Integrity Restored to Government

Integrity Restored to Government

Talal Hangari

28 October 2024

Sir Keir Starmer promised to restore integrity to government; and after years of odious Tory corruption, the nation would have welcomed some little respite from looting and waste. But such a gift—such a pause in the depredation—Sir Keir, alas, cannot give: the constitution of the Oligarchy forbids it, and as he is pleased to bow before the Few, so the whole cabinet is pleased to follow him.

In view of the reports of recent weeks, an outsider could not be blamed for concluding that British legislators live in the most wretched penury: it would appear that members of Parliament are denied the means of subsistence by a cruel and heartless public; and that our representatives, finding no other resort, have been compelled to draw on the beneficence of philanthropists, and are thus furnished with clothes, and some meagre recreation. That, indeed, is the picture suggested by the conduct of our politicians: a hard life of labour without wages, and charity a requirement for survival. It would never occur to the naive observer, that all these representatives are paid higher salaries than 95 per cent of the population; and even higher salaries than that, if they are a minister.

When we learned that Sir Keir took thousands of pounds in gifts of clothing, Labour MPs told us that it was necessary for the prime minister, as our principal functionary, and as a representative of the country, to look his best. Nobody has yet satisfactorily explained, why the prime minister could not purchase his own clothes, using his earnings, as millions of ordinary people across the country do. One MP went to the ludicrous extreme of asserting, that since Sir Keir, a career-long barrister and knight, is not “independently wealthy”, his resorting to gifts is both natural and excusable—such remarks are very instructive as to MPs’ estimation of the public intellect. But let us suppose, with the Labour Party mouthpieces, that thousands of pounds in clothing is indispensable to dress well: the implication of this argument is, that millions of people in Britain, who cannot afford such luxurious attire, do not dress to a decent standard. Is not the average Briton also a representative of his country? The median salary is £34,000 a year: what inference are we then to draw about the garments of the average man or woman? So far from looking their best, we are impelled to conclude, on Labour’s line of argument, that they look shabby and ragged. It would seem, therefore, that this is a plea, albeit a surreptitious one, for an enormous redistribution of wealth, so that all Britons might be afforded the opportunity to dress well. And yet I suspect this redistribution shall not be forthcoming. Besides, I would have thought it injurious to a person’s dignity to accept tens of thousands of pounds in clothing, especially when they earn a vast salary; but the culture of Parliament is so venal, and the moral code of its members so peculiar, that they see nothing shameful in accepting such largesse.

Then we learned of the gifts of football and concert tickets; and again, no half-convincing reason was supplied to show that MPs could not purchase their own recreation, with their own money. Several honourable members felt it was warranted, at this point, to blame their children, who so desperately yearned to attend a Taylor Swift concert. Perhaps I shall be thought cold for saying so, but I would suggest that MPs exercise a little self-restraint when offered free pleasures; and it would be advantageous if the degree of their self-restraint exceeded that of dogs, who are told “wait!” before eating their dinner. If MPs cannot afford all the pleasures they desire with their existing pay, they might turn to the expedient of all ordinary people, and observe a little economy. Indeed, it cannot but rankle, when ministers give us speeches expounding the necessity of tough fiscal choices, that those same ministers are incapable of making the “tough” choice, to decline an invitation to an amusement.

Next, there was the delicate matter of a study space, in the shape of a donor’s sumptuous property, for Sir Keir’s son. That donor was Lord Waheed Alli, a recurring character in the parliamentary register of interests. Sir Keir contends that, his home being swarmed by journalists during the election campaign, he had no means to shield his son’s studies from distraction, except by relying upon the generosity of Lord Alli. No evidence has been produced to prove that Sir Keir’s home was blighted by the presence of journalists; but even if it were true, it would not occur to most residents of London to call on the aid of a millionaire to furnish them with a study space: there are many quiet libraries, and cafes, and other resources which a person might use. Moreover, it is evident that politicians should exhaust every alternative before they accept a gift, to protect themselves from sinister influences. The government plead in mitigation that Lord Alli has long been a Labour peer: what, do Labour peers lack interests? Is it inconceivable that a rich Labour peer might, by his power over various objects of desire, influence the conduct of the representatives to his advantage, or that of his friends?

