MPs expenses

[despaer]

I notice that the various party leaders are all playing Hair Shirt with regards to making their followers obey the ruling that they must pay money back much to the fury of the MPs concerned. Now, there are various arguments over whether this is fair, given that the rules are getting applied retrospectively but a good number of them were obviously

Comments

[andygates]

Screwed, yes. Retro-screwed, no. If I got retro-screwed, I'd spin up the Union rep, take it to tribunal, and win.

[despaer]

That's the whole point. It is unfair. It's the first time that this lot have been caught in the blast of an unfair thing which they were powerless to do anything about. The rest of us have to cope with this in life and one of the main purposes of MPs, it seems to me, is to try and reduce the number of circumstances in which life is unfair and you have no redress.

Some of them though, and by no means all, have clearly reckoned that the main purpose is to get wealthy and influential and this episode will hopefully serve to focus their collective minds.

[andygates]

I'm sensing a lot of schadenfreude here, you know. Take the party leaders: lost an eye playing rugby; lost a kid the other year. Plenty of unfairness and crappy rolls of the dice there.

Sounds to me like you're just wishing some credit crunch on their house out of (understandable) meanness, and then retroactively justifying it.

[despaer]

Fair do's for those two. But as a collective, they have generally sought to misbehave without fear of the world turning against them. Citing an exception or two does not disprove the general theory and remember my original point. What is done is done, it won't make me wealthier or happier if they get fined. But if they get to actually experience a juggernaut they can't stop moving through their lives like this then it may make them a little more sensitive to the concerns of some of their unluckier constituents, and that is the good that can come of this.