I only ask, you see, because earlier today the Conservative Party’s press team decided to highlight the fact that a Labour MP, Chuka Umunna, claimed £43.12 for “soap, toilet roll etc”.
Well, the claim was for his office where staff work. So quite why would someone want to pick on an employer providing toilet roll (and soap! yes, soap! the sheer luxury!) for his staff?
But perhaps that’s how CCHQ works and the staff there are so used to having to bring their own toilet paper in to work that they don’t see why anyone else should have it provided by their employer? After all, that’s the only logical and fair explanation so it’s bound to be the right one. I’m sure.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
4 Comments
Mark, I am dissapointed in you. You are generally a well informed leader of political debate and yet you have clearly not done your homework for this thread.
Conservatives do not require toilet paper, bodily functions are for us mere mortals. After a year of coalition I expected you to know this…..
Seriously though what a pathetic thing for the Tories to highlight.
If CCHQ want to look into whether the rules are really being followed perhaps they might want to address a little attention to their black arts wing at the Sunlight Centre – which although it is quite happy to be an active participant in party politics hasn’t registered as such with the Electoral Commission and its own accounts on line show that it may well be over the £25,000 limit.
http://www.sunlight-cops.org.uk/donate/
This is pathetic.
There is a place for justified outrage about expenses claims. But if people push it too far, and make it unacceptabe for MPs to claim for perfectly legitimate expenses which make it possible for them to do their job propery (such as necessary supplies for a constituency or Commons office), then it will be even harder to find sensible ‘normal’ people to do the job.
The expenses scandal was horrible, but I have to say, the long-term consequences, where public outrage is kept burning artificially for political gain, are quite possibly worse. I fear that MPs will increasingly end up as glorified social workers above all, too concerned with controlling public outrage against politicians to do their job properly – when doing local casework that shouldn’t even be their business but can’t be refused becomes more important than scrutinising legislation in the Commons. And of course, there is a danger that many good people who really should be considering to stand simply won’t be willing to put up with the contempt and the aggravation.
There comes a point when public outrage about politicians might just be a threat to democracy – the unintended consequences of the expenses scandal may turn out to be a lot worse than the original fall-out.
Conservative staff should all carry toilet paper with them all of the time, to clean up all the stuff they are constantly spraying on the rest of us.