The Nadine Dorries defence

Here.

Now she\’s actually correct. Yes, the ACA has grown because no one was willing for MPs to have the pay rises the salary review boards suggested over the years. It was felt that MPs should not get whacking great pay rises, for the public would not wear it. Thus have expenses instead which the public won\’t know about and thus won\’t complain about.

She\’s absolutely correct, this is indeed what has been going on.

However, the truth ain\’t all that great an excuse.

For the logic of it is is that, umm "You wouldn\’t give us more money so we took it without you knowing".

In other words the Nadine Dorries defence is "It\’s OK because we were lying to you".

8 comments on “The Nadine Dorries defence

  1. “Homer, this is absolutely the worst thing you’ve ever done.”

    “But Marge, I swear that I never thought you’d find out”.

  2. If they’ve been paying themselves expenses in lieu of a pay rise does that mean they’ve been evading income tax? You or I would be getting a whacking great tax bill with penalty for that, with the possibility of a visit to the local jail as well.

    Whichever way the twist or turn they are guilty as hell.

  3. It is not bloody OK.

    For every one of the swindling chiselling buggers, there are at least another four candidates for the job. So where is the market pressure for increasing their salaries?

    Sorry, but being an MP isn’t even semi-skilled, any oaf can get voted in if he has the right contacts. My own MP is an ignoramus par excellance. An unskilled labourer. He is an apparatchik, a cipher, trotted out whenever his party whips need him.

    Most of them would do it for half the money, because they have no marketable skills.

    So award them all a payrise, of minus 50%. Then let us see who remains.

  4. The public would not give them a pay rise because the public did not consider them worthy of a pay rise. And, duh, the public have been proven to be right.

    A backbencher gets three times the average (not sure by what measure) pay of the electorate. I struggle to see why many of these troughers should be paid three times, let alone 5 or 10 times more.

  5. No, you don’t understand. Having government chosen by MPs voted for in elections is a great system for deciding everything – except what MPs are paid. Unfortunately the voters get that one wrong, and their will must be subverted. But for everything else, it’s the right way of deciding things.

  6. Pingback: Final (?) thoughts on the expenses scandal (The Quiet Road)

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.