MPs troughs, rules and perspective..

Amidst the political fun of the unfolding expenses scandal at Westminster, in which freedom of information has given us the right to peer into their publically-funded world of moats, duck islands and 'adult' movies; has a sense of perspective been lost somewhere? The latest reports are that a handful of MPs will be disciplined for outright breaking of parliamentary rules; while up to 50 will not be seeking re-election, because what they did was within the rules but somewhat embarrassing. Politics is in turmoil, democracy is held up to public ridicule, the first speaker for over three centuries has fallen on his political sword, and parties are maneuvering to rid themselves of candidates whose expenses claims are as bloated as their tax liabilities are minimised.

In one sense, I want to join in the clamour. The filthy swine, have after-all had their noses firmly in the public trough. They have not only advantageously set their own conditions of employment, but have sought (and failed) to have their actions hidden from the public, only being foiled by freedom of information releases pre-empted by The Daily Telegraph. In constructing a system that no citizen would get away with in their workplace, they have demonstrated indeed that some pigs are more equal than others. So, send them all back to their 'very very large' houses that 'look a bit like Balmoral' and lets start parliament all over again with a fresh co-hort.

On the other hand, surely two factors must be weighed against that:

Firstly, how many voters use the system in place to ensure that they pay as little tax as possible and claim the maximum expenses? We might live in another world from the Steen's and Hogg's in the opulence of their mansions and castles; but my guess is every self-employed person in the UK pays an accountant to work this out and signs it off with little eye for detail. I'm not justifying the excess and greed that has been paraded in the daily role call of shame, but I am asking if the fault has been wholly about greedy individuals, or also about a dodgy-system inevitably producing dodgy outcomes?

Secondly though, what troubles me here is that our political system is creaking towards a crisis over a comparatively minor matter - compared to things it has swallowed whole, without straining.

Here is a truly scandalous figure: 92,126 – 100,580 .

The question is, what prefix should these numbers have to contextualise them and so provoke a relevant and proportionate response. Is it a £-sign, referring perhaps to the amount of offensive expenses claims the cabinet have promised to repay? Nope! Is it a Euro-symbol, suggesting a similar fate about to befall our MEPs? Nope! Is it the amount of capital-gains tax avoided by shadow-cabinet ministers, 'flipping' their 'primary residence' to milk the system? Nope - wrong again!

The figure 92,126 - 100,580 rather, refers to civilian deaths which have resulted from the allied invasion of Iraq. It was something for which the majority of MPs still in parliament, and both major parties supported in the face of public opposition. The graph above plots these deaths by year (source). It was morally repugnant, internationally illegal, it used vast amounts of public money in ways the public found unacceptable. But of course, it actually broke no parliamentary rules and wasn't done in secret to be sensationally leaked .... phew! so that's alright then.

er, except that it's not.

One of the most valuable lessons to emerge from the current snouts-in-the-trough scandal is that being within the scope of the written law is an insufficient standard for public service. Acting immorally, or greedily within the code of conduct, is still wrong. Procedural justice is of course an absolute necessity, the process of decision making must be watertight, whether the context is a courtroom or a legislature or a business. But procedural justice cannot be the only criteria to satisfy. Just because correct procedures have been followed, this cannot and must not be a screen behind which to hide flawed decisions, or bad decision-makers. In part, the very procedures themselves can be critiqued in the light of the decisions they generate.

Almost fifty MPs are to go over this expenses scandal, some being disciplined, the whip being withdrawn from others - with many shame-facedly retiring at the next election. This uproar contrasts markedly with the Iraq war debacle, which only resulted in the resignation of Robin Cook, a handful of minor government resignations, and the pathetic on-off resignation will-she-won't-she of Claire Short; who at least seemed to be aware of the impending genocide even if she didn't quite see it as a resigning matter. Oh, and a by-election win for Respect. What a completely bizarre disaprity in outrage!

Yes - standards in public life must improve. Yes - morality must exceed the written code. No - 'I was within the rules' is as unacceptable as 'I was merely following orders'. And yes resignations should follow scandals. But for goodness sake let's get our moral-outrage gauges re-calibrated. If Anthony Steen has hd his mansion subsidised by the taxpayer, he should go. But if he voted for George Bush's illegal war, he should have been removed, long long ago along with all the others in similar positions.