Parliament, The Telegraph and Jo Swinson

winner-best-ld-blog-postOne of the advantages of being effectively out of action for the past month is that because I haven’t been able to even attempt to cover the expenses row, blow-by-blow, I can now afford to take a somewhat wider view. It has been a fascinating couple of weeks, revealing not just how Parliament works but how the media does too.

Were the Telegraph right to publish these expenses details given the fact that they were due to be published this summer anyway? On balance, I’m afraid I think they were. To start with, I am deeply sceptical that the fees office had any intention of actually publishing in July. They’ve been buying time for literally years now and I have no doubt they would have sought even more time then. Secondly, it was clear that they were falling over themselves to be helpful to MPs with embarrassing claims they wanted to cover up. By fighting the FOI requests every step of the way, ultimately the Parliamentary authorities have made the problem worse. To that extent then, the House of Commons as collective body, deserves everything it is getting right now.

But the problem with the data being in the hands of a single newspaper is that everything we get is transmitted via its own idiosyncratic political position. And the problem with this being an example of chequebook journalism, as opposed to the investigative journalism of people like Heather Brooke, is that the paper has to make good on its investment – and that means extending the coverage and the ramping up the salaciousness of it as much as possible.

In terms of the Telegraph’s politics, it has always and always will be the Conservative Party in print. They couldn’t have got away with just publishing the Labour and Lib Dem expenses details, but it is interesting how they have portrayed the Tory ones. The types of claim broadly fit into three categories. The first, which the Labour MPs exposed tend to fit into, are about mortgages, “flipping” and capital gains. They played the system to make personal profit. The second, which the Conservative MPs exposed tend to fit into, are about moats, duck islands and country piles. Literally, they fit into a different class. The third, which the Lib Dem MPs exposed tend to fit into, are about using the system to get the odd perk, be it a trouser press, an orthopedic chair or a packet of chocolate Hob Nobs.

They category that has captured the public imagination has been the second one. Hogg’s moat has achieved iconic status within just a few days. Yet the Telegraph has conspiciously attempted to portray all three as morally equivalent at all times. It held off publishing the details of Tory MPs for as long as possible, meaning that when they were exposed, Labour had already been buffetted for the previous five days.

I happen to think the house flipping and profiteering is as bad as the showering of cash onto country estates, but the third category most certainly is not. There is no question that the Conservatives have an image problem here and the Telegraph and the Tory press have done all that they can to mitigate this. They have been falling over themselves to portray Cameron’s leadership on the issue as dynamic and forthright despite the fact that, when you look at it in detail, it turns out he isn’t particularly interested in reform at all. He insists that his richer MPs must buy themselves out of the hole they’ve dug themselves but is keen for MPs to be able to continue to profiteer via the ACA. He wants a snap general election, something which would have the effect of scapegoating a handful of MPs in marginal constituencies whilst giving the ones in safe seats renewed terms of office.

A general election now, with the Tories still insisting that (aside from a bit of fiddling), the status quo must prevail, would be a white wash. Yet this is the Telegraph line, too. Fortunately, the Telegraph can’t entirely have its own way and the debacle has revived calls for real democratic reform. It may yet turn out that they have created a monster that they can’t actually control. We can hope.

But the other side that irritates me is the salaciousness of it all. It has started to stop resembling journalism and to start looking somewhat more like expenses porn, designed to titilate rather than inform. What has developed out of this debate over the past couple of weeks is a mood that any expense claim is bad. This is deeply pernicious. Clearly an inner London MP does not need to furnish a second home, but an MP representing a constituency further afield must (this is one of the reasons why I’m sceptical of the calls to scrap the expenses system altogether and replace it with an increased salary – great if you are a single man and have no real intention of representing your constituents, hard cheese if you aren’t). Are we really going to get precious about someone having a telly in their second home? The agenda of the Telegraph has been to convince you that yes, yes you should.

