 – “@ 18″…

“More than half of MPs ‘expenses’ are for staff.”

more than half, eh? My goodness. To think their expenses barely cover the costs of running a bloody office! How, how, do personal expenses build up to a level where they rival the expenses of what is essentially a small business?

Another great article, Laurie. Nice one!

I’m slightly ashamed to say had no idea that McNulty was such a scourge of the weak and powerless, the posturing sack of shit. I was angry enough about his blatant cashing-in on his status, now I’m sickened as well. [Thanks ]

TheDavies wrote:

“Lets be clear, being an MP is not a glamarous job. ”

Well, that’s arguable at least. ‘Glamorous’, as in pop stars and film actors, it may not be. However, it is a high-status job by most people’s standards. I cannot imagine anyone seriously arguing that there is no kudos in having offices in the Commons, journalists ready to quote your words, and the ability to influence legislation affecting the entire country.

I really don’t think the idea of MPs as unsung drones stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny. It’s a seriously cushty position by the standards of well over 90% of the population.

“It is also not a fantastically paid one. While 60k is undoubtedly a good salary it compares very poorly to that received by doctors, judges, senoir policemen etc. ”

Are you aware that until only very recently, MPs *didn’t even have to submit a receipt* for expenses under £250? Two hundred and fifty pounds! So, to put it into perspective, they don’t have to even justify a SINGLE EXPENDITURE unless it’s over five times what they have decreed the unemployed should live on.

So let’s not assume the poor dears (sarcasm at them, not you) *really* have to manage on only £60k.

“The majority of MPs also work incredibly hard to help their constituents and can work unsociable hours. Not many of us are still in work come 10pm.”

Well, you say that, but when (after the influx of women MPs post-1997) there were proposals to change the hours of votes to make them more family-friendly, they were voted down. So I actually think the whole late-night gentleman’s club suits most of them pretty well.

“My general point is that we judge all MPs by the behaviour of the worst offenders against standards that very few of us meet.”

You may be right there. But until they stop voting themselves generous salary increases, until they start voting (even occasionally) according to their consciences, until they start doing their fucking jobs properly by scrutinising legislation, I think they have to take some collective responsibility for the public’s poor view of them. I notice that MPs who GENUINELY work hard and stick to their principles are often well-known and lauded for it, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody being a prime example.

PS Does this site allow quotes?

Testing…

If not, I wish it would.

*smiles hopefully at Sunny*

Ah. And d’oh.