But then comes the ministerial weapon of choice—a defence, in high parliamentary circles, that is considered to be irresistible: “All gifts and donations have been declared!” they proudly cry; “no rules have been broken!” In short, they boast of their Transparency, which word, to them, effaces any imputation of mischief or wrongdoing. It was a stroke of rare ingenuity, to eradicate corruption by declaring it legal, and recording it in neat reports. “Gifts” and “donations” are very imperfect descriptions of what is given to our representatives; for both words denote something freely bestowed, with no expectation of gain on the part of the donor. A much better word is bribes—legal bribes, paid with the aim of securing a sinister influence over the legislators: thus are politicians bought, and bought cheaply, and induced to sacrifice the interests of the Many, to the interests of the Few. The representatives still raise the cry of Transparency; but corruption is frequently transparent. The inhabitants of the most corrupt nations in the world, are generally cognizant of the circumstances in which they live. The rotten boroughs and the restricted suffrage of England were also transparent, for generations. The purpose of official transparency is, to enable the community to judge the conduct of politicians. Transparency does not avail us at all, unless it is employed to assign praise or blame to public functionaries: and yet we are told, when we censure politicians for their conduct, that we should not do so, because they have been transparent! Transparency is not an end in itself—it is a means to scrutinise the representatives; and nothing could be more fallacious than to urge “transparency” in defence of one’s conduct, when transparency is designed to encourage the very criticism that you deplore! Such censures must be answered on their merits; and this, Labour politicians have signally failed to do.

The need of reform is evident, and the way is not difficult to perceive. Legislators must be forbidden from taking bribes: a strict cap on “gifts” and “donations” must be imposed, at a sum low enough that such contributions will fail to exert a sinister influence on the representatives; this is only common sense. Yet the tenacity with which Labour politicians have defended their corruption, without even the pretence of credible reasons, is remarkable. All the cults and churches of the world must envy the institution of the oligarchical Party, which has proved to be the most potent contrivance for deranging the human mind.

There is one more objection for us to answer, favoured by clever journalists and researchers, who fancy themselves to be much wiser than the common herd. These reasoners aver that politicians ought to be paid higher salaries, if we expect them not to take “gifts”; and they hold that such an increase in pay would draw more “good people”—that is, intelligent and competent ones—into Parliament. In making this argument, however, they forget that a good legislator requires both intellectual and moral aptitude; nearly all the arguments produced in support of higher salaries for the representatives treat intellectual aptitude as the sole quality of importance—and measure it by the defective scale of pay, despite our knowledge that some of the greatest minds in history, never amassed large fortunes. Suppose a person who would have devoted their life to serving the community, but was seduced from doing so by the prospect of a higher salary in the private sector: can it be pretended that such a person has the moral aptitude for public service? The proper ethos of public service is, selflessness, benevolence, and sacrifice for the public good: are such qualities likely to be found in a person, who, considering a salary that puts him in the top five per cent of earners to be too scant, refuses the trust of a legislator, until it becomes more lucrative? I do not scruple to affirm that such a person is entirely unfit for public service; such a person is not actuated by the necessary benevolent motives, and should be kept away from the legislature if possible. The better proposal is, to reduce the pay of members of Parliament: for if politicians earned closer to the median wage, they would have a closer identity of interests with the majority of the people, and would therefore be induced to promote the people’s welfare. It is, moreover, conceivable, that they would gain, in the esteem of the public, what they lost in income. We know from daily experience that there are thousands of people of high intellectual and moral aptitude, who are in careers that pay less than being a member of Parliament: they are teachers, and health workers, and tradespersons, and many occupations besides. Is it really believed that we could not fill the seats of 650 legislators with such people? And is it really believed, by those who fear corruption from less pay—as if corruption is not already endemic—that every person on lower pay, resorts to crime and bribery to supplement their income? If countless people can live with integrity on the median salary, and less than that, why could not 650 legislators do the same? If we desire our representatives to promote the interests of the Many, we must put an end to corruption, and make the interests of the representatives consonant with the interests of society.