I sometimes wonder if MPs will ever get the benefit of the doubt. As soon as something that looks vaguely dodgy emerges, the assumption is that it is more evidence that all politicians are corrupt and self-serving when most of the time that is far from the truth. You only have to look at some of the reaction to Guido Fawkes’ comments about Caroline Spelman to see the sorts of things that people think.
The problem is that by defending MPs, particularly when like me you work in politics, then you get accused of being part of that establishment and that it is because you also benefit from it. Again, something that is far from the truth if people saw how much party staff get paid and how many hours they work for nothing without any benefit for their career (in fact it often hinders it). I admit that I tend to assume that most people are honest. Some might say that is naivety, but I know enough MPs to know that the majority are honest and so if the facts stack up then we should assume the best not the worst, unless anyone can prove the contrary.
Take the Caroline Spelman story. It could be the case that she is lying. But if you look at the facts, and if you know a bit about how MPs work then it all sounds plausible. Most people do not realise how long it takes for MPs to get an office, staff and other facilities and so in the meantime you need to come up an alternative (something that Iain Dale also mentions).
Basically, Caroline Spelman was elected in 1997. Her predecessor had died and so there was a huge backlog of casework to deal with. She didn’t have an office yet and so she ran everything from her home until she could sort them out. As her nanny was already working for her anyway and was someone she trusted she asked her if she would be prepared to answer the phone to constituents, open the post and deal with casework if she was paid a bit more for doing it.
I could be proved wrong, but this sounds perfectly reasonable and acceptable, and assuming that Caroline Spelman is telling the truth (and she doesn’t have a reputation as someone who is dishonest) then she should be exonerated. Of course even if she is proven to be in the right it may not make any difference to her reputation. Unfortunately the way that politics works these days, people will still assume she was up to something but that she had just managed to get away with.
5 responses so far ↓
SG // 9 June 2008 at 1:00 pm |
Only problem is that the Nanny was paid before she was elected by Spelman and after she stopped work as a ’secretary’ and went back to just ‘Nannying’ if reports are to be believed. In the time she worked as a ’secretary’ she was paid ‘in kind’… That is her only sticking point that I see.
Aaron Trevena // 10 June 2008 at 9:11 am |
Why is it such a problem for MPs and MEPs to get their house in order – there are millions of us Sole Traders and Small Businesses that have more paperwork, more work and we have to the follow the tax and business rules to the letter.
Unlike an MP we don’t have a guaranteed income for 4 years regardless of how well/badly we do the job, even if we work in shetland or the scilly isles we don’t get payments to cover working in london.
It’s especially annoying when MPs do stick up for each other, even other quite obviously dodgy fiddling – like The Speaker’s wife’s shopping tricks – Nick Clegg defended him and said that he should *still* carry on writing the rules on expenses.
I have a child and a small business, unlike an MP I don’t get money to pay for extra staff, premises, and my cash flow has to cover both the business and the mortgage – I can’t just get a bank loan to pay for staff, etc knowing I can claim it all back from the taxpayer.
If MPs wanted to be considered honest then they should set and meet the kind of standards that “the rest of us” do, rather than pull tricks to cash in.
Why do we think MPs and MEPs cash in ?
Because a significant proportion do!
Everything from special interests giving gifts or treats, to lavishing thousands of pounds on your house at the tax payers expense, to employing family (even when they are at university), to cooking the books, “forgetting” or being “too busy” to document expenses and income, failing to register special interests, paying family companies for “secretarial services” or using state cars/drivers for your family’s shopping, or claiming your families personal travel.
And that’s just since the last general election – and doesn’t include cash for questions, cash for honours, etc.
Anders Hanson // 10 June 2008 at 10:32 am |
I agree with some of what you say. Although I currently work in politics I have worked for a private company and so I know what is considered normal best practice, and quite frankly parliament comes nowhere near.
I recently saw a diatribe from someone who was demanding that MPs get paid less and do more work. He said “it is about time that MPs worked a normal working week, 9-5 Monday to Friday”. It was brilliant, as that would be a huge cut in the number of hours that most MPs work. MPs would love to work “normal” hours.
I’m not saying this to invoke sympathy or to have a go at you, (also don’t take this as me saying you don’t work hard as that isn’t what I am trying to say), but instead as an example of how huge a gap there is between the perception of what an MP does and what they really do. That is made worse by the impression that they are living the high-life at taxpayers expense, which is largely down to what the rules allow them to do and the lack of proper accounting rather than any deliberate corruption.
I keep intending to write a post on the way that MPs work and how their allowances could be changed to allow them do a job well that is fairly unique and so will always have a different way of working, but also ensuring that the money they get is spent properly and transparently. Your comment has reminded me that I need to do it.
In the meantime though, I must find a really good article from The Independent a few years ago about a day in the life of Sarah Teather MP. It gave quite a good overview of how many hours she puts in – although admittedly Sarah is at an extreme as she is probably one of the most hardworking MPs around.
Caroline Spelman: Nanny Pay Sleaze » Right Pundits // 18 June 2008 at 6:05 am |
[...] in order to clear her name. She does not have a reputation for wrongdoing and many people feel she is innocent of willful wrongdoing in this case. She reported that during 1997 and 1998 she employed Tina Haynes [...]
Top of the Blogs: The Golden Dozen #69 | Liberal Democrat Voice // 18 June 2008 at 6:46 am |
[...] Shock horror! Caroline Spelman could be innocent on Anders Hanson’s blog. Or not…? 12. 42 days: what do Conservatives really think? on Lib [...]