Can and should
We’re continually informed by MPs at the centre of the expenses controversy that they acted within the current guidelines (Gordon Brown hit by new cabinet expenses revelations, 8 May). By that logic the excesses of errant bankers such as Fred Goodwin is beyond reproach. After all, he didn’t technically act illegally. Which begs the question, if you are a senior minister earning a substantial salary, what part does your personal morality play when you consider claiming for cleaners and second homes? Set against the backdrop of a growing gulf between rich and poor (Gap between rich and poor widest since 60s, 8 May), this failure of politicians to grasp the difference between “can” and “should” is staggering, and goes some way to explaining an increasingly disillusioned electorate.
Colin Montgomery
Edinburgh
Posted on May 11th, 2009 at 5:34pm under Sleaze, UK politics
| Related posts... • Bank bosses ‘very angry’ about expenses • Tony McNulty’s silver lining • First among equals |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 1 Comment |
This is the corollary of the NuLab policy – though Britishness classes, ASBOs, wide-ranging counter-terrorism law, etc – to eliminate the distinction between things that are bad and things that are illegal. If everything that’s undesirable is against the law, then everything that’s legal is ipso facto above board. Ta da!
It’s a trick that was tried most thoroughly in colonial Salem in the 1690s. It didn’t work there, either.