It is often a useful question to ask: who benefits from this? Senior Libertarian Alliance honcho Sean Gabb, who not surprisingly is grimly satisfied at seeing the discomfiture of this partly corrupt, oppressive and pointless bunch of political boobies, asks whether his one-time adversary, a certain Boris Johnson, might be a prime long-term beneficiary from the current expenses crisis. Mr Johnson, a former editor of the Spectator, a Daily Telegraph journalist and former member for the safe Tory seat of Henley-on-Thames, is now Mayor of London. Being outside the House of Commons, Mr Gabb argues, confers upon the colourful Mr Johnson the chance to pose as a man untainted. Quite possibly so.
But maybe Mr Gabb is in danger of being caught up in his own cynicism, understandable thought that may be (full disclosure: I am an old friend of Sean Gabb whom I have known for more than 20 years). Mr Johnson, does, of course, have other potential skeletons rattling in his cupboard, as do many of us mere mortals who do not happen to be moral saints. But right now, all that I want is a politician with the sense to roll back the state to the extent that Sean Gabb and I share. In other words, roll it back a long, long way. That surely has to remain the prime focus of our energies, long after stories about expense fiddling have faded from view.
Hasn’t Bojo already done some bashing of abuse of expenses, namely when he found a wine collection that Ken Livingston had?
I think this expenses scandal should reinforce the attractiveness of libertarianism or anarchism – the general public seems very angree, but unsure of what to do, tired and fed up with a system they feel they have no control over or ability to change. So wouldn’t it be nice for the idiots in parliament to be able to have as little impact on our lives at all? The less impact they have, the less I have to care or feel frustrated at their stupid capriciousness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5349802/Speakers-role-to-be-reformed.html
“I can tell you the Cabinet this morning will approve a series of reforms which will place the House of Commons in the hands of independent regulators rather than the House itself.”
Would it be churlish of me to say “I told you so”? Well done everybody on the expenses bandwagon. You’ve just helped export more power from parliament to the Extra-governmental Political Class. Congratulations!
Enjoy.
Why Ian, I think you’re being a little cynical here.
I have it on good authority that the new chairthing of the independant Parliamentary Commission will be none other than Lord Mandy, and who could question his bone fides for the job.
And if Mandy finds the task too onerous, I’m sure Lord Mick of Gorbals will soon be in a postition to take over should the need arise.
If we care about the long-term effect on our lives, then cui bono? must be judged as it affects institutions, not individuals, unless you think the individuals would gain the will and power to change institutions.
I fear that the executive benefits. The changes to be discussed include “an end to self-regulation”.
Parliament is weaker even than it was. And the weakness of parliament, and in particular the subordination of backbenchers to party favour has been a serious problem for many years.
(Followers of the Philip Cowley school of statistical politics suggest that backbenchers ‘revolt’ against the whips more than ever they did, and that that demonstrates greater independence.
I think that is a naive view of political power, which actually operates according to Dr Tarrasch’s dictum: The threat is more powerful than its execution. Successful threats don’t show up in the voting record; it is failed threats that do.
If you want to measure the power of parliament vis-a-vis the executive in legislation, you have to look at the ratio of enactment to debating time, and the amount of successful amendment by opposition and backbenchers as opposed to departmental postscript embodied in government amendments.)
I think therefore, that Richard Garner is precisely wrong. Authoritarian populism benefits.
In a representative democracy, to hold back the growth of the state you need a relatively strong, independent, legislature and judiciary, an executive dependent on those, and a free but not powerful media. What we have is precisely the reverse: a powerful media that is a loudspeaker for a powerful executive’s claim to greater power, sustaining propaganda howlback, constrained in its criticism of the entrenched power by libel, regulation and corporate culture, yet unafraid to attack the legislature or judges; a feeble legislature whose programme is dictated by the bureaucracy; a rule law steadily eroded by the notionally supreme power of the legislature used to create privilege and arbitrary authority for officialdom.
The notion that politicians cannot be trusted is now firmly embedded in the public consciousness. The message that a small Government is preferably because politicians are untrustworthy is surely worth promoting.
I saw the David Cameron radio interview broadcast, interestingly, on the television and one caller phoned in to ask “how can we trust these people to run the NHS” I was shouting at the television – you can’t and you don’t have to, so don’t! That line of reasoning can apply to education, documenting the locations of chip shops, encouraging investment in impoverished regions and all manner of other areas of Government.
Unfortunately the same caller mentioned trusting politicians to send our countrymen to war – and Carswell’s open primaries are the idea I’ve heard that would actually address that by making individual politicians more accountable to voters.
The EU benefits, of course.
Anything that makes it look like we can’t manage our own affairs, is grist to their mill.
I suspect that Guy Herbert is correct.
For some time now the cry has been “an end to self regulation” by which is meant what is left of the independence of Parliament.
It reminds me of one of the defects of the “Contract with America” of 1994 – the “Contract” held that Congress should be subjected to all the crack brained regulations that it made other Americans obey.
But this did not lead to the repeal of any of those regulations – it simply led to Congressmen and Senators being vulnerable to “civil rights” extortion and other such.
Even concerning money I doubt there will be long term good effects.
Methinks that the new independent body (a QWANGO or whatever) will end up giving the M.P.s more money than they get now.
M.P.s pay and perks (“expenses”) should all be public – and if the public do not like them they should vote for an M.P.s who will not take them (after all before 1911 M.P.s were not paid at all – neither pay nor expenses).
Simple as that – no “new rules” or executive bodies.
In my opinion
You havent answered the question
“Who has benifited from theexpenses scandel”
The fring parties have benifited
and when they do well in the euro elections
It will give the globalists the excuse to get rid of david cameron and put in place someone who is not a eurosceptic and so push us further into the EU without consulting the people