MPs' Expenses: Politicians Used to Be Better, Wiser - and Older
THE TELEGRAPH: Only those who have worked outside politics can truly represent the people, says David Young.

It was at my fifth Cabinet meeting that, sitting back and idly glancing around the table, a thought struck me. Of the 21 of us in attendance, 11 had at one time started their own business. In today's House, it is hard to find Members with much outside experience at all, let alone that of working for themselves.

When Gordon Brown introduced Members' outside earnings into his review of expenses, he was continuing the process of discouraging MPs from having other interests. Politics is increasingly described as a full-time occupation, even a profession. Today, the traditional route to the House has become school, university political society, think tank and then Member; this achieves an almost total insulation from the life of their constituents.

The hours of the Commons have changed so that, instead of starting after lunch and sitting into the night, they sit in the day, finishing most days at 7pm. Politics has gone from a vocation to just another occupation. How did this come about and why?

More than 100 years ago, Parliament was a part-time affair, sitting from February to mid- August. The vast majority of Members had outside interests, there were no women and they were unpaid. That seemingly amateurish arrangement sufficed for running the largest empire the world has known.

After the First World War, the widening of suffrage allowed the entry of women and Labour replaced the Liberals. At the time of the post-war Labour government of 1945, Parliament was still part-time. Senior silks who were MPs would finish in the courts at 4pm and go down to the House. Many others were leading lights in the City or industry, in management and the unions. The Commons commanded vast experience, much of it disinterested. >>> By David Young* | Friday, May 22, 2009

*Lord Young was a minister in Margaret Thatcher's government

Very Honourable Indeed, M’Lords!
THE TELEGRAPH: Two Labour peers have been suspended from the House of Lords after they were found guilty of offering to change the law in return for money.

The Lords Committee for Privileges found the pair had broken rules . Photos courtesy of The Telegraph
Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn were unanimously found to have breached the Upper House's code of conduct which requires members to "always act on their personal honour". It is the first time in 350 years that peers have been banned in this way.

Four peers were caught speaking to undercover journalists posing as lobbyists and appeared willing to amend a Bill in return for cash.

The other peers implicated in the affair, Lord Moonie and Lord Snape, were cleared of wrongdoing but ordered to apologise to the Lords.

Lord Brabazon of Tara, Chairman of Committees, said: "This episode has done serious damage to the reputation of the House. We all have responsibility individually and collectively to uphold that reputation.

"That is why personal honour remains the cornerstone of the House's code of conduct. Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn Suspended from the House of Lords >>> By Andrew Porter Political Editor | Wednesday, May 20, 2009

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS:
MPs’ Expenses: 20 Most Bizarre Claims >>>

MP Pay Row Sparks Questions in Australia
THE INDEPENDENT: A row over political expenses in Britain spurred questions in Australia today, as a tabloid newspaper carried details of private homes purchased with taxpayer backing by members of parliament.

Leftist Prime Minister Kevin Rudd extended a pay freeze for politicians to judges and senior bureaucrats at the same time that the mass-selling Daily Telegraph newspaper said MPs were claiming travel expenses for living in their own Canberra homes.

"Up you for their rent," said the Sydney-based newspaper's headline, in a crude inference taxpayers were being saddled with living costs by their representative politicians.

The headline was placed against photographs of homes and apartments in the national capital, where Australian politicians regularly jet in from far-flung electorates to attend parliament.

Britain's House of Commons speaker stepped down yesterday in the wake of an expenses scandal that has damaged the reputation of parliament amid revelations taxpayer funds were used to claim everything from manure to chandeliers and porn films.

Australian MPs, using entitlements approved by parliament, were claiming travel allowances while living in private homes purchased for use during parliamentary sitting weeks over 4-5 months of the year, the Telegraph said. >>> Reuters | Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Melanie Phillips: Our Democracy's Going Down the Plughole with the Home Secretary's Dirty Bathwater
Luton South MP Margaret Moran claimed £22,500 of taxpayers' money for treating dry rot in a house in Southampton, many miles from her constituency or Westminster. Photo courtesy of MailOnline
MAIL Online: They still just don't get it, do they. With details continuing to pour out about the epic abuse of Parliamentary expenses, MPs are displaying about as much ethical sensibility as the lumps of meat they have charred on their ill-gotten barbecues.

The details and scale of what they were up to are beyond belief.

'Flipping' the designation of their main and second homes to manipulate the expenses system to their advantage and to avoid paying various taxes.

