That “independent investigation” into MPs’ expenses? It’s already going on
There have been some calls by beleaguered MPs looking for an out for “an independent investigation into MPs’ expenses”.
Seems to me that this is already going - the Daily Telegraph has had 25 people going at it for weeks.
So here are five reasons why, and one reason why not, the Daily Telegraph is better than an “independent investigation” into expenses.
- It has a professional team which has access to all of the data
- It is publishing the results of the investigation concurrently with its findings
- It is answerable in the courts if it gets it wrong on any item
- It has not been appointed through any political manoeuvring
- It is giving those suspected of wrongdoing the chance to reply
There is however one reason why it’s not as good as an independent investigation:
- The actual investigation isn’t being done in public; we see the results, not the working.
On balance, I think we’re better off with the Telegraph doing it. As I write this, the Telegraph is publishing more - Ian Gibson. Who is offering an explanation about his second home flat which he sold to his daughter at, allegedly, half its market price.
Can you imagine what an “independent” investigation of all this would look like? They would vanish into a room forever. MPs would come and go. There would be little murmurings. There might be “salmon letters” (which come from an inquiry when a person may be criticised in the final report) flitting back and forth. And then, don’t doubt, a great big nothing.
No, I think we’re better off with the press doing this sort of stuff. Perhaps we could try it with some other evidence where we aren’t quite certain we’re getting the true story. Any chance that the full papers from the Deepcut inquiry (inquiries?) could find their way to the Guardian?
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- Ken Livingstone not exactly going gentle into, well, anything (14 July 2008; score: 27.19%)
- Steve Jobs piece in The Independent magazine (29 October 2005; score: 26.95%)
- How the House of Commons made it harder to work out how much MPs have cost: by using PDFs (21 October 2004; score: 26.9%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:06 am
Assuming of course the press have the resources to do this in the future. Only the Washington Post and the New York Times could afford to have 25 reporters involved in the US.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 am
There’s one small problem - they’re not independent. They are being paid by a corporation owned by Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay. We can only guess what their motives are. Yes, they are answerable to the courts if they publish any falsehoods - but that doesn’t cover the sin of omission.
I also take issue with “It is giving those suspected of wrongdoing the chance to reply” because they seem to be conducting that aspect of the “investigation” in public. There doesn’t seem to be a consistent method by which MPs can challenge their findings.
But, that said, it probably is better than the traditional model of inquiry.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Yeah, it’s great. Benefits of journalists conduct an inquiry are just overwhelming:
* they can simplify, exaggerate and distort
* they can confuse inequalities of wealth with corruption
* they can poison the public discourse by alienating voters from their representatives
* they can trash the reputation of decent, conscientious politicians
* they can avoid the bother and cost of reporting real political stories, covering their failings with this manufactured drivel
Terrific.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Nadine Dorries’ blog shut down by Telegraph lawyers. Do you still admire “independent investigations” newspaper-style?
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
@PJ thanks for your comments - as ever, the (necessary) sceptical view.
On Dorries first - she reads just bonkers, but if the Barclays seriously think people think she’s correct, well.. they don’t hear her as I and others I listen to do.
Now. Simplify, exaggerate, distort? Yes, they can. (Which is why papers are clamouring to get hold of the details.) Confuse inequalities? Well, sort of, but there’s been some odd goings-on.
Poisoning the public discourse - no, I think the alienation was already there; this crystallised it, gave it focus.
Trashing the reputation? Umm, yes, but if the claims stand up, they stand. There are lots of MPs putting things online voluntarily.
Avoiding the cost of reporting “real” political stories? I’m not sure what other real ones there are at the moment. Though it does feel like it’s gone on too long. But I think with a terabyte of data to sift through, you start with the big fish and then work wider. Even 25 people can only do so much.
I never said it was perfect - it would be nice to have a schedule of who’s up next :-) and who’s been examined and “exonerated”. But like I said in the Guardian, this is the neutron bomb of politics - nobody is left standing, or with standing. (Except maybe Frank Field, who put his scans online, though redacted - you would have trouble working out if he bought a duck island. See frankfield.co.uk.)
May 24th, 2009 at 3:46 am
“They can poison the public discourse by alienating voters from their representatives.” Hmm. Think you may be shooting the messenger there, PJ.
May 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
@Anne - sure I’m shooting the messenger. That’s my point. The messenger is not telling it straight - so needs lining up. My response to you and Charles is to say that while journalism is definitely about “who & what?”, it should also be about “why?”. That’s missing. And when Nadine Dorries tries to move onto a different kind of “why” question…she’s aggressively silenced. Why might that be? It’s a lot more interesting and useful question than who bought what soft furnishings at what silly price.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@PJ Right, sorry, yes, they’re all decent, conscientious politicians and it’s absolutely okay to spend taxpayers’ money having your lightbulbs changed but give feck-all to people who have lost their jobs. Compare, if you will, JSA with the MPs’ allowance. Compare, if you will, the apparently meagre salary MPs get with the minimum wage in this country.
The message speaks for itself.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
@Anne. You illustrate the point I made earlier. You’re confusing inequalities of wealth with corruption. Do you think parliament would be better if MPs were paid a modest salary and a tight rein kept on their expenses? What kind of MPs would result? Think it through. There’s too many likely consequences to spell out here. But they’re all negative and bad for the nation’s democratic health.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
@PJ people keep implying that MPs are paid a modest salary hence the need for all these expenses. But, as you admit, they aren’t.
As for inequalities of wealth vs. corruption, I can see how you would think a fees office that doesn’t investigate claims further than checking for a signature and allows ‘flipping’ to occur is not corrupt in any way. No, my mistake, it’s as clean as a whistle.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
@Anne The fees office allows it because the additional costs allowance hasn’t been regarded as exes, so much as a top-up to the salary. According to Paul Flynn, Nadine Dorries says that the ACA is taken into account as someone’s income/wealth in a divorce case. If that’s right (and I wouldn’t know) it still means the system wants amending - but it’s clearly absurd and wrong to identify particular expenditure and say it was corrupt. Here’s a link to Flynn - lots of good stuff on his blog. I’d've shortened the url, but I like it too much:
http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/05/hell-i-agree-with-nadine-dorriesin-a-gutsy-blog-she-has-taken-on-the-witch-finder-general-the-daily-telegraph-their-mo.html
And yeah, I don’t think a basic salary of 65k is modest. But nor do I want my MP, or anyone’s, to have a modest salary. They need to operate alongside other countries’ elected reps, stand their ground with corporate interests, be free from temptation for backhanders and real corruption etc etc.
Change is needed. But it would be difficult to get it right because of the poisoned national mood. As Matthew Parris says, “Extravagance, genuine mistake, sly acquisitiveness and outright criminal fraud are now jumbled together in the national mind as though there were no moral differences. Judgment has fled. This is the worst possible climate in which to consider root-and-branch reform of our system of representative democracy.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6345582.ece