Expense claims

Not the actual expenses themselves per se but the justifications that have been pouring out. Harriet Harman sat on the GMTV sofa to be grilled by Ben, presumably thinking she'd get an easier time than if she'd appeared on the BBC. She was wrong, nice that she prevented Ben from slander by commenting that he shouldn't use the word "fiddling" in connection with expense claims.

It was the delightful statements that rules couldn't have been broken because the expenses had been paid, a claim that could only have some sort of validity if the claims that had been rejected had also been published. Given what has 'legitimately' been claimed I think it would be scary to see what had been rejected; ah but of course MPs wouldn't try to put in claims they knew would be rejected because they're all so honest.

[Update thanks to the Telegraph we can see some of those rejected claims such as £200 for a pram by David Milliband; £600 for hanging baskets by Margaret Beckett; and £19.99 for an Ikea Bathrobe by Andy Burnham. Ah yes all essential expenses incurred in their duties as MPs

Also worth looking at those expense claims not rejected Honestly how can I do my job without eyeliner or if I have to worry about moles in my garden?]

Likewise trying to shift the blame by stating that they know the rules need looking at. What is really being stated here is that MPs will try to get away with as much as they can within the rules even if morally they know they shouldn't be claiming for it.

Imagine a worker having to stay at a hotel as part of their job, they claim the room and board back; but I'm betting there are rules about exactly where they can stay and how much they can spend on meals - no five star hotels and champagne breakfasts here. What would happen if they tried to add on mini-bar costs or pay-per-view movies as expenses, they'd get rejected. Even if the rules were stretched to allow it what do you think anyone would think highly of them for bunging it on expenses?

With all this bleating on about the rules allowing this or having to change the rules to prevent it, it covers up the fact that the only reason we're talking about this is because MPs are exploiting those rules. We wouldn't need the rules to be changed if we had honest MPs who didn't try to claim for things they knew had nothing to do with their function as our representatives.

Now sure you can say that about any rules, in fact we wouldn't need them at all if everyone was honest, but these are MPs; they have to be cleaner than clean and if they don't understand that or don't want to work that way then they should resign.

No excuses, no 'it was all within the rules', no 'everyone else is doing it', no 'I thought mock Tudor beams were a legitimate expense'; just go.