10 May 2009

Hello, hello, hello. What do we have here

Yesterday we had this, , “The Westminster chatter is that Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper are likely to feature BIG TIME in The Sunday Telegraph”.  Today nothing on the Balls family finances, but this in a Telegraph leader:

There are those MPs who, despite their good intentions, have none the less fallen victim to an overly complex expenses system that has served to portray their actions in an unflattering light. For example, the receipts submitted by Gordon Brown for the cost of a cleaner, shared with his brother Andrew, fall into such a category. There has never been any suggestion of any impropriety on the part of the Prime Minister or his brother.

Well what do they mean by that?  With a few of the Telegraph’s victims threatening legal action, they appear to be pulling back from some of the implications of wrongdoing.  Surely, the Prime Minister of all people understands the ‘overly complex expenses system’.  Obviously not.  One can only imagine the type of discussions that are going on behind the scenes.

After three days, I still fail to understand the Telegraph’s motives for wanting to get all the lurid details out there.  To date, the details have yet to emerge of any senior Tory MP.  No doubt they will, but they will hardly have the same impact as the revelations already exposed.

Last Friday I asked, Why now?  Have the Telegraph’s motives for exposing the details of MPs’ expenses been that honourable?  Remember the mess they made of McBridegate?  Perhaps their true purpose is to make amends for the not-so-clever-role they played in that particular saga.

PS. Andrew Rawnsley has the best piece I have read on the expenses racket to date:

The MP who claimed for horse manure? Well, why not when so many other parliamentarians ­simply don't give a shit.


Digg This

No comments:

Post a Comment