(no subject)
May. 12th, 2009 01:03 pmYou know that the MP expenses furore has become a really big deal when a newspaper like the Torygraph is holding "socialist" MPs up as a good example!
In some ways, the storm that has arisen over MPs expenses really feels like a tempest in a teacup. Similar expenses have been claimed in years gone by, and it feels as if this story is a good filler now that people aren't worried about swine flu. (Today I received a leaflet from the government, by the by, on how to protect myself from swine flu - possibly a bit late, guys?) Many of the expenses that MPs can claim seem reasonable considering the remit of their jobs. The fuss over the accidental claiming for 2 adult films by Jacqui Smith - clearly an embarrassing mistake - reflects a desire by the press to feed gossip to a public that is increasingly dissatisfied with its government. On the other hand, it does seem like a lot of people have really been taking advantage of the system; the fact that so much money can be spent and the rules have not been broken suggests a need to reform those rules (a process which has in fact already begun). This is particularly annoying when I think how I have worked for central government departments on several occasions, and I know how carefully civil servants are expected to watch their expenses - it would be nice if MPs did the same.
It seems that a lot of the queries about expenses comes from the practice of owning second homes. Most MPs require a base in London as well as in their constituency, and MPs are not paid so lavishly that running two households is necessarily easy. I do think that greater common sense could be applied to the way second properties are run, however, and I like Kelvin Hopkins' suggestion:
This would of course involve a substantial initial outlay from the government, but in the long term could be beneficial, I think. The Prime Minister's residences are owned by the state; why not do the same with MPs' properties? Obviously, I'm not an economist, so I have no idea if this idea has any weight...
Anyway, this is all by-the-by when we consider the more important breaking news of the moment... Peter Andre to divorce glamour model Jordan. And here we were all rooting for those crazy kids to make it.
In some ways, the storm that has arisen over MPs expenses really feels like a tempest in a teacup. Similar expenses have been claimed in years gone by, and it feels as if this story is a good filler now that people aren't worried about swine flu. (Today I received a leaflet from the government, by the by, on how to protect myself from swine flu - possibly a bit late, guys?) Many of the expenses that MPs can claim seem reasonable considering the remit of their jobs. The fuss over the accidental claiming for 2 adult films by Jacqui Smith - clearly an embarrassing mistake - reflects a desire by the press to feed gossip to a public that is increasingly dissatisfied with its government. On the other hand, it does seem like a lot of people have really been taking advantage of the system; the fact that so much money can be spent and the rules have not been broken suggests a need to reform those rules (a process which has in fact already begun). This is particularly annoying when I think how I have worked for central government departments on several occasions, and I know how carefully civil servants are expected to watch their expenses - it would be nice if MPs did the same.
It seems that a lot of the queries about expenses comes from the practice of owning second homes. Most MPs require a base in London as well as in their constituency, and MPs are not paid so lavishly that running two households is necessarily easy. I do think that greater common sense could be applied to the way second properties are run, however, and I like Kelvin Hopkins' suggestion:
...I have signed an Early Day Motion calling for the nationalisation of all second homes. If the state owned flats and rented them out to MPs, there wouldn’t be any problems about second home allowances or switching homes from one place to another and you wouldn’t have these problems with capital gains tax.
This would of course involve a substantial initial outlay from the government, but in the long term could be beneficial, I think. The Prime Minister's residences are owned by the state; why not do the same with MPs' properties? Obviously, I'm not an economist, so I have no idea if this idea has any weight...
Anyway, this is all by-the-by when we consider the more important breaking news of the moment... Peter Andre to divorce glamour model Jordan. And here we were all rooting for those crazy kids to make it.