The Telegraph's exploration of expenses trundles on, and the unsated must now dine on the familiar diet of furniture and money. Two problems have arisen for the expenses scandal. One is the naming of this epsiode. It is not just one parliamentary scandal. It is a scandal of scandals, a collective. The Italians called theirs 'mani pulite': clean hands. But we have not yet found a coin. On a positive note, we have foregone the lazy suffix of gate, as Parliamentarygate does not roll off the tongue.
Names have two roles: to provide a label that everyone can recognise, denoting the scandals, and to round out a consensus. With our media, the naming of things has become a tool to trigger the immediacy of the story. Yet, other names may only emerge from the event: either as a consensus term for those who experienced it, or as an agreed historical label for the narrative.
We do not have a name for these scandals beyond the "expenses scandal", a pathetic nominalism that reflects the enormity of this episode. When new revelations and allegations hint that the payments for phantom mortgages are widespread and that they took place with the co-operation of the parliamentary authorities, scandalous impropriety tips over into criminal investigation:
The arrangements – for which the justification is not clear – came to light in the claims files of Mr Chapman, the Labour MP for Wirral South.
Mr Chapman, who has been a ministerial aide, approached the fees office at the end of 2002 to explain that he was repaying £295,939 of the mortgage on his designated second home in Lambeth, south-east London. This reduced the interest payments – met by the taxpayer – from £1,900 to £400 per month.
“By paying off capital I am forgoing interest and investment opportunities elsewhere,” he told the fees office.
He and an official “thus agreed that the mortgage should remain for ACA (Additional Costs Allowance) purposes at the original amount”.
An email between senior officials within the fees office discusses Mr Chapman’s case and discloses that it is not unique. “… I have heard similar arrangements being agreed to in the past,” one said. “Personally, I do not believe that such an arrangement should ever have been suggested.”
As moves to undertake a vote of confidence in the Speaker move forward, we face the possibility of a partisan Parliament. If Labour votes to retain the Speaker, their tenure will debase the House with Martin, partisan and hulking, presiding over the House and stopping the mouths of the opposition.When one hears how far some comment that Martin must go, they forget that New Labour does not know the meaning of the word 'must'.