Rewarding Failure
The Daily Telegraph has been the newspaper with its finger on the pulse - when it comes to MPs and their expenses.
A report in today's paper makes interesting reading.
The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is apparently desperate to avoid a Commons mutiny over next month’s long awaited reforms of MPs' expenses - which is expected to sweep away many of their existing allowances.
But the Prime Minister, allegedly, has a cunning plan - which involves cutting the pay of 100 or so government ministers by £20,000 a year - raising an extra £2 million to dole out as an early Christmas present.
The £2 million (of public money) would be shared out amongst all 646 MPs - giving them each an extra £3,000 a year - but without any further cost to the tax payer.
Sounds like a wizard wheeze - until you consider the fact that it amounts to rewarding MPs for abusing their own expenses system.
The present rules are clear - claims are allowed only if they relate directly to the performance of an MP's duties.
So, buying tins of dog food or paying for cleaners and gardeners at public expense - should never have been approved by the fees office - but, more importantly, should never have been claimed in the first place.
A report in today's paper makes interesting reading.
The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is apparently desperate to avoid a Commons mutiny over next month’s long awaited reforms of MPs' expenses - which is expected to sweep away many of their existing allowances.
But the Prime Minister, allegedly, has a cunning plan - which involves cutting the pay of 100 or so government ministers by £20,000 a year - raising an extra £2 million to dole out as an early Christmas present.
The £2 million (of public money) would be shared out amongst all 646 MPs - giving them each an extra £3,000 a year - but without any further cost to the tax payer.
Sounds like a wizard wheeze - until you consider the fact that it amounts to rewarding MPs for abusing their own expenses system.
The present rules are clear - claims are allowed only if they relate directly to the performance of an MP's duties.
So, buying tins of dog food or paying for cleaners and gardeners at public expense - should never have been approved by the fees office - but, more importantly, should never have been claimed in the first place.
If government ministers can afford to give up £2 million - then it should go to a good cause or back into the public purse where it belongs.
Rewarding MPs with a cashback scheme worth £3,000 a year - is the same as rewarding the bankers and other city fat cats - for their part in bringing the economy to its knees.
