A Naïve View of the MP's Expenses Row

Switch on the television or open a newspaper anywhere in the UK at the moment and you will be unable to avoid the ongoing scandal about Members of Parliament making false, excessive or frivolous claims on expenses at the public's cost. No party appears to be immune, although those not in power are still managing to make some political capital out of the situation - by criticising Gordon Brown for allowing a system so open to abuse to exist.

Anyone not calling this the biggest scandal of our times is denounced by the press as being naïve. I am just not that bothered, so call me naïve too.

In the letters pages of those newspapers and radio phone-ins, there does seem to be a general anger about these issues. I wonder whether this does reflect the mood of the nation, or these are just the minority who are bothered enough to write or ring in? Certainly I can't describe my own emotions as approaching anger. I have a form of self-satisfaction that my rampant cynicism in our political system appears to be justified. Of course that isn't constructive in any way. I take my place alongside the millions of others happy to have a pop while not offering any alternative view or participating myself.

Another thing I've derived from the events is amusement. While there was plenty of skulduggery from Labour and Liberal MPs, who cannot be absolved, it fell to the Conservatives to make the story genuinely entertaining. Michael Ancram, Stewart Jackson and James Arbuthnot all claimed expenses to clean or repair their swimming pools. David Davis for work on his paddocks. Michael Spicer for gardening at his Manor House (I'll forgive him the expenses for his helipad - safety can't be compromised!). Michael Gove bought lots of furnishings from David Cameron's mother in law. Best of all Douglas Hogg, who claimed to have his moat cleaned! His moat!

It hasn't escaped me that all of these exotic claims came from representatives of a party that not long ago made huge calls for a change in political culture in Downing Street. Not without merit but perhaps there is a need to get their own house in order. (And by that I don't mean by claiming for housekeepers...). All the same, I'm not angry. It needs to be sorted out, I agree. But I think there are so many more important things that need the air-time this endless debate is taking up.

Actor and writer Stephen Fry has come under fire for suggesting that the expenses debate is not that important. It appears that he was unhappy that the press concentrated on the issue so much, when journalists are famous for expenses claim ingenuity. This has not been a popular viewpoint with the press, surprise surprise! I agree to an extent, not because of any hypocrisy on the part of journalists but simply because the amounts of money concerned are trifling compared to spending in other areas.

£20 billion on American built nuclear submarines. You could clear 100,000 moats with that.