Amidst doubts about Afghanistan, mega-bucks being poured into banks, and the wisdom of Stephen Fry rejoining Twitter, MPs may quietly be getting off the hook.
Last week Sir John Baker, former head of the Senior Salaries Review Body, said what many in high places are thinking – that the expenses crackdown may have been a bit… harsh. And the way out may not be to argue, but to purge the worst offenders, repay whatever sums have been demanded, sacrifice flipped homes, resettlement grants, subsistence allowances, employed spouses, first class travel, second homes, gardening expenses, moat cleaning, duck-pond maintenance and state-paid mortgages and opt for a rise in the basic MPs salary instead.
“Once the new expenses regime is in place and the last repayment made there should be a substantial increase in MPs’ pay no matter what the “court of public opinion” or tabloid headlines may say.”
Well that’s us told then.
Sir John thinks the number of MPs should be cut from 646 to 450, to help justify a salary rise from £65,000 to almost £100,000 – a triumph of perverse logic about as colossal as the latest banker’s bonuses.
The idea that a random cut in numbers will increase parliamentary productivity is laughable. The retention of first past the post voting for Westminster renders half of all MPs effectively redundant. The retention of Westminster as a UK legislature when it functions primarily as a devolved parliament for England renders another set of MPs largely redundant. Will the great and good use this opportunity to think deeply about radical change? Evidently not.
And the angry British public is in danger of getting foxed by the succession of grey-faced, similar-sounding Sirs involved in reforming parliamentary practices.
The first runner in this complex relay race was Sir Thomas Legg – commissioned by Gordon Brown to examine all MPs' second-home claims over four years. He sent repayment demands to MPs in October, effectively handing over to Sir Christopher Kelly, Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who’s been hearing evidence on expenses reform. His final report, received as a baton blow by MPs last week, is now in the hands of the final parliamentary reform runner Sir Ian Kennedy -- the new chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). Unhappily, Sir Ian appears to have no intention of carrying the baton straight over the line but intends to conduct a wide-ranging review of his own, “looking at MPs' allowances, pensions and pay as a whole.”
Lesley has met a lot of different people over her career to date. They have ranged from the famous to the infamous; but this On the Bike is something completely different. Choirs, chessmen, and shamans all feature in a visit to Uig and beyond.
It’s been a good week for reason.
Firstly European leaders kicked Tony Blair’s Presidency bid roundly into touch. Now the former PM can concentrate on the important job he already has (Middle East envoy) and the important job he is about to undertake – defending his decision to invade Iraq before Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry.
Secondly an amusingly named pharmacologist from Bristol became a hero for our age.
David Nutt was sacked as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs after the Home Secretary said he had "lost confidence" in Nutt's ability to give impartial advice, accusing the professor of going beyond the delivery of scientific fact into the realms of policy change. Never mind that the Advisory Council’s terms of reference in section 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 includes the duty to give;
“advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of the law) which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs or dealing with social problems, and in particular on measures which in the opinion of the Council, ought to be taken.”
In other words, this team of unpaid advisors was created precisely to stick its collective nose into government policy and argue the case for change if necessary. Instead the government argues its team of Golden Retrievers should act like Pointers. Not touching tricky policy issues – just indicating their whereabouts. Discreetly.
Make no mistake though. David Nutt is a man with a mission.
In January he wrote an article headlined "Equasy, an over-looked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms". He explained that activities like horse-riding (causing 10 deaths and more than 100 traffic accidents a year) could be considered as harmful as illegal drug-use.
Then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith ordered Prof Nutt to apologise, accusing him of trivialising the dangers of illegal drugs. He responded by producing the now notorious chart that showed alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many illegal drugs including cannabis.
But he went further, arguing that Jacqui Smith's decision to upgrade cannabis from a Class C to a Class B drug, could give it greater cachet, increase its use and distort the value of scientific evidence.
Professor Nutt is undoubtedly right. Legal drugs --from which the Treasury derives a significant income -- cause more harm than illegal drugs. But that’s partly because of the widespread and entirely legal nature of alcoholic drug-taking. If LSD was taken in the same way, its associated harm levels would obviously rocket.
Alcohol also produces “innocent” fun. It’s the double edged nature of alcohol use – spreading happiness and harm – that makes it so hard to deal with. But we’re not stupid. We all know a child a day dies from alcohol poisioning. And yet we almost all drink. We almost all have children or step children. We almost all have had some contact with cannabis (even if just observer status). We almost all have travelled beyond the simplistic land of good and evil when it comes to drug use. Almost all – except Alan Johnson.
In Professor Nutt he has met his match.
A man who chose to be sacked instead of “going quietly” with a golden goodbye. A man who explained his position instead of heading off on immediate and indefinite holiday leave.
A man happy to ask and answer difficult questions that will undoubtedly seal his fate as an almost unemployably opinionated and loud-mouthed academic.
A man who has openly encouraged his fellow advisory council colleagues to resign so that the issue of political interference cannot be overtaken on the fickle news agenda by an important exclusive from Peter Andre.
And above all, a man who is demonstrating to academics the length and breadth of the country that fence-sitting in the face of massive and habitual problems like alcohol abuse is the moral and cowardly equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.
Even when the Daily Mail unearthed evidence that Nutt’s own children use cannabis , the Professor remained sanguine. Yes they did enjoy a joint. But he was still more worried about their alcohol consumption.
Let’s face it. With a surname like his, Nutt must be familiar with hurtful words. Just as well, because the alcohol industry hasn’t started on him yet. And they will.
Even though the latest academic findings further support the SNP’s minimum pricing policy. A Queen Margaret University study shows that the heaviest drinkers use the cheapest drinks – especially vodka. No real surprise there. So why are the whisky industry and opposition politicians deliberately confusing the issue by suggesting the malt whisky industry will collapse? It’s quite possible the reverse will happen – that malts will look relatively affordable as the price of the cheapest blends rises.
Alcohol abuse is destroying Scottish society. What other strategy is anyone else suggesting? Education? Liver transplants? Closing A&E departments at weekends? Governments which turn a consistently blind eye to alcohol-related damage, cannot have an evidence-based drugs policy. Just as governments which turn a blind eye to offshore tax havens and the mighty arms industry cannot have evidence-based economy or aid policies either.
Who knows how many other areas of public life operate privately in the same distorted way. Of course science alone cannot drive policy. But we elect governments to tackle problems not to rename them. Fearful politicians appear to view the public as a terrifying collection of giant, powerful, sulky and unreasonable voting babies – best not disturbed with awkward facts.
The public aren’t that stupid – they are colossally fed up. Voters can witness our relative decline by travelling almost anywhere. Britain has become the sick man pauper and political pariah of Europe. Our weak currency means we can afford no more than a Big Mac in the Euro Zone. Our embassy buildings are easily recognised by the bollards, cement crash barriers and wire cages that surround them.
Emotion not evidence has got us where we are today. Fortunately, scientists like David Nutt regard it as their duty to steer us back.