Graft

The news that three former cabinet ministers have been using their political influence and contacts to line their pockets will, I am afraid, come as little surprise to most people. The media are having difficulty whipping up public reaction; we plod wearily along muttering 'more of the same'. Perhaps we shoud abandon our puritan conscience and be more like the Italians, thinking 'nice work if you can get it'. But the British are not like that.

In my view MPs should be paid sufficiently well that they don't need to do this sort of thing (there will always be one or two bad apples but not the almost industrial levels of graft we have at the moment). Of course the public is unlikely to tolerate a pay rise until the stables are cleaned out and we appear still to be some way away from that. It may be with so many new faces after the election some confidence returns but I rather doubt it.

If I were an 18 year old voting for the first time I would feel there was nobody to express my concerns. And this is very bad for our democracy.

One of the odd things is how Mr Byers, the main offender, was stupid enough to fall for this. The name of the lobbying company was Anderson Perry, an inversion of Perry Anderson, Marxist authour of the laugh-a-page 'Lineages of the Absolutist State', which Byers will have read. Then to sit in front of a complete stranger and describe himself as 'like a cab for hire' defies belief. It is beyond Mr Cameron's 'it shows they have been in power for too long'. Such a dunderhead shouldn't have been in power at all. His defence appears to be that it's OK, he was lying. Great. Trying to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception, but not sleazy.

Mr Brown was foolish to say he was satisfied nothing untoward had occurred. If, as Mr Byers said, he has done this for other clients, it follows that some government minister has been suborned.

Of course there must be a full investigation.

This has not been a good fortnight for Mr Brown. The public is confronted with sleazy socialists asking for £5,000 a day, there is an unpopular budget coming up tomorrow, and to cap it all Samantha Cameron is pregnant, a vote winner if ever I saw one.

MPs' expenses

I have written little on the parliamentary expenses scandal, in part because it just seems a tawdry product of the age we live in. Partly, also, there is some reason behind what is going on. Successive governments have refused pay rises to the legislators so that they might all appear to be suffering with us in the economic mire they have caused. Mrs Thatcher, I seem to remember, linked an MP’s pay to the salary of a senior civil servant and they should have stuck with that no matter how unjustified it sometimes seems (how many times have you remarked that things are gong so well in our country that the MPs deserve a pay rise? Nor have I.)

The upshot of this was a tacit agreement that they could recoup some of their losses with some lavish expenses. That they over played their hand is clear, but there is at least some reason behind it.

The four parliamentarians (three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer) who have had their details referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions are not in this category. There is evidence (they have not been found guilty yet, except by the newspapers) of clear fraud. One of them, for example, seems to have claimed the rental for a property he himself owned; two others are accused of faking invoices.

It is quite unacceptable that these men might be allowed to claim parliamentary privilege from prosecution. The rule of parliamentary privilege was put in place to protect free speech: you could not sue an MP for defamation if he spoke the words in the House, and so he could be fearless in his allegations. It has nothing to do with criminal activity.

The public wants a scalp or two. Let’s get this over with – properly, without compromise or evasion of responsibility – and move on.

MP gets it right

I know we hear too much about the parliamentary scandal thing but you should read an excellent article in the Times by Chris Mullin, who would make an excellent Speaker. He understands that this is not just about bathplugs.

Corruption (2)

I must say I thought the MPs' expenses thing would eventually just go away, the public's opinion of their politicians much the same as it always was (low). But this has dragged on for such a long time (one commentator said he was a bit surprised when reminded that it was only Day 5 of the revelations - it felt like Day 27) that the public are scenting blood, and demanding it.

Douglas Hogg, whose father and grandfather were distinguished Tory Lord Chancellors, has claimed for cleaning the moat round his castle, and it just won't do. the public won't have it. Nor is it enough that he repay it: if a burglar gives the goods back he is still a criminal.

Anther has claimed for trimming the grass round his helipad (he claims it isn't really a helipad but that makes his arrogance even worse). These, and other appalling examples, should result in David Cameron withdrawing the whip. They knew that the allowances were for things directly needed for them to function as MPs, and they were taking the mickey. Now they have been caught with their hands in the till and there can only be one outcome.

I don't expect any such action from the Labour Party, but it would be welcome. Bagehot in the Economist reports 'Public paid the Chancellor's stamp duty' is his favourite headline.

Good grief.

MPs' pay

Guido reports that Irish politicians have taken a 10% reduction in pay on the government side, 5% on the opposition side, a 10% reduction in expenses and cancelled all pensions.

British MPs have just awarded themselves a 2.3% pay rise.