Journalists have a huge burden to carry. The overwhelming majority of people will have their views on current events shaped by the magnitude of news programmes, newspapers, magazines, websites and even some – more highbrow – blogs.
So I was particularly dissapointed to read Quentin Letts’ column in the Daily Mail yesterday. Anyone who listened to Wednesday’s debate on expense – of which I was one, due to the absence of cricket – will realise that Mr. Letts has brutally over-exagerated all the business surrounding expenses. He criticises Ann Widdecombe who only said that the media had been playing games with the public over the issue. That’s quite right. The John Lewis list does not exist, and never has, yet the media insist on reporting that MPs have all their furniture paid for from a selection at John Lewis. It’s simply untrue, as Lynne Jones MP (selly oak) pointed out, that she was reimbursed for a very cheap iron bought in Kings Heath. The only expense, in that category, she had asked for since her election in 1992.
If this is the quality of political journalism in our nation’s tabloids – no wonder turnouts are so low and no wonder voter confidence in politics is so strained. I expect the likes of BUCF and Praguetory will support Quentin, but I just think it’s such a shame that we thinks it justified to patronise normal hard-working people in this way.
MPs shouldn’t set the rules around their terms and conditions. Quite apart from waste of Parliamentary time, it’s a conflict of interest.
You sometimes come across as a defender of the status quo, which seems to me to be an astonishing position to take. If you would like to have a chat about standards in public life, we can meet up some time.
i didn’t express any opinion on expenses as such. infact, i think researchers pay and MPs pay is too low, not a popular view but there you have it. I also find it odd that, whilst chairs of committees get extra, members do not. The workload is vastly extended by committee time both before, during and after meetings.
I think it’s shocking that the guild requires two committee signatures, as well as the claimants, and a full explanation before even a bus ticket can be reimbursed. In Parliament it takes just the MPs signature, and a reciept with no explanation. The real issue is not, and should not be, how much MPs have access to, but it should be how that is governed. Outside scrutiny is essential, which is why the Government’s position (although not exactly clear) is quite dissapointing.
I also agree with you that it is a conflict of interest, and one that should be removed by having an outside body determine pay brackets and increases. Much like the rest of us.
Actually, despite being a BUCFer, I happen to agree with you. I do have a lot of issues with the Daily Mail. it saddens me a great deal how popular a paper it is, when it spouts ridiculous reactionary rubbish. Tabloid reporting is far from the balanced and informed journalism that I think it should be considering the number of people who read it, the amount of voting apathy in the country, and a little thing called journalistic responsibility.
Don’t assume that I’ll disagree with everything you blog just because I’m part of BUCF; this isn’t a party political issue, it’s a journalistic one.
Besides, I think you’ll manage to find people from all political camps who dislike The Daily Mail!