Tory blogs have been falling over themselves to exonerate Michael Gove from this "flipping" expenses fiddle. And if he wasn't "flipping", but genuinely did move, he has every right to be miffed.
But with all the other "flipping" that's going on, what did he think was going to happen? And really, why should the fucking taxpayer pay for him to move because he couldn't hack the commute? If you took a job in London that involved commuting and couldn't hack it, would your fucking employer happily pay for you to move? Mine would laugh in my face before telling me to fuck off.
And if Gove was on such moral high ground, why was he claiming for nights at the Garrick?
No, I'm afraid this just shows tribalism from the Tories, happy to "attack MPs" while their lot are still in the clear, but quick to defend their own when they are accused of exactly the same behaviour.
The deafening silence from the Tory and the LibDem benches when Labour was being hung out to dry was, to my mind, the true message about expenses, which tribal Tories and LibDems are rushing to actively ignore or quietly pretend isn't the case: the majority of MPs, from all parties, are concealing at least one claim each that would get you or me sacked from our jobs.
Don't focus on the egregious thievery. Don't fall into the trap of "well, at least it's not as bad as it was in Five Bellies case". Look at each expense claim and think to yourself: "would a reasonable employer fund this?"
I bet you we find at least one sackable offence per MP.
7 comments:
Nice to see the ghost of Mcbride lives with the way number 10 is arse raping hazel blears with their sympathetic media chums.
Has anybody called the RSPCA. Surely chipmunk bothering is an offense in Brave New Britain?
Funny enough, I was just about to blog about the Chipmunk bothering.
If it didn't make me sick up a little in my mouth I would be posting about chipmunk bothering as well. It is a sad day when we have to blog defending one of theirs.
My employer moved offices from North London (near a tube station) to North of Potters Bar (reachable only by a train then a bus) but still expects me to get to the office by 7.30am.
When I told him my commute would now take a minimum of 90mins (up from 60 before the move) and cost £30 a week more, he laughed and told me I was "unlucky".
At no point has he contributed to my house repairs, furniture purchasing or pornography watching costs. Weirdly, he expects me to be happy contributing for all those things and more as claimed for by our MPs.
I suspect one of us may be insane.
You are spot on of course. We knew all MPs were fiddling expenses. After all, it's golden eggs for all. Since the Speaker is in charge of expenses and he had been called to account over his use of them, and basically blagged his way through the accusations and wouldn't resign, it was a green light to all MPs to get troughing.
Relocation expenses aren't out of the bounds of possibility, although I don't know how likely they are in these straitened times. I got a job offer a decade or so ago that would have necessitated my moving from Yorkshire to Surrey. The company was willing to fork out about £2,500 in up-front expenses to move me. I ended up not taking the job and emigrating instead; the company I finally worked for paid about $4,000 in moving expenses.
@David G: relocation when you take up the job, fair enough, or if your employer moves you elsewhere, also fair enough.
But if you took on a job and then asked your employer for a relocation allowance afterwards because "travel was inconvenient", he'd just piss himself laughing.
Post a Comment