For weeks, all you hear everyday on the UK news is exposure of what UK Members of Parliament (MPs) has been claiming for expenses.
You see, in the UK,
MPs receive allowances to cover the costs of running an office and employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.
Sounds fair enough, right?
But it has come to light that
expenses claimed by the MPs covers from pay-per-view adult films, to magazine subscriptions. From dog food, to home repairs and luxury furnishings.
On top of all that, the
annual salary for an MP is £64,766!!!
Was there no one who sets what can be claimed under expenses?
Someone who checked if all the expenses were valid?
Does the MPs not realise that they should have known better not to use tax-payers’ money as their bottomless purse to pay out their monthly expenditures?
Dog food?
Come on!It started initially with MPs employing their family members to be their staff, with good salary, mind you.
Nepotism? What Nepotism?! Doubt they even know what it really means.
So, each MP is allowed expenses for two homes - one in their constituency and the other in London.
Can the government 'impose' that the MPs constituency home to be the first home and provide accommodation in London?
Would it not be easier for the government to provide a purpose built accommodation, i.e. a one room / studio or two room apartment for each MP to live in when in London for work. The government pay for the accommodation and bills, and any additional expenses like a Wii console or fancy plasma screens, will be bore by the MPs. After all, the London 'home' should be somewhere to live in when working in London. Adequate and comfy, not the presidential suite of the Ritz-Carlton.
Do they not live in their constituency home and serve the community there? If not, then why run for election at your constituency?
Why bother?
During one of my visits to the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, there was an extract of an MP's diary. It said that she travels to Edinburgh from her (undisclosed) constituency and stay in the Edinburgh accommodation (could be home) for a few days and then travel back to the constituency home where her family lives.
Now, why can she do it but not the others down in London?
I think if I said to my boss that I want to keep my Aberdeen home and need expenses paid for my Glasgow accommodation, I’m sure he will tell me to sort it out myself from my own pay.
In the current economic climate, it doesn't make sense that the people's representatives are having a good time - good pay (£64k, I won’t complaint) and bottomless expenses, when employment is at a record high.
Forget Hamilton Island. It does seem that the best job in the world is being a British MP. On top of a rather comfortable pay, you can claim for bottomless expenses.
Good life for some...
And people wonder why I don't have faith in politicians.
