I haven't been long in from tonight's Socialist Party branch meeting and from a quick glance at the News at Ten I see our august members of parliament have (albeit narrowly) voted to leave their rather generous expenses arrangements intact. So we can now look forward to Alistair Darling lecturing our class about pay restraint "to fight inflation" (forgetting that some 93% of workers had below inflation pay rises this year), while we're supposed to forget 30 ministers voted along with "hard up" MPs to keep the £24 grand to furnish their second homes.
When record numbers of the electorate are alienated from parliamentary politics, MPs voting to line their pockets in this grotesque manner isn't astute public relations. But it doesn't have to be like this. The three Militant MPs, Dave Nellist, Terry Fields and Pat Wall managed to juggle their casework and everything else demanded of socialist representatives only on the salary of an average worker. The rest of their income and expenses went into the movement and made them more effective tribunes of our class. How many of our current crop of parliamentarians would be willing to follow their example?
When record numbers of the electorate are alienated from parliamentary politics, MPs voting to line their pockets in this grotesque manner isn't astute public relations. But it doesn't have to be like this. The three Militant MPs, Dave Nellist, Terry Fields and Pat Wall managed to juggle their casework and everything else demanded of socialist representatives only on the salary of an average worker. The rest of their income and expenses went into the movement and made them more effective tribunes of our class. How many of our current crop of parliamentarians would be willing to follow their example?
>The rest of their income and expenses went into the movement and made them more effective tribunes of our class.
ReplyDeleteUm. At the time I had a certain admiration for Dave Nellist's adherence to his principles (no comment on the politics ;-), but surely "expenses" are meant to be spent on expenses, and there shouldn't be anything left over.
If there is anything left over that goes anywhere else, surely that would be fraud?
Perhaps you didn't mean to say "expenses"?
I make no comment here on the other f-word and houses sold to self-benefitting trusts in order to pay oneself rent out of taxpayer funded expenses for a property one already owns. Not do I make any comment on "The Letter W brought to you today by the county of Derbyshire."
Matt
Let me add I'm firmly with you on the Expenses vote, but I'm with the Times that the non-approval of the national accounts is probably more important today.
ReplyDeletelets see who shall I vote for at the next election lets see, dum dee dum, whoops forgot i do not vote anymore
ReplyDelete