52%

I've sat on my hands about this one for a while now. I actually wanted not to descend into a fit of inchoate rage when I talked about the fact that the trough-snufflers' own enquiry into their trough-snuffling showed that it was not a minority of MPs that was thieving, but actually a majority.

It showed that all the leaders of the LibLabCon hegemony were caught with their fingers in the till, yes, our world-saving, sainted Prime Mentalist; the buttered new potato who thinks he will lead us to a promised land and the other guy, the nonentity and most useless of the lot all helped themselves to an extent that even the bloke with the bucket of whitewash couldn't hide it.

One of the great scandals of modern times was Enron. Enron had 30,000 employees, of which 8 were charged with shenanigans. If they'd been as crooked as our parliament, then the courts would have had to process 15,600 cases. Instead, a company so vilified that it changed the law around the world prosecuted eight people and only five of them were convicted.

It seems readily apparent to anyone from the outside looking in that the four cases brought thus far really are sacrificial goats, but society would be upended if all the bastards who had actively troughed were all brought to book. (Interestingly, their propensity to trough was directly proportional to the safety of their seat.)

But really, it's not about those who have been charged, even though as a proportion, that is orders of magnitude higher than were prosecuted at Enron. No, it's about those who haven't been charged. It's about those who haven't been charged. In fact, it's also about those who are apparently blameless.

Because I really do believe that if the cunts who ran my employer's expense department were to take hold of MP's expenses, there'd be a huge pile of P45's and final written warnings in the post, possibly as many as 600. The huge number of MPs standing down at this election is indicative of how badly they think they will fare.

The most ludicrous aspect of this is the sense of outrage and entitlement displayed by these greedy fucks, daring to challenge the minor slap of the wrist that Legg is asking for. My fucking heart bleeds for them, I've had claims for as little as a couple of quid challenged because of some trivial technicality to the point where a senior manager has had to scream at the expense office to pay me. The idea that over a period of five years I might build up £50 of dubious payments is risible, yet in the "safe seat" article above, there was a stated tolerance of £5000 worth of dubious payments.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble now, so I will summarise:

1. It's perfectly possible to allow MPs reasonable expenses, most companies manage it quite well. But claims need to be clearly within the rules, and "honourable" members should not be considered honourable. I'm quite sure my employer would be happy to take over the Fees Office for an annual consideration.
2. Legg did not catch everyone, you can bet on that. The fact that Jacqui fucking Smith didn't have to repay anything absolutely proves this.
3. If you vote for one of those caught and having to repay money, you are a fool, a knave and quite possibly a traitor to your country.

The raw data is out there. If you don't check the status of your MP's expenses before you vote, you could be voting for a criminal. In this election, your vote could actually mean something.

So do your homework before you vote.