With all the debates about Parliamentarians and their expenses at the moment, I was rather interested about the idea that was being mooted about creating halls of residence accommodation for the MPs.
Actually, only moderately interested, because there is no way on earth it is actually going to happen - even if MPs agreed to it (which they won't), the cost to provide the accommodation would be extortionate.
But for some reason it seems that cost has long gone out of the window as a prime motivator for suggested changes to the Parliamentary expenses system. Some people for example just want to show that expenses are not being abused - and don't actually care about any saving to the tax payer at all.
Take Theresa May's suggestion that to stop a minority of MPs "abusing" the £400 second home allowance (and when I say "abuse", I use that term in the sense of using an allowance completely within the rules that are set out) - she thinks the way that you stop that is to give all MPs a salary rise so they don't feel they have to abuse the system.
It is the rules that actually need looking at, not the perceived "abuse" of them, but May's proposal would actually cost the taxpayer more - and those MPs "abusing" the second home allowance would still be able to spend £400 on the things they did before (or anything else they want) and it's OK because it won't be termed as expenses!
The same is true with those advocating buying or building accommodation in Central London to house 65o-odd MPs and their families. How much do the Taxpayers' Alliance think that this idea will cost? I would have thought billions of pounds on current estimates. And then a massive sum on top for security measures to protect such an obvious terrorist target outside the secure area of the Parliamentary Estate. I suspect that the cost would be far higher than allowing MPs to claim for hotels in London or a contribution to the mortgage on a second home that we currently have.
And wouldn't having all these MPs living in halls of residence be a disaster waiting to happen?
Can you imagine elected members sitting around till 3 in the morning listening to Bob Marley and The Levellers, as David Cameron comes in and tells everyone to listen to his new whizzo album by The Smiths? Fine dining in the Commons replaced by snack bars selling kit-kats and pot noodles as people get the munchies? Debates in the House about who ate all the cheese in the fridge (that was clearly labelled), who's turn it is to top up the electricity meter and who's turn it is to do the washing up?
I think Parliament, and the country, should be saved from such a spectacle - but if it goes ahead, expect Endemol to want to buy the rights to televise a fly on the wall programme presented by Davina McCall/Dermot O'Leary. :-/
-
(Photo Source: Havaska, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hotnoodle.jpg)
