2009-01-20
On Expenses and MPs
Over the last couple of days, I feel like I’ve been assailed by people insisting I write to my MP and complain about changes that are being proposed, taking MPs expenses out of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.
I don’t know how much of this is sheer bloodymindedness at being repeatedly told what to think and do, and how much of it is a considered response, but I’m not going to. The public’s level of trust in Parliament may well be very low, but I suspect it’s got a lot to do with the fact that we want to be coddled, and want someone else to blame. (It’s the bankers that caused the housing bubble, not all of us rushing off to get 6x mortgages with massive discounts on the first two years interest; it’s the TV’s fault for showing property programmes, not ours for watching them; it’s the politicians fault for encouraging home ownership, not ours for unthinkingly buying into the policy.)
The sheer level of prying into what MPs do is part of this, I think. Now, I know I can have a geek’s fundamentalism when it comes to fairness, but I suspect that if CEOs in private companies had to show the same level of openness as public servants, there’d be far more of an outcry, but of course (unlike some Scandinavian countries), everyone’s finances are nice and private here, and people can get away with what they want.
That’s not to say there aren’t problems; if other senior civil service ministers are required to be audited by the NAO, maybe MPs should too. On a wider level, the Freedom Of Information Act isn’t necessarily working all that well, and it could also do with independent oversight - and this is a much larger problem (although one that’s probably harder to get people motivated into doing anything about). It’s also more than a little stupid to spend the time compiling the data, and then not publish it - and that’s something I can see the point in complaining about.
However, generally„ I suspect the public would get more out of Parliament if they treated them with a little respect, and a little less inherent suspicion.
(I notice there’s at least one other person out there prepared to stick their head over the parapet and take a contrarian view; without that, I doubt I’d have posted this, so thanks. I think.)
