Corrupt, Corrupt From The Bottom To The Top, They tell Me It's The Law....

Once again the row over politicians expense claims has kicked off in Britain, with the Westminster Parliament still mired in sleaze and echoing to the sound of whining MPs. It seems that our elected representatives still don't get it. At all!

They have been told by an independent investigator that they should not have been able to claim unlimited amounts for items such as cleaning and gardening, and they should pay back any amount above a certain limit set retrospectively by that investigator. They have also been told to justify some of the items on their claim forms. It is likely that, in the future, the mortgages and designation of second homes will come under further scrutiny, with far larger sums due to be repaid. Furthermore, criminal investigations are under way against a number of parliamentarians.

The MPs have reacted with outrage, and some are publicly denying the right of the investigator to judge them retrospectively, as the claims fell within the rules when made. There may be some justification for that position, if there was no question over the integrity of those rules, and the MPs interpretation of them. However, that is not the case, and the simple fact is that, no matter how the rules were interpreted by the Fees Office and the MPs, the accepted business practice is that only those expenses that directly and wholly relate to the conduct of that business can be claimed. MPs have claimed for food, cleaning, gardening, home improvements etc. Only the expenses that arise directly from running their offices and from representing their constituents should ever have been legitimately claimed, no matter what the rules were. Yet, the MPs still don't see this. They think they are entitled.

In turn, the public are disgusted by the MPs, and fed up with their antics. They point out that had they behaved as the MPs have, then they would have been disciplined, or dismissed, or possibly prosecuted. They resent that MPs are still spending so much time on this, when they should be devoting themselves to improving the economy and saving their constituents jobs. They feel that MPs are setting a poor example when so many services and employees face cutbacks, and wish they would admit their faults, pay back the over-claimed money, and then get on with their jobs, until such time as they face the verdict of their electorate in the coming year.

They find it absurd that MPs have the right to decide these things for themselves, anyway. The perception is widespread, if not unanimous, that the vast majority are in Westminster to line their own pockets and further their own interests, instead of representing the people who sent them there. There is also the perception that many represent the lobbyists and vested interests over their constituents. Politicians reputation is at an all-time low!

This matters for a number of reasons. Firstly, the continued devaluation of the reputation of our political system calls into question the very legitimacy and relevance of that system. The longer that continues, the further participation rates in the electoral process will drop, and that undermines the foundations of a liberal, parliamentary democracy, leaving the door open to extremists and anti-democratic tendencies.

Secondly, the individuals concerned seem unable to discern the moral basis for rules and law-making. This calls into question their integrity, and their ability to make laws in a just, wise and impartial manner. This undermines the legitimacy of the laws passed by such a legislature. It should not have to be explained to those seeking election to high office what the moral requirements of serving the public interest, and safeguarding the public resources, are.

The recent scandal of the Attorney General's housekeeper reinforces the view that those in power have no regard for the laws they, themselves, pass, and seem not to think that they apply to them. Even when caught breaking the law, they seem to have no shame or sense of responsibility. How can they then expect that of those for whom they make those laws?

Thirdly, our political leaders, like it or not, do set an example to the rest of society. How are we to instill the correct values into the younger generation, if our leaders seem to have their eyes firmly on the main chance, and not on serving the common good? How can we hope to shame the financiers and bankers into acting lawfully and morally, if those leading the call are seen to be just as corrupt and grasping? We can not expect our politicians to be whiter than white at all times, but we should expect far higher standards than those they seem to wish to adhere to.

It is not what the rules allow, or what can be got away with, that our parliamentarians should regard as acceptable, but what is obviously right and proper. If there is any doubt, then simply don't do it! Our parliamentarians should be suitably remunerated for the job they do, which is undoubtedly stressful and demanding, if done properly and full-time. I would prefer them to be linked to a multiple of average earnings; that would motivate them to govern towards an equitable and prosperous society, instead of in favour of the corporations and rich individuals who fund their parties. They should be able to claim legitimate expenses arising from running their offices and the necessity to live in two places, but they should not profit in any way from those arrangements. Any gains should revert to the taxpayer, and not be pocketed by the MPs, and they should not be able to claim anything which is considered a normal living expense for the rest of the population. And the regulation and oversight of the whole system should be taken our of MPs hands once and for all.



As a footnote, I can't help but wonder how different our Westminster Parliament and the political system might be if run by Quakers, according to Quaker testimonies and methods. It might take a little longer to get to decisions than the current system (then again, maybe not!), and it would certainly not be perfect (we are only human), but it would have far greater integrity, and would govern with a commitment to equality, fairness, compassion and justice, which, I hope, would leave the current system far, far behind. Just a pipe dream, but, hey, no harm in dreaming.....

Preserving Freedom

There has been much debate recently in the UK about whether the British National Party should be allowed to speak on national TV politics shows. Motions have been discussed within political parties and trade unions, and some have even suggested that the current ban on police officers belonging to this party should be extended to all public servants, national and local. There is talk of banning them from TV altogether, disallowing them from using any public facilities and putting other obstacles in their path.

This is a question that goes right to the heart of our definition of a free and democratic society.

The BNP are certainly a fascistic party with some pretty objectionable policies. They are, however, a legal political party, with elected local councillors and, now, two MEPs sitting in Strasbourg. They have existed as a legal entity for many years, but are enjoying renewed vigour, probably as a result of the recent immigration from the new EU accession states, and of the economic downturn. There may well be good arguments for banning such a party, and they are certainly acting illegally, under UK and EU law, in not allowing non-white people to join; they face a possible prosecution on this very issue. However, at present, they are a legal party, with legitimately elected representatives.

Can we, as a society espousing the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association, and as signatories to the Charter of Human Rights, stop people joining the legal political party of their choice, however repulsive it seems to many, or harass that party in the conduct of legitimate business? Under the rules of equal access and political bias, can our broadcasters deny them airtime or participation in political debate?

Is not the odiousness of their xenophobia and racism best exposed by publicly confronting it, holding it up to ridicule, and revealing the flawed logic and lack of intelligence behind it? Or do we fear that we are not able to do so? Do we defeat extremism by resorting to extremism, or by extolling the virtue of the opposing view and values, and by practising them? Should we not be trying to educate those communities and individuals who have chosen to support the BNP, rather than dismissing and abusing them?

If the electorate, rightly or wrongly, have chosen these people, then should they not be allowed to perform the duty of representing their electorate unimpeded? This is a representative democracy, and that means representing all, not just those we agree with. There seems a real danger of making martyrs and anti-heroes out of the BNP, if we persecute them.

Inciting violence and hatred are criminal offences in the UK, particularly against racial and religious minorities and the BNP will likely slip up at some point. As stated, already the Equality Commission are looking at prosecution over the party's rules on membership. If they break the law then action should be taken, but on the same basis as any other crime. This is the proper course to follow, in my opinion.

It seems to me that until this party are proscribed by some means, or a court case forces them out of existence, then they, and their members, have to be treated equally to other parties. That is the very essence of our freedoms, and to do otherwise undermines them. In a free democracy, we must have the right to speak as we choose, as long as we do not incite harm against others, and we must be free to join whatever parties and associations we choose, unless they are implicated in illegality. We can not pick and choose who we give rights to.