It was fortuitous that David Ruffley MP did not succeed in taking his life because of the expenses scandal. That is the allegation in today's papers. But, I believe, another MP died prematurely because of the same torment.
All MPs who lived through the press induced nightmare will have shuddered
in horror at Simon Walters' story today in the Mail on Sunday. He says that David jumped under an oncoming train. Witnesses are quoted. His explanation is David suffered deep depression following newspaper criticism of his expenses. It was believed that he got over it, but the anguish returned.
Another strong minded Tory MP burst into tears last year on the Terrace of the House when he told me about the insults he and his family had suffered. A Labour MP was so distraught about the accusations, his hand would tremble uncontrollably when the subject was raised. He died prematurely.
None of these three were crooks or dishonest. David attempted to buy furniture that was more expensive than most people would pay. The prices were within his allowances and he was encouraged to spend it. It was unwise but not dishonest.
The scalding abuse of the papers wounded these three conscientious MPs. They all subsequently blamed themselves for destroying their self respect. They prized their integrity above all else. They felt destroyed at the deepest level of their beings.
Their suffering was disproportionate and unjust. I wish David and all others well. Their torment will not be understood outside of the family of Westminster.
Indeed. It's very sad. And fury inducing to see the injustice of the new expenses regime, made ECM worse by the feather-bedding by the oversight quango.
Life-wrecking mess. It should never have been allowed to get this far. Transparency years ago would have brought this to heel all by itself.
Posted by: Kay Tie | June 20, 2010 at 11:26 PM
You were insulting Paul with ageist comments yesterday. I wouldn't mind but you didn't even have the decency to carry on past your initial attack which was replied to. Do us all a favour and go away Kay Tie.
Posted by: Ad | June 21, 2010 at 12:40 AM
I agree. He must have been embarrassed as his local paper mocked his expenditure which as you say was within the rules. I did not like the rules but if they were in existence then I too would have gone for more expensive items of furniture.
I feel terribly sorry for this man who is obviously in great despair. I hope he is getting the support he needs. Indeed, I may write to him personally to let him know thta many of us are thinking of the anguish he is suffering.
Posted by: Jane | June 21, 2010 at 08:55 AM
"You were insulting Paul with ageist comments yesterday."
Rubbish. It's not ageist to point out that someone no longer has the intellectual faculties to detect their own hypocrisy. It can happen at any age. As you ably demonstrate: you are immune to hypocrisy. If you were ever to become sensitive to it you'd curl up and die from the shock.
"Do us all a favour and go away Kay Tie."
It's quite clear that without me injecting some reality into your ideological delusions you'd totally detach from reality. I regard my contributions to this blog as necessary aid to a community stuck in intellectual poverty.
Posted by: Kay Tie | June 21, 2010 at 05:51 PM
"I wouldn't mind but you didn't even have the decency to carry on past your initial attack"
Oh, just in case your faculties are failing faster than you have hitherto demonstrated, you will be sure to re-read the comment section to that posting, won't you?
You do realise that the comment system now shows comments in reverse order? And that my second comment, carrying on past my initial "attack", was made on June 20th, a day before you wrote your hostile comments here?
Posted by: Kay Tie | June 21, 2010 at 06:09 PM
If you weren't being ageist then I apologise.
'I regard my contributions to this blog as necessary aid to a community stuck in intellectual poverty.'
They make me laugh at least so they can't be all bad.
Posted by: Ad | June 21, 2010 at 07:09 PM
"If you weren't being ageist then I apologise."
Apology accepted.
I've said it before and it bears repeating that age discrimination is wrong, every bit as corrosive as racial or gender discrimination.
Posted by: Kay Tie | June 21, 2010 at 09:57 PM
Your views are greatly valued by me, Kay Tie. I am not not all insulted by comments that appear ageist. I'm tickled pink that in many ways I have improved with age. Can't believe my luck to be doing the job I love well past three score years and ten.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | June 21, 2010 at 10:53 PM
"I'm tickled pink that in many ways I have improved with age."
It's a constant battle between increasing wisdom and decreasing intellect. The best mathematicians do all their great work before they are 30. Having been an academic, and now well past 30, I know the truth of this.
On the other hand, knowledge and experience gained since then outweighs my decline. So far.
"Can't believe my luck to be doing the job I love well past three score years and ten."
Politics is (and should be) one requiring wisdom from experience, so it's no surprise (for example) that the 16 year old sharp-as-a-pin William Hague is outshone by his elder self (and indeed outshines his baseball capped earlier self).
Posted by: Kay Tie | June 21, 2010 at 11:12 PM