And finally, there is the innuendo. This is the single worst aspect of the Telegraph coverage. Many of the stories over the past couple of weeks have been rooted in the fact that the Telegraph have been able to get away with “X submitted a receipt which included Y” – thus implying that X claimed for Y whilst knowing that if they did say that they would be open to libel. Yet the suggestion is out there and before you can blink, half a dozen other media agencies are repeating the claim as a matter of public record. A lot of the stories they have covered have turned out to reveal nothing more than minor errors in paperwork, but that hasn’t stopped them from smearing everyone with the same brush.

The print version of the Telegraph article on Jo Swinson

The single worst example of the Telegraph coverage can be found in their story about Jo Swinson this week (declaration: Jo is a friend of mine, but I don’t accept this makes a word of what I have to say any less true). The online version of this story has been sanitised by the online editors, who were presumably too ashamed to publish the print version unchanged. The print version has the headline: “Tooth flosser, eyeliner and 29p dusters for the makeover queen” and contains no less than nine seperate photographs of Jo taken at various stages over the last eight years.

There are so many dreadful aspects of this story, I don’t know where to start. Let’s start with the misogyny. What Jo is being attacked for here is for wearing makeup. The epithet “makeover queen” implies someone who has had a lot of makeovers, yet Jo has never appeared in one of those articles about MPs getting glammed up or anything like that and doesn’t do the daytime television circuit. The article states that Jo is “known in Westminster for the attention she pays to her appearance” yet I can find no media story which has remarked on this before this piece. Google “Jo Swinson” and what you find are lots of stories about her campaigns against excessive packaging, winning local constituency battles such as the one to stop a new prison being named after one of her local towns and the leading role she has played in fighting for Parliament to be more accessible and transparent. Is she a slob? Hardly, but since when did not being one become worthy of criticism?

Secondly, the article is complete, unmitigated bollocks from beginning to end. Read it closely and you will find that the Telegraph isn’t stating she claimed for an eyeliner or feather dusters, merely suggesting that she might have done. There is an irony there in that if Jo had not issued them with as full a statement to act as a counter-balance, their legal team might have blocked the story on the grounds that it would have been clearly defamatory. This paragraph is particularly revealing:

At one point, she submitted a Tesco receipt for £22.67 that appeared to show that the MP or an aide went to the trouble of putting an asterisk next to three items, totalling £5.75, for which she intended to claim — a £1.75 chopping board, a “food saver” for £1.50 and a £2.50 sieve.

In other words, what she did claim for were basic cooking utensils. Nowhere in the article at any stage does it claim that a single item of makeup was claimed for – or even ‘asterisked.’ She is being criticised here, not for claiming an inappropriate item on expenses, but for allowing an inappropriate item to appear on a receipt.

jo090523guardianJo has of course rebutted all this, but that hasn’t prevented other media outlets from reporting it as fact, including the BBC (the cost of Jo’s makeup might not come out of your pocket, but the cost of repeating bullshit claims about her most certainly does – they can’t even be bothered to get her photo right) and the Guardian (in print but again, not online – funny how newpapers are afraid to put their misogynist crap on the web for all to see).

After a fortnight, this story has mutated from one about ministers playing the housing market at taxpayer expense to barefaced sexist lies being spread about one of the Commons’ champions of reform and transparency. Yes, the Telegraph have done democracy a service by breaking this story but never forget that they ultimately represent the forces of darkness.

UPDATE: I’ve written letters of complaint to the Telegraph, the BBC and the Guardian and would urge you to do the same.


  1. Totally, 100%, spot on. I was furious enough about the treatment of Jo and I hadn’t realised how thoroughly nasty the print edition had been.

    Am I allowed to say that I think they are vile mysoginistic bastards who ought to be ashamed of themselves or is that going too far?

  2. Excellent analysis James and I agree that your relative distance from this story has likely helped you to look at it from this perspective.

    The media are now just going for everything and everyone. No defence seems to be legitimate in their eyes and this will hugely damage our political system if it doesn’t start to abate soon.

  3. Also the “makeover” seems to consist of at most two minor hairstyle changes over about about a 10-11 year period.

    Hell – I’ve had that many over that timescale
    (any comments about disappearance will be treated as defamatory and purused with the utmost rigour 🙂

    This is the latest chapter in how women politicians are treated with regard to their appearance. I first really noticed it running Jackie Ballards leadership campaign. Both Jackie and Charles had lost weight in the run up to that campaign (both before Paddy’s resignation).

