Chaytor to go - We should have a by-election now, not a year with a lame duck MP
David Chaytor, Bury North’s MP who has admitted to claiming £13,000 of taxpayers’ money for a mortgage which didn’t exist, has decided to stand down as an MP at the next general election.
This is a sad end to a career in public service that goes back over 12 years in Bury, and many more years further back as a Councillor in Yorkshire. Mr Chaytor’s current predicament is a personal tragedy. I strongly suspect, and I really do hope, that his mistake was nothing more sinister than that. Justifiable criticism of his conduct on this occasion should not outweigh the praise he is due for fighting Bury’s corner for the last dozen years, and for dedicating the majority of his adult life to trying to make this country a better place and fighting for his beliefs.
I am disappointed in him, but let’s not forget the service of a man who’s been MP for my home town for as long as I’ve been able to vote.
I think it’s a shame though, that as he calls time on his political career, he hasn’t been braver. I think he should have stood down now.
His decision to quit at the next election (which might be as far away as May 2010), goes some way to acknowledging the immense harm that his “unforgiveable error” has done to the office of MP for Bury North. But it does not go far enough. He should resign now, rather than limp on as a lame duck MP until the leader of his party calls an election and he can stand down to receive his parachute pay-offs and fade away.
He has said that the remainder of his time in office will be about “explaining his errors.” The people of Bury North though, will only hear his explanations alongside those of dozens of others caught out by the Telegraph and standing down as a result. If he wants to explain himself, why does he not put his head above the parapet and do it now? Let the people of Bury North make the call, not him. If his explanation is good enough, let them judge him on it. They are being deprived both the choice and the explanation, which will be washed away with the froth of the others.
Liberal Democrats have said all along that power needs to be returned to local people. They should make the decisions. In his final act, Mr Chaytor has taken power from the people of Bury North, who are saddled with an MP suspended from his party and struggling to clear his name. The people of Bury North deserve better.
Local people should decide David Chaytor’s fate, not David Chaytor himself. Once again I ask Mr Chaytor to do what he has done often over the last 12 years but refuses to do now – put Bury North first and resign immediately. Explain yourself, and let the people decide.
Rick
2 Comments
have your say
It shows how insidious was the process which snared many MPs into false claims that David Chaytor (who I didn’t know, but several correspondents reckoned was a sincere socialist) and Elliot Morley (who was one of the few Labour ministers who would give straight answers) got enmeshed in it.
Richard, the question “why doesn’t he stand down now?” is a pertinent one - but you give part of the answer yourself, and it is hardly rocket science.
If he stays until the next Election, he’ll maximise both his resettlement allowances, and his pension. Those are the “rules” - and those who defend the existence of those rules should not complain.
The rules are in place to ensure that, above and beyond an MPs salary, an MP can claim for this, that, and the other, in pursuance of his elected position. All fine and dandy - but then we find that some MPs are exploiting those rules to the absolute maximum, and some other people are up in arms about it. Leaving aside those who might have gone beyond what is allowable, I’m afraid it does make sense to me that, where any allowance is available and claimable, some will think nothing of doing just that.
Is it moral? Probably not. Er… correction - certainly not.
Is it legal? Well, if it ain’t against the rules, yes.
There is an old adage, which goes “rules are made to be broken”. More realistically, rules which are there are bent and twisted, like a sponge, in order to wring out the maximum benefit for those who live under those rules.
You have said that an MP should be paid a “proper” amount for the job - and I totally and absolutely agree with you. We also agree that MPs who need a “second home” should have help to meet the costs. But I cannot accept that MPs need “rules” for allowances, which are not explicit in meaning, and thus open to “interpretation”.
Pay an MP £100,000 pa (or more, if you want - but let’s have a specific figure).
Pay a specific amount of Mortgage Interest payments, and utilities, and nothing more. Or preferably, pay a fixed rate (based on market conditions), for the rental of a property.
Ensure that ALL (that’s 100%) of any Capital Gains on the property the Taxpayer is funding, is paid back to the State, when an MP vacates the Second Home. Why should an MP profit from it?
Pay all legitimate out-of-pocket expenses, where such expenses are published and proven.
Place MPs on a Contributory, rather than non-Contributary Pension Scheme.
Office workers costs to be paid, at a fixed rate, from a Central Fund, after an Interview Procedure which is seen to be fair and open.
Place a total ban on an MP having other employment (paid or otherwise) during his period of elected office.
Remove the unfair subsidies and exemptions that the Palace of Westminster enjoys. Examples: Up goes the cost of smoking and drinking - but not inside the Palace of Westminster. Smoking is banned - but not inside the Palace of Westminster. Seriously… what makes them so special? Why are they exempt from rising costs, or the Laws we have to live under?
Dump the Expenses and Allowances “rules”, which are demonstrably flawed in their present form, and an open invitation to be “interpreted” if allowed to continue in any other form.
Put simply - we all work in order to be paid. If we can, we save. If we can’t save, and can’t make ends meet, then we borrow. But allowances are there in order to make a job feasible and bearable - not to afford a life of luxury to the person claiming it. (It’s been joked about, but… what logic in the rules actually allows a claim for a Duck House to be made, and then accepted as reasonable?) A blind man on a galloping horse can see that it’s nonsense.
Those MPs found guilty of serious misdemeanours MUST be investigated for Fraud, and if there is evidence, try them and convict them.
And… (gasps of shock, horror), if necessary, bring in an all-party Government, and get the whole thing sorted out and put to bed, BEFORE a General Election, so that when we vote, we know who we are voting for, where we are sending them, and what they can expect, when they get there.
The fact is, for all the huffing and puffing coming from all sides, the very last thing that MPs want is ACTUAL change. And unless the pressure is maintained, in real terms, nothing of substance will happen, beyond a dozen or so MPs getting their wrists slapped, and kicked out of Parliament.
The House of Commons is an elected body, meant to represent the ordinary working men and women in our society. It can never regain the trust and respect that it (apparently mistakenly) enjoyed, unless society is confident that its’ members are living according to the same basic rules as everybody else. Yes, they should enjoy a lifestyle commensurate with their position - but, never again can we allow them to get away with such immoral, unfair, and offensive “Do as we say, but not as we do” behaviour.
OK, OK - I’ll shut up now!!