Today the news broke that Jacqui Smith had claimed expenses for a number of pay per view films including ‘adult films’ (known to most of us as porn). She immediately apologised, claiming she accidently claimed the money thinking it was an internet bill.
The amount of the expense was £67, which seems so high for an internet bill that it would warrant checking before the claim was made. However thoughts like this have been brushed aside in the ‘Smith claims for husband’s porn’ scandal.
But this might be a good thing. It is clear that the level of scrutiny on MP expenses needs reviewing and this review is more likely to come from public pressure driven through the media.
It was refreshing to see Eric Pickles on Questiontime last week get hammered by the audience for his second home arrangements when he lives 37 miles outside of London.
But the problem with the current debate is that it’s too complicated. Many people aren’t aware of the expense rules for MPs or the time pressures on politicians like Eric. It is difficult to say what is fair and what is not. This means people can be engaged in the debate based on flimsy information or not engaged at all.
However when it comes to claiming tax payer money for adult movies then this is something easy to understand and has broad appeal amongst the electorate. It was interesting to see the BBC in its coverage cite the Sunday Express. I bet it’s not often the BBC use stories the Express break for their political news.
If I was working on the follow up story now, I would investigate smaller expenses further. How many extra costs accidently get slipped into ‘internet bills’ and the like across parliament? It’s like sticking an extra 15 minutes on the time sheet. If everyone does it, it can get accepted as part of the employment culture and that is a slippery slope.
Whatever though, let’s keep these stories focused on the human interest angle. How keen do you think people were to watch Jacqui Smith’s husband apologise today.
No comments:
Post a Comment