    Virtually every profile piece on Jackie mentioned it, nearly none of the ones on Charles did.

  4. This is in the same category as Woolas and his nappies. Ridiculous.

    But I’m not thinking all the Lib Dem scrapes are eventually going to involve such trivia.

    Take Norman Baker and his office at home. There’s an example and a pointer. Paul Rowen MP has a somethingly contrived tenancy with a Lib Dem Party who in turn rent from a Lib Dem owned and run Limited Company. In the first year of that the Lib Dem unit published accounts – they’ve now stopped doing so – that appeared to show that (a) the rent to the party from the LD run limited company had trebled (b) they hadn’t been paying it before, just support in kind (c) they charged Rowen twice this new annual rent for a 2/3 year period and for only part of the space and (d) the Lib Dem run company then gifted most of the party rent back in a declared donation.

    £5,000+ apparently into party funds – all orignating from tax and council tax payers – in 8 months for premises that had previously been free and gratis.

    Since that time there have been no published accounts and no declared donations.

    Rowen has taken adverts at a ridiculous cost in 10s of 1000s of Focus newsletters. £700 for each edition for an advert which merely states his surgery details. As if they wouldn’t include those anyway!!

    Rowen has also used tax money to pay for a hoarding at a football ground which some believe he previously said he was financing from his own personal money.

    Rowen claimed his council allowances for three years as a two jobber. There are vague noises about giving the money to good causes. But Rochdale folk and nearby bloggers would like to know what these are/were.

    Rowen also employs political operators and the word on the streets is that their prodigious output (hats off, respect is due) are more along party political lines – including some very nasty smears and some press interference – than bona fide parliamentary assistance. Some of those accounts, back in the day when they used to publish them, also stated in black and white that political workers, previously funded by the party, would now be paid from the taxpayer funded allowances.

    And Rowen has also used tax payers money to buy web services from a local publisher … who for the most part have been bigging him up and refusing to cover his opponent, even cropping the man from a photo and excising him from a story about a meeting he, the Lib Dem PPC, had organised. That sort of thing has increased since that PCA payment arrangement started.

    His second home costs are also very high sided indeed. Rowen’s ACA has been more than twice my friend John Leech’s claim. In fact it could be close to treble it next time.

    Meanwhile Leech too rents from Lib Dem supporters, also shares with his Lib Dem party, also takes tthe odd surgery advert in focus newsletters and Manchester News, also employs a number of activists whose work-politics balance is hard to discern, and he additionally has a bit of a printing business – WPS, an unincorporated and unaccountable hobby club! – operating from the office address.

    That “club” has smudgily printed some of his PCA output on their hobby kit i.e. Risos. And also been credited on all sorts of glossy items that they could not have printed themselves. They contribute rent, equipment hire and profits to the cause.

    Leech says he shares his office with the party to “save money”. The only question there is who is doing the saving. How is the split calculated and by whom?

    I’ve seen more of Rowen’s information. On the face of it he looks to be in a far far more serious place with party political activity on the taxpayers than others. But we’ll see when we have more disclosures and have the chance to ask more questions.

    Of course we’ve had Chris Davies MEP doing the advertising on leaflets thing. And Chris Huhne MEP famously did it to aid Chris Huhne PPC back in the day.

    So, is this perhaps a fourth category? Taking money off the tax payer and channelling it to party political activity and funds? By hook or by crook? Is that going to be the main Lib Dem disease? And if so is that better or worse than gaming the system for scatter cushions or even a spot of moat scrapings?

    It may be hard to grasp but I think it’s worse myself.

  5. I am so cross, I just dont know what to say. Jo does not deserve this sort of treatment most unfair. I think to make those discusting remarks about her looks and the fact she takes a pride in her dress, if they said that about other MPs there would be an outrage. If this is all they can do to hit the Lib Dems, they need to grow up or give up.
    All I hear on the street is the MP Expenses nothing else is talked or joked about as much what happened to the credit crunch.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.