Commenting.


COMMENTING
Due to the move of the blog to Wordpress posts from Jan 2012 onward will have commenting disabled (when I remember to do it)
Cheers - AE

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

Last of the expenses scandal?

So Margaret Moran has been charged over her expenses as an MP, and with 21 counts it sounds as if they've found enough mud to throw that some is likely to stick (plus of course the CPS policy is not to throw any mud at all unless the odds of stickicity is better than 50:50).
Charges relate to 15 charges of false accounting, contrary to the Theft Act 1968.
"It is alleged that she claimed expenses for the furnishing and improvement of main residences between November 2004 and August 2008 through a scheme intended for the maintenance of second homes or offices," the DPP said.
She also faces six charges of forgery, where it is alleged that she submitted forged invoices.
And I think she'll have a hard time persuading anyone on the jury that the house in Southampton was needed for staying over in London or had anything to do with work in her constituency in Luton.
Of 10 files of evidence handed to prosecutors, seven cases have resulted in charges.
"There are no longer any cases to be considered by the panel," Mr Starmer said.
That this has taken more than two years to reach court, and that while only seven out of all those hundreds of iffy looking claims resulted in charges seems low the batting average of convictions has been high, may suggest that this is an occasion where the time has been taken to painstakingly build evidence and make a really strong case - as opposed to nicking someone on the strength of a fingerprint on something they'd have been expected to handle and then having to admit that actually that's not evidence that they ever did a damned thing. Can someone explain that one to me? Why a possible murder case results in a relatively quick arrest followed by an embarrassing climbdown while a theft case which is arguably just as high profile is built up over months and then year before being brought to trial. Just wondering.
"Margaret Moran now stands charged with criminal offences and has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice her trial."
While I wouldn't want to put money on being cleared that's still true - there's no doubt in my mind that she's a nest-feathering, self interested, venal trougher, but she mightn't be a criminally nest-feathering, self interested, venal trougher. But again I wonder if Rebecca Leighton might have appreciated a similar statement.

So the only question left in my mind, other than how many got away with it of course, is whether this really is the last of the expenses scandal. Or whether, since IPSA seems like a paper tiger and new parliament had barely got in the building before they were all complaining about scrutiny, we'll be doing all this again in a few years. Personally I don't believe that British politicians as a class learned their lesson and I'd be astonished if there aren't some lining their pockets right now.

Comments (4)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I have grave doubts that they learned anything. Does remind me of a Yes Prime Minister line, though: "We must always tell the press freely and frankly anything that they could easily find out some other way."

I'd be interested in your views on how expenses for politicians could best be handled. One way to encourage frugality would be to make them pay all their own expenses and just raise the salary to the point that they could absorb the normal expenses associated with office. Alternatively their expenses could be paid out of donations from their electorate. Ooh that sounds tasty.
1 reply · active 707 weeks ago
I'm not expecting them to be necessarily frugal, I'm expecting them to be fucking honest and not use parliamentary expenses to feather their own nests. If it's necessary to spend a million pounds because the needs of the job demand it then so be it, but a hundred pounds spent on something for themselves is just theft. Places where I worked and had an expense account did things one of two ways. Either I paid for things I needed for work and claimed them back weekly or monthly, which would be done by bank transfer, or I had a company credit card and didn't have to worry about the bills at all. The condition common to both was that if I couldn't justify the expenditure then the money would come out of my own pocket.

I don't see the need for British parliamentarians to be treated any differently but the difficulty is who decides whether the expense is justified or not. I think you've got to have IPSA or something like it in that role but in the real world you justify your expenses to your employer, and IPSA is not the employer of MPs but their creation. The employers are the taxpayers, and currently they're being left out of the loop. So what I think is that any expense IPSA approves should be conditional on the receipts being published immediately online, so if the MP's electorate thinks they're taking the piss it'll go against them in the next election.
Piggin Wiggin is stil under scrutiny.
1 reply · active 707 weeks ago
True, and quite right too, but there's no CPS file though, is there? Worst case he'll have to pay some money back, or have I missed a recent development?

Post a new comment

Comments by

Related Posts with Thumbnails