I GET really brassed off at this time of year when MPs' allowances are published.
And it's all down to the ridiculous interpretations placed upon them based on ill-informed judgement and political opportunism.
Here's how it goes: MP X claims £100,000 and gets ridiculed all across the press for being the most costly member in the country.
Meanwhile, MP Z claims £5,000 and not a word is written about them, save for a few paragraphs in the local paper.
But add into the mix the fact that MP X has sent 1,000 letters responding to constituents' concerns and have a fully staffed office open 7 days a week, while MP Z has sent just 20 letters and they only have one part-time staffer, meaning for the rest of the week you've got just an e-mail address.
Look at it that way, and it's a completely different ball game. The fact is that most of the allowances claimed are for stationary, office and staffing costs. There's no 'snouts in the trough' or politicians lining their own pockets. Afterall, the openess of the allowances scheme makes that almost impossible.
There was a quite excellent article in our sister paper, the Crosby Herald, last week makes the very same point - but this time it's an actual MP, Claire Curtis-Thomas, saying it.
She tells how her work is constricted by fears she will be criticised for spending too much. Can you believe that?
Over the past year the Labour politician has claimed £143,016 on expenses such as staff, travel, and incidentals in comparison to the £168,889 figure that earned her the nickname ‘Costly Claire’ in 2004.
But she says the media furore that followed made it impossible for her to continue working late hours seven days a week.
So there you are; MPs are now afraid to work hard incase they get lambasted when, in reality, they should be given a massive pat on the back.
You just couldn't make it up...
- Post to:
del.icio.us
Digg
Newsvine
Nowpublic
Reddit
« Previous | Home | Next »