Another day, another sleazy politician

Conway to stand down at next election

No surprise really, is it. And good riddance. But it's hardly in the Hain class; it's just someone over-claiming expenses at the end of the day. And lets face it; snouts in the trough seems to be par for the course when it comes to MPs expenses. But we certainly need clearer rules for MPs. The first is that they should be required to declare payments they make to any members of their family that they claim expenses for, if not prohibit such payments altogether. And secondly, since it's another widespread scam, that there should be an absolute prohibition on claims for rent involving properties that are owned by the MPs concerned (the so-called 'constituency office').

But the fact that a fairly minor Tory MP has been caught dipping his hands in the till shouldn't be allowed to shift the focus away from Peter Hain; it almost beggars belief that he is so short of principle that he would accept money from a supporter of the former National Party in South Africa. Or maybe I'm just naive in thinking that there might be any politicians left in this world who have principles.

It's difficult to see why anyone wanted the Deputy Leader post anyway, unless that they were hoping that Gordon would pop his clogs before too long and they'd find themselves in line for the top job. At least John Cruddas wanted to represent the ordinary party member; the rest are all far too constrained by collective cabinet responsibility to do that so the post is utterly meaningless.

Why should we pay for the Labour Party to elect a deputy leader?

'
Peter Hain forgets to register the odd £100,000 or so...

Far from being an argument for the public funding of political parties, this latest episode provides strong reason for not going down that route. The great advantage of the current system is that it exposes the politicians like Peter Hain who are contemptuous of the law and the electorate; and the Prime Ministers who should sack them, but don't.

Public cynicism is, I'm afraid, fully justified. Why should we expect Mr Hain to be any more careful with funds donated by unwilling taxpayers than those from spurious think-tanks?

Underhand donations will always exist; ways are always found of exploiting ambiguities in the law. Mr Hain is not the first to receive a 'loan' (instantly repaid as soon as it becomes a matter of public exposure) and I doubt if he'll be the last.

It is to be hoped that this case results in a prosecution; it might remind politicians that they are not in the end above the law.