MPs could receive a big pay rise to compensate them for the loss of their generous expenses, it emerged last night.*grinds teeth*
The head of the watchdog charged with ending the expenses scandal has suggested that some allowances could be scrapped in favour of a higher basic salary.And they want to whip up public opprobium against bankers bonuses..?
This could see pay for a backbench MP go up from almost £65,000 a year to more than £80,000.
Westminster sources told the Daily Mail yesterday that there was panic at the scale of the rebellion over an official audit of MPs' claims, due to be published early next month.Could their utter contempt for the people who fund their lavish lifestyles be any more obvious?
Dozens of the 107 MPs who either retired or were defeated at the 2005 election are understood to be appealing against repayment demands from auditor Sir Thomas Legg.
Will any politician stand up and say 'This stinks, and it won't go on under my watch!'
And if they do, will they mean it?
6 comments:
`Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself` so said Arthur Conan Doyle - and with a name like that he must've known what he was talking about.
No politician will say anything, they're all tarred by the same brush, even the so called honest ones never said anything about the abuses that they had to know were going on.
One thing that could be done is to fix a politicians wage to the national average and remove subsidies from their bars and restaurants. Provide them with a travel pass and a room in Westminster to live when they are there. If they have to live on an average wage, we'll soon see the average wage go up.
The pay needs to go down - by at least 50%. That way we might get some people that see it as a vocation - doing something for the good of all - rather than a way to the good life.
The solution to this is already in existence. However, I don't think that the solution will be attempted. The solution is, of course, the legal power of the Queen to veto Parliamentary legislation.
She could put a stop to this continuing scandal in the twinkling of an eye. She could refuse to sign any bills - including, particularly, financial ones - until MPs and the political parties stop treating the public purely as tax-fodder and genuinely reform (not just "change") the political process which supports this legal mulcting. Why won't this happen? Because the Queen is far more interested in preserving the House of Mountbatten-Windsor on the throne than the (constitutional) welfare of the public. Vetoing a bill would call the whole UK monarchical system into question.
Actually, I think that, in England at least, she's nothing to fear. AFAIC Scotland and Wales can become republics as long as, at the same time, they become self-supporting and then can reward their own representatives in the custom they've come to expect (or not).
Rage overload in 3... 2... 1...
"`Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself` so said Arthur Conan Doyle..."
Oh, boy, he must have been a prophet! That describes this bunch to a tee...
"Provide them with a travel pass and a room in Westminster to live when they are there."
That would solve a lot of problems. Just need to ensure the co-ordinates are widely available... ;)
"Vetoing a bill would call the whole UK monarchical system into question."
Indeed. Why would she rock the boat?
"Rage overload in 3... 2... 1..."
I know what you mean!
Post a Comment