MP’s Expenses? Interesting but business as usual

So, the crusading British press has exposed the latest political scandal in Westminster. This time MPs have been “discovered” fiddling expenses, pursued by journalists, “innocent” MPs and the Great British Public, unified in their tutting.

Countless pages of national newspapers have been given over to reporting the details of the scandal, detailing claims ranging from the purchase of a wooden spoon (yes, really!) to spending tens of thousands of pounds on renovating houses.

The indignation has almost exceeded that seen in the bankers’ pensions scandal, yet there is something deeply troubling about both responses.

Should we really be that horrified at either case?

Perhaps bureaucratic capitalism is deeply corrupt in its very nature. Perhaps the “scandals” we see are merely the predictable result of a system that thrives on corruption, regardless of the individuals involved.

Another way to look at this is to consider the actions and relations that fail to become scandals because they are considered normal.

The shock expressed at these specific instances masks institutionalised corruption. Indeed if one is labouring under the delusion that we live in a democracy or that bankers normally deserve to be paid £5,000,000 a year, the one may be purblind to normal, ordinary, everyday corruption.

Outrage at the “scandals” seems a little naive.

A far deeper problem in “our” political system consists in its normal links with business. The problem with Parliament is not that its members can claim expenses for a handyman to change light bulbs, but is that it is not considered scandalous when ministers and MPs ordinarily use institutions for the financial gain of themselves and their friends (or whoever pays them).

So, for example, when the former minister Jack Cunningham becomes a paid consultant for the Corporation of London the Guardian reports it, but there is no chorus of outrage.

When the former International Development Secretary Baroness Amos becomes non-executive director of a private equity firm, to which her department awarded government contracts, the Conservatives condemn her.

Yet it is not a problem that Tony Baldry MP is Chairman (non-executive) of Red Eagle Resources PLC, Chairman (non-executive) of Westminster Oil Limited, as well as of West African Investments Ltd, Halcyon Oil Limited, Partner Capital Ltd (non-executive); Mastermailer Holdings plc, and Deputy Chairman of Woburn Energy plc. The reason that this is not considered to be a problem is that Mr Baldry claims the Chairmanships on Parliament’s Register of Members’ Interests.

Perhaps the principle behind the system of registering interests should be extended to all, as is becoming of democracy: “I hereby register my interest in shooting politicians”. It feels good to know that forgiveness follows confession.

When Tony Blair was “paid” $5,000,000 to act as a consultant for JP Morgan, the most the BBC’s correspondent could muster was: ““I am not making a judgement about the value of what our former Prime Minister will actually do for Morgan … The proof of that will be in the pudding.” Lenin will say more on this in a moment.

Is it okay that William Hague, the former leader of the Conservative Party, raked in £1,000,000 from extra parliamentary activities whilst retaining his seat in Parliament?

Of course the MPs who are also Chairmen of various businesses have done noting illegal. Nor is it illegal for former ministers to take a job, but it doesn’t follow that they have done nothing wrong.

As unfashionable as the reference might be, we can learn something from V I Lenin’s moral indignation at the systemic corruption of the political classes in pre-Soviet Russia.

‘Since, for instance, in the very first months of the Russian democratic republic, one might say during the honeymoon of the “socialist” S.R.s and Mensheviks joined in wedlock to the bourgeoisie, in the coalition government. Mr. Palchinsky obstructed every measure intended for curbing the capitalists and their marauding practices, their plundering of the state by means of war contracts; and since later on Mr. Palchinsky, upon resigning from the Cabinet (and being, of course, replaced by another quite similar Palchinsky), was “rewarded” by the capitalists with a lucrative job with a salary of 120,000 rubles per annum — what would you call that? Direct or indirect bribery?‘

History is a cliché

And so here we are 100 or so years later, having learned nothing. Bribery is institutionalised, normal. In fact it indirect bribery is the lifeblood of the political system – what else do we call it when businesses and individuals “donate” millions of pounds to political parties? They didn’t become right by giving away money for nothing!

Corruption applies only to those who fail to declare.

And so we are here under a Labour government wherein us creatures look from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but again it is impossible to say which is which.