Is it time to stop naming and shaming MPs?

By Jonathan Walker on May 29, 09 12:38 PM in Politics

The House of Commons has been in recess this week - on holiday, in plain English - and I was hoping for a bit of a rest.

It didn't happen, as the expenses row continued to drag on, leading up to the resignation of West Midlands MP Julie Kirkbride (Con Bromsgrove) on Thursday. Another local MP, Bill Cash (Con Stone) is in the news today, Friday.

To be brutally honest, I've had enough of studying people's receipts and examining their living arrangements. As the Archbishop of Canterbury said, it's not good for democracy - and while many of the practices that have been exposed are scandalous, some of the shock-horror stories that grab headlines aren't really that shocking.

Certainly the issues of how to change the expenses system, and what should happen to MPs who abused their expenses, still need to be in the spotlight.

But is it time to stop the daily focus on individual MPs and their wrongdoings?

Comments (4)

Older/Newer

« Video: Birmingham MPs talk about their expenses | Repatriation of Midland soldier from Afghanistan »

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is it time to stop naming and shaming MPs?. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.birminghampost.net/cgi-bin/mt421/mt-tb.cgi/129382

4 Comments

Ursula said:

In short answer to your header question: NO.

So, Jonathan, you suffer a mild bout of "MPs and their expenses" fatigue. Don't we all? I, like you, most certainly do not read daily dreary detailed accounts of who spent what when and why. Other than the principle it's of no interest to me and, anyway, I have enough on my hands to work out and justify my own expenditure.

However, as soon as we let individuals off the hook and make it a "general" problem to be solved (by whom?) we just aid and abet wrong doings - in any walk of life.

As to the Archbishop of Canterbury (and I have not seen or read the piece you are referring to, so I can only take your word for it): If indeed that's what he said he might wish to revisit his history books on what constitutes "democracy". For God's sake.

May 29, 2009 8:16 PM

Jonathan Walker said:

I probably should have linked the Archbishop story, which is here.

Most people I've spoken to seem to agree with you, Ursula.

May 30, 2009 12:23 AM

Ursula said:

Jonathan, thanks for the link. I appreciate it. To think that I read the Times and must have clean skipped the relevant page!

Trouble is, as usual, that people get their wires crossed (a polite way of saying they haven't got a clue): McCarthyism was a witch hunt chasing ghosts (similar to when books were burnt as if what goes on in people's minds can be eradicated by a lit fire).

To use the McCarthy era as a comparison to today's expenses scandal doesn't limp so much as has its ideological foot broken: Politicians (who we, by virtue of trust in their promises, vote for) ARE accountable to what they do when in office - That's all there is to it.

May 30, 2009 9:25 AM

The Red Postman said:

I caught a brief glimpse of Kelvin McKenzie on Question Time on Thursday. From what I could tell, the gist of his argument was that 99 per cent of the time 'the mob' as he called them (and I don't think it was meant to sound patronising) know nothing about politics but now they do and they are having their say. Kelvin pointed out that this is called democracy; perhaps Jonathan and the Archbishop should take note. It would be nice to think this new-found democracy would be reflected in the voter turn-out for the elections on Thursday; somehow, I doubt it.
Incidentally, the priest in my local Catholic church made a point this morning of urging his flock to use their democratic right this Thursday. "I don't care who you vote for but I do care that you use the voice democracy has given you," he said. Mrs Postman, who never listens to me over these matters, was seriously thinking about it this evening.

May 31, 2009 7:38 PM