But as I handed my sodden £5 note over to the bus driver for an extortionately priced single ticket, guilt started to enter my mind. I began to think of all of the politicians that have taken advantage of the parliamentary expense system. I mean, am I really as bad as them?
I obeyed the rules - that is clear. Universally speaking, the rules state: ‘finder’s keepers, loser’s weepers!’
But thinking about that proposition in more detail, do I really think it is morally right that the losers have to weep and lose the property they have accidently mislaid? I am famous for leaving bags and coats in the most stupid of places, and thankfully people haven’t implemented the rules as rigorously as I did when I picked up the soaking FIVER.
Or maybe the politicians (and myself), in obeying the rules, did nothing wrong and should have a clear conscience. Let me think this through;
1) The majority of MPs are in parliament for the right reasons – I strongly believe this but often feel naive for it, especially when people are peppering me with conspiracy theories.
I met Lemit Opik a few weeks ago. He stood in front of us with energy and dynamism and told us how he had got into politics to make a difference. It was mesmerising. I believed him and was with him all the way. I still am. Surely these people wouldn’t take advantage of the system or the public on purpose. There must be another explanation.
2) The rule book – Oh yes those dastardly rules. At first I thought this must be the reason. It’s easy to get into the habit of something that isn’t the best way forward.
Take smoking for instance. It’s clearly a bad idea. But once you get into the habit of it, the negative consequences of the action leave your mind.
Maybe recycling is a better example. We all know we need to save the world, but I would be lying if I said all of my paper found its way to the recycle bin.
Maybe expenses are similar? You get into the habit of claiming for all you can, and you don’t even think about the ethical principles that underpin an expenses system. In my short life I have come across many people who slightly fiddle their expenses. Is this really so bad?
3) The magnitude – Well to consider that question let’s look at some examples of slight fiddling in comparison to the official guidelines:
Three principles taken from the members of Parliament Code of Conduct are:
- Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
- Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.
- The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.
Claim examples: a trouser press, cat food, expenses for numerous houses, interior designers, hanging baskets, the cleaning of a moat, swimming pool maintenance, mortgages that don’t exist etc etc.
This is where the argument falls down, even for me – an establishment loving layman. The magnitude is catastrophic. This isn’t the odd claim. Every time one of the above went through it should have been screaming out to the MP “THIS IS A MISTAKE! THIS IS WRONG!”
Going back to the smoking analogy, it should have been like smoking a cigarette that puts you in so much pain it feels like it is killing you there and then!
I am disappointed in my ‘in it for the right reasons’ MPs. I still believe that they are in it for the right reasons, but this whole episode has been shameful and I am struggling to see the way back to a form of normalacy (slightly sceptical of people in power). I wonder how much money has been wasted on unjustified expenses over the past decades. It makes me feel a bit queezy.
Has anyone lost a fiver?
No comments:
Post a Comment