MPs expenses - a hoot and a half

The leaked documents published this morning in the telegraph (and since reprinted in every news outlet) are, frankly hilarious. However the Evening Standard's coverage has had me in stiches as this included responses from all the government ministers. I counted. Expressions to the effect of "entirely within the rules" appeared in 9 ministers statements out of 12. And in not a single case was it a convincing justification.

I do feel a bit sorry for Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary. He claimed for the costing of kitting out a new home while his own house was being repaired from a devasting fire. His statement talks of consulting the authorities at the commons (who come out this really badly) about what would be appropriate to claim in the circumstances. I don't see this as particulaly irresponsible or scandalous.

Some of the other claims begger belief though. I particulaly like the MALE tory mp (no longer in the house) who claimed for two packs of tampax. I would really like to hear him justify why he needed them to carry out his parlimentary duties!

The thing is, none of the mps quoted today (I've no doubt the weekend will bring a fresh load of fun since the editor of the telegraph said on radio 5 last night that he had more to come over the next few days. The Tory front bench next maybe? That should make for good reading!), seem able to see that their being "within the rules" does not make it alright. One of the big things to come out of the G20 was the aim to shut down offshore tax havens. People evading taxes in this way were acting "within the rules" but have been vilified by the government. Frankly I see absolutly no difference between legal tax evasion techniques and these expense claims. Both are robbing the tax payers of large sums of money by legal means. Its that simple.

Particulaly hilarious though was Andy Burnham. The culture secretary is reported to have resubmitted the same bill for renovations three times. The first two times he was turned away but the third time he got the money. Nothing is noted as having changed (though it is not explicitly stated that nothing did) before the successful resubmission. He also said in one submission that his wife might divorce him if the commons didn't pay up. His defense? He didn't have one. He simply tried to bluster his way through it all by saying that he underclaimed by £40,000 over the last five years. Though it is unclear whether he meant by this that he claimed £40k less than the maximum he otherwise could have or whether he'd not claimed for £40,000 of personal expenses that were covered by "the rules". Either way it's not a defence for taking money for something the house of commons fees office twice said was inappropriate.

By the way just a couple of these rules for you to mull over. "MPs must ensure claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial gain to themselves or or anyone else" and "MPs should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagent or luxurious". And the guidance at the end where the rules acknowledge that there will be "areas of uncertainty" it says "MPs might consider how comfortable they would feel with [the expense] being made public under Freedom of Information". Or even through a leak.

I'll bet a lot of MPs are rethinking how comfortable they really are about their claims now.

And the best quote of the whole lot? Education secretary Ed balls. Quote: People don't want to hear politicians saying "it's within the rules" unquote.