The Nuremberg Defence

I love it when I am able to speak with a client about a problem and use an example from the news. 

I have spent a day and a half or so training a group of people who will have to do sales (rather than sales people) in the dark art of pricing and costing. One of the areas we covered was in disbursements - charging on expense to the client. One of my bright young things suggested that this was one area in which there was no need to search around for the best price. "The client's paying - if they want the best price, then they should buy the tickets", was his case (although not argued in a very articulate manner - I do worry about young people today).

Hmm. We engaged on a long discussion about this, using the focus of our lovely MPs. I explained the Nuremberg defence which most had been using (and, being the intelligent readers you are, I have no intention of explaining it again) and we looked at our own reactions to that defence. Sadly some of the team still didn't quite see that this analogy meant that they had any requirement to shop around on their client's behalf. I decided to try a more near-to-home example and asked one of the trainees to give me (it is possible that, as an oversight for which I apologise, I used the phrase "lend me...". This is, of course, not fraud. I have apologised and, if necessary, will pay the money back. A little parable for you.) some money for lunch. "How much do you want" she said (somewhat suspiciously, I thought). "£20 please", I said with my had out. "But you can get lunch for about £5 just around the corner!" "Yes, but it's not my money..."

That started another debate - partly, unfortunately, about the inapplicability of the example. Oh well.

I have a colleague who says that Ethics cannot be taught. Most of us who went through a top-notch MBA will have studied Ethics as part of the course, and having gone through that programme, I'm siding with my colleague. People will either act according to a set of socially-approved ethics, or they will not. I don't think that the requirement to "do the right thing" can be taught. It can be explained, but only as a concept. 

This seems to have been the problem with some or many of our MPs (some or many depending on your level of cynicism). Some of them just don't seem to get it. 

Let's hope that our shiny new Speaker in late June "gets it" and can help to engender a new ethical approach to expense claims on our behalf. Let's also hope that at least some of my group "got it" and will go on to treat every expense as if it is their own.

SC

Politicians, spin and stupidity

More political scandal. More politicians exposed as manipulating a system and "forgetting" certain expenses (and tax)  - have a look a this from the BBC.

Two things. Firstly isn't amazing that with all these revelations, not a single act of omission or forgetfulness has been to the benefit of the tax payer rather than to the benefit of the politician. Surely the law of averages would suggest that, if these really are mistakes, then there should be cases of under-claiming coming to light too...

Secondly, would this really be allowed in business. I don't mean so much the "claim everything you can" mentality. I suspect that we've all worked with people who thought like that - and with their opposite who would not think about claiming for a newspaper or other small expense and who have to be reminded that they paid for a team lunch. In general this is private money and so long as the owners of the business know what is going on and are content, then fine,

My concern is with a group of people who are being exposed - not as fraudsters or cheats - but as penny pinching tight-wads who seem to spend a huge amount of time working out how to ensure that they spend nothing of their own while claiming as much as possible from us - the tax payer. As one of the "owners" in this circumstance, I do now know and I am not happy. Mostly I'm not happy with the view that, although a particular politician has been exposed as making a number of "errors" and, as importantly, as a person determined to screw every penny possible out of a job in which they were supposed to be serving the people, feel no inclination to resign.

This is a system which desperately needs an overhaul if public confidence is to be restored. A wave of sackings or resignations would help too. Why not simply use the same rules that the rest of us have to cope with so far as tax is concerned - is the the expense wholly and appropriately attributable to the business being undertaken? No need for a new set of rules - why not just treat everyone the same.

The Secret Consultant for Prime Minister, I say...

SC