by Suff » 12 Nov 2013, 07:41
Absolutely I could put them on the same regime too.
But let's be honest here. How could there be any "independent" body to set the expenses for MP's? There is a total conflict of interest with the job of MP's and any body or person with enough seniority or knowledge to do the job.
So what have we done? We have replaced an "honour" system with a "largesse" system because some 100 MP's had no "honour".
We replaced 650 MP's, of whom some 100 abused a system many felt honour bound to abide by, with a system that all 650 feel duty bound to charge every last fraction of a penny of their allowances or lose it.
Apparently we, the people, have decided they can't be trusted and must take a closer look at what they expense and set limits on it. They, apparently, now feel that they are being put upon and are living, totally, up to their living allowance.
What could not have been predicted? The press handled it extremely badly in the first place. They should have worked with the government and brought pressure to bear under threat of exposure. Underhanded, you might say, but, in the end, what did the media circus achieve? In the end we foot the bill and the bill just became a whole lot larger.
Do we call this a success? Not in my book!
All it did was sell newspapers and destroy the careers of a few people who might actually have been quite good constituency MP's.
There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand Binary and those who do not.