Thursday, January 22, 2009

MPs and their expenses

Imagine you have a kid. And you suspect that your kid is holding something that they shouldn’t be holding – perhaps a stolen toy, a bowie knife, some crack cocaine; whatever it is that kids play with these days. Your child says “no, don’t want to show you what is in my hands.” What do you, quite naturally, immediately expect? That the child is guilty of something; that the child has done something wrong.

Which is the position we have found ourselves in with our MPs. Their refusal to show the nation what they have been spending money on has led most of us, quite naturally, to assume that they have something to hide. There are some who – farcically – are defending our politicians’ outrageous behaviour. These arguments have been nicely dealt with here and here, so I don’t have a great deal to add to the debate. What I would like to stress, though, is this.

Actually, we are not asking for a great deal. We are simply asking them to publish their. Not reduce their expenditure (although this hopefully will follow), not limit them or their powers in anyway – just simply publish details of what they are spending our money on. Surely this is not too much to ask? Well, judging by the cross-party alliances, the vicious back-stabbing and the sudden government U-turn that we all witnessed yesterday, yes it is apparently too much to ask.

Politicians spend small fortunes on focus groups and surveys to find out why people don’t trust them. They spunk away further fortunes on campaigns and gimmicks to make people trust them. The reason why people don’t trust them is partly down to issues like this – they are like the child in my analogy; frantically trying to hide something. And the more they try to hide it, the more clear it becomes that they are feeling guilty about something.

Labels: , , , ,

4 Comments:

At 1:03 pm , Blogger RobW said...

I read the post by never trust a hippy -- he's one stupid idiot. He doesn't even understand liberalism.

 
At 6:15 pm , Blogger Edward said...

I've blogged about this here:

http://rotwatch.blogspot.com/2008/07/down-at-farm.html

http://rotwatch.blogspot.com/2008/07/down-at-farm.html

http://rotwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/snouts-in-trough.html

Read 'em and weep

 
At 11:19 am , Blogger Paul E. said...

If you think that Mr Eugenides and that thick cunt Devil's Kitchen (£30k a year for his education and that's what it bought!) 'nicely dealt with' those arguments, you accept got a very low burden of proof.

In my experience, 99% of self-styled 'libertarians' don't understand that their views are not compatible with representative democracy. If you think that markets should determine policy decisions, then why elect people in the first place?

But you all seem to live in this state of denial because 'anti-democratic' is a boo-term, and negativists don't associate themselves with boo-terms, do you?

What to do, eh? Oh! I know! Demand levels of 'transparency' from politicans while campaigning against the same standards for all of the institutions that compete with politicians to determine policy!

 
At 4:33 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Paulie,

Thanks for dropping by.

Few points to make:

1. Libertarianism is not incompatible with representative democracy - that is absolute bollocks. Libertarianism has far more to do with democracy than the statist tendencies of socialism.

2. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, I do not believe that the markets should dictate policy. They'll play a role, sure, but shouldn't be the sole determining factor when it comes to policy.

3. I've never campaigned against transparency from companies. In fact, for tax and accounting purposes, a certain level of transparency is demanded of companies. And MPs - who are funded by the taxpayer directly rather than by consumers - should be just as transparent as private companies. If not more so.

TNL

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home