After the expenses scandal, which showed that the majority of MPs were on the make, the focus has now been shifted to the question of party funding. Another hoo-hah is in the making, but this time, obviously, it is all in aid of electioneering.
Labour and Tory are swopping the names of rich donors like "Lords" Ashcroft and Paul - Tory and Labour, respectively - and they are accused (surprise, surprise), of being tax-dodgers.
As if the very rich in this society were not precisely those best-equipped to dodge the tax man and the ones most interested in doing so!
Add a pinch of "patriotic" demagogy
The main accusation which is levelled at these party donors is that they are "non doms" - i.e., that they do not pay tax to the Inland Revenue on income earned in countries outside of Britain. And of course Lord Ashcroft has made most of his fortune exploiting the poor of Belize, where he owns the country's main bank...
After David Cameron used that "last refuge of the scoundrel" at his weekend conference (it is "patriotic to vote Conservative"!), Downing Street replied that Lord Ashcroft's admission that he had "non-dom" status "blew a hole in those claims".
Even more ridiculous is the claim by some of the patriotic lobby that "foreign" money should not be used for the funding of British elections! One has to wonder what "British" money is? Does money respect borders? Wasn't the wealth in this country always predominantly made "abroad" - from the dirty days of "empire" right up until today? And all the more so, in recent years, when speculation reached its peak - in investments all over the globe!
Indeed, investments "abroad" i.e.,in "foreign" places are the chief origin of British (or shall we say, the City bosses') profits, these days, and with the help of all "British" taxpayers. But we didn't hear the beneficiaries complaining that it was somehow unpatriotic to touch these profits!
What is more, "British" taxpayers' money makes this kind of profiteering possible even during the recession - thanks to the huge amount of cash thrown into the coffers of the bankers. The most flagrant case is Royal Bank of Scotland, which got a total of £45.5bn from the Treasury. This bank has most of its investment business outside Britain.
Of course, demagogic hot air aside, both parties represent the interests of a class which knows no borders when it comes to profiteering. On the other hand, the rich - be they Lords or just plain "Sir", and no matter where they reside, feel perfectly entitled to finance their own favourite politicians. And why would it be otherwise in this capitalist world?
The serious issues
All of this rhetoric seems a million miles away from the serious problems facing the working - and increasingly unemployed - population.
Although Brown&Co claimed unemployment wasn't as high as expected when the latest figure of 2.46m was announced last week, it turns out that the number of people out of work for more than a year - 663,000 - is the highest figure since September 1997. What is more, the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance increased to 1.64m - the highest since April 1997. The fact is that there aren't any decent jobs available.
And it is over unemployment that 270,000 civil servants are intending to strike for 48 hours on 8-9 March. The government wants to cut thousands of jobs, but first, it wants to cut redundancy payments by a third!
This is part of the huge wave of cuts Labour is making in the public sector - to get workers to pay for the handout to the bankers. Local Councils are expected to announce at least 25,000 more job cuts - but if they make a 10% cut across the whole country it could mean 180,000 jobs cut!! What will happen to care of the elderly, or the care of "at risk" children? It doesn't bear thinking about - and certainly it cannot be accepted!
This only exposes the barefaced lie of Brown's ministers who say "frontline services" will not be affected. How can the frontline exist without the "back" line? And they are cutting both - as any postman, NHS worker or firefighter will testify.
In fact, what the government is doing is the opposite of what is needed. It is making things even worse for a population already under fire. Yet unemployment does not have to increase as a result of the crisis. Work could be shared out without loss of income for anyone. Housing could be provided for all those who need it. But only, of course, if the state's resources went to those who benefit society through their work and through their service - rather than to the profiteers and bankers who bleed us all dry.