Parkinson's Law

One of C Northcote Parkinson's less well known laws runs something like this, that the larger the sum of money involved in any decision, the less time a committee will devote to it. The £50 billion project goes through on the nod because most committee members can barely comprehend the amount involved, lack sufficient understanding to really question it, and are keen not to risk displaying ignorance by speaking up anyway. Conversely a small sum (such as a 10p increase in the cost of the committee refreshments) will have them at it hammer and tongs; all the committee understand the economic principles involved, most feel guilty that they didn't really pull their weight when it came to that earlier £50 billion commitment, and the likely outcome this time round is a deferred decision pending the report of a sub-committee set up to consider the matter further.

Thus it is with our government. Their indefensible abolition of the 10p tax band for the low paid has occupied our Chancellors (present and previous) and our representatives in parliament for some time now. Contrast that with the decision to use tax income to prop up a wildly inflated property market to the tune of £50 billion by bailing out reckless financial institutions; scarcely a murmur. The gulf between those two decisions is ironic beyond belief.

It goes almost without saying that both decisions are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Immoral too, but then morality hasn't entered into 'New Labour' deliberations over many years now.

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.