An MP's fall from grace

The former MP Denis MacShane has written in a national newspaper about the prison term he served after being convicted of false accounting.  Recalling a visit from a solicitor, he states that:

He says I made a big mistake in not fighting my case politically.

I trusted the system, but failed to read it. Small print often catches you out, but unspoken small print is fatal.

I have no idea what the solicitor meant by trusting the system, or reading the system, or unspoken small print.  If I've got it right, MacShane submitted dishonest claims to cover the cost of travel in Europe - costs which would have been either not reimbursed or not fully reimbursed if he had sought to claim the money honestly.  The Daily Mail appears to accept the ludicrous assertion that MacShane did not profit from his misdeeds.

It is not clear what the solicitor meant by fighting the case politically, but he may be referring to the ongoing abuse of the expenses system at the time.  I quote MacShane in full on this matter:

Using the mortgage interest payment to speculate in the London property market really took off after 2001.

You could see the new boys and girls at the Tory end of the tea room getting tutorials. They were told to designate a modest flat in their constituency as their main family home, and then they could take out an interest-only loan on their existing London house. MPs could claim up to £2,000 a month in mortgage interest payments, which meant a loan of up to £800,000 to spend as you liked providing you showed a statement from a bank that you were paying £2,000 a month in interest.

My neighbouring Rotherham MP Kevin Barron talked  openly about buying a ritzy flat using this system and, when he sold it, the Daily Telegraph and The Guardian reported he  made nearly £500,000 in profit.  All this was perfectly within  the rules, and he should know.  He is the chairman of the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee.

Then there’s buying a large house in your constituency using  a substantial mortgage interest payment from the taxpayer and then enjoying the accrued value. David Cameron bought his home in the wealthy Cotswolds town  of Witney. With an estimated  family wealth running to £20 million or £30 million, he had no need to be subsidised by the taxpayer.

But month by month  he claimed a steady £1,081 in mortgage payments as his investment increased in value. This was all perfectly within the rules as they existed. 

Then there was the petty cash diddle. MPs could claim £250 a month under a heading ‘Petty Cash’ without producing a single receipt. George Osborne pocketed his monthly £250 with gusto. 

He also claimed back for interest rate payments for a mortgage worth more than the value of  his house. He probably wishes  getting money into the Treasury coffers was as easy...

I had never heard of the  John Lewis list – some guide to furniture that could be bought that would be accepted by the House  of Commons finance officials. 

State-of-the-art TVs, sofas or paintings for walls were all paid for by taxpayers. There are stories about mileage claims and MPs sharing a car home to Scotland or the far North of England and each claiming the mileage as his own. 

One of the biggest sources of extra income for MPs was to employ wives and children. In most modern democracies this practice is simply banned as corrupt and illegal. Not so here, where even today MPs employ family members.

The Tory MP Peter Bone gets the taxpayer to pay his wife £45,000 a year. Kevin Barron has had both his wives salaried by the taxpayer as well  as other family members...

Chris Grayling certainly has form on expenses, claiming  £5,000 to tart up a flat near Westminster as well as thousands in mortgage payments from taxpayers even though he had a big house in his Surrey constituency in London’s commuter belt. He also claimed mortgage help from the taxpayer on two properties. 

Dear, oh dear, why didn’t I  claim my expenses like other profiteering MPs?

In short, maybe the solicitor meant that MacShane should have pointed out in court that it was commonplace for MPs at the time to line their pockets with as much public money as possible. Nevertheless there is a difference to claiming money within the rules and breaking the rules.

I find it remarkable how little judgement almost all (or maybe all) of our MPs displayed at the time.  Did they really believe that they could boost their salaries with massive expenses claims without incurring the anger of the electorate?  I can only conclude that the answer is yes.

The simple solution is to stop voting for politicians with no judgement, and to experiment instead with voting for people who actually deserve our votes.

Related previous posts include:
A tale of two scumbags