Claiming help with mortgage payments for houses that were already paid for.

Getting the taxpayer to reimburse them for eyeliner, plastic bags, nappies, mock Tudor beams, Maltesers, nail polish, plasma TVs, Christmas tree decorations, horse manure, bath plugs; and on and surreally on.

Yet in the face of such baroque dishonesty, MPs claim that the real villain is the media for publishing the leaked details. So they've set the police on to probing the disclosures. But if the police should be investigating anyone, it's surely the MPs themselves.

Outrageous

Not, it seems, in the parallel universe of Westminster. According to MPs, none of them has behaved immorally. Not one. None of them should be censured or lose the party whip, let alone be prosecuted.

Instead, utterly deaf to the mounting public fury this is causing, they are coming up with one excuse after another.

Apparently, something called 'the system' - which, it seems, has nothing to do with them - is to blame. But the 'system' is simply what the MPs themselves devised.

Like sheep, they all went along with these scams, so that's supposed to make them all right. 'It wasn't my fault, m'lud, that I claimed for a barbecue - it was the system.' Sounds awfully like 'I was only obeying orders' in another era.

In a kind of spivs' chorus, they whine in unison that it was all 'within the rules'. But rules can be manipulated for corrupt or otherwise indefensible ends.

Luton South MP Margaret Moran claimed £22,500 of taxpayers' money for treating dry rot in a house in Southampton, many miles from her constituency or Westminster. She justifies this on the outrageous grounds that her partner works in Southampton and it is 'her right' to have a family life with him.

Her right?

Other people cope with this kind of messy situation every day, paying for it out of their own pocket. Why should Ms Moran imagine it is her right to be paid for doing the same thing? >>> Melanie Phillips | Monday, May 11, 2009

THE TELEGRAPH: Alan Duncan Claimed Thousands for Gardening: MPs' Expenses

Alan Duncan, the senior Conservative MP who oversees the party’s policy on MPs’ expenses, claimed thousands of pounds for his garden – but stopped after agreeing with the fees office that his expenditure “could be considered excessive”.


Mr Duncan’s gardening claims raise serious questions about whether expenses by some MPs can be justified as entirely necessary for their parliamentary work. In a three-year period, he recouped more than £4,000. He has not been asked to repay the money despite later concerns over the garden claims.

The bill for £3,194 for gardening in March 2007 was not paid by the fees office, which wrote to Mr Duncan suggesting that the claim might not be “within the spirit” of the rules.

However, by then the multi-millionaire MP for Rutland and Melton had claimed £4,000 of gardening costs that were approved. In a letter to the MP, the office said that it expected gardening costs “to cover only basic essentials such as grass cutting”. Mr Duncan submitted receipts showing that his gardener was being paid £6 an hour for up to 16 hours a week in grounds of less than an acre.

In March 2007, Mr Duncan claimed £598 to overhaul a ride-on lawn-mower and then a further £41 to fix a puncture a month later.

Mr Duncan also claimed £1,400 a month for his mortgage interest on his home in Rutland. He bought the large detached house without taking out a mortgage on the property itself in January 1992, shortly before he was elected to parliament.

However, it was not until January 2004 that a mortgage was secured against the property. >>> By Holly Watt | Sunday, May 10, 2009

THE SPECTATOR: A Parliament of Thieves

Like any sensible person I've been thoroughly amused and appalled by the scandal of MPs expenses. Appalled because the extent of MPs' avarice is sufficient to shock even an iron-souled cynic; amused because watching MPs try to justify their gluttonous appetite for taxpayer-funded freebies affords a certain pleasure that one might consider vindictive if only it weren't so entirely merited. This isn't a tragedy, it's a stinking farce.

The dreary pretense - duly repeated by every sticky-fingered parliamentarian - that it is all ok because "no rules were broken" could hardly be more priceless. Nor could it do more to underline the essential fact that these people are fools who in turn treat the public as though they are fools themselves. Only the blindest dolt would think that boasting of obeying the rules might minimise the public's entirely-justified sense of outrage (a wrath that is, I suspect, under-appreciated at Westminster and in the media) when it is the laxness of the rules themselves that occasions so much incredulity and anger.

For it is now clear, if it weren't before, that we are governed by a parliament of thieves for whom no expense is too small or too trivial to be borne by the taxpayer. These knaves and charlatans are strangers to shame and decency. Astonishingly, they make journalists and estate agents seem paragons of probity by comparison. Who'd have thunk that possible? >>> Alex Massie | Monday, May 11, 2009