Dave
Don't forget she's already paid back £13,000
Jukebox Jury
I've got a soft spot for Hazel, so I might be biased here...
But I think I'm one of the few people in the country that thinks the whole expenses row is a load of old tosh. Individual MPs are being blamed for going along with a system that was set up by Thatcher years ago - she made it clear to MPs that the public would not swallow high profile large pay rises for MPs (even though she thought they deserved it) so she set up a system whereby salaries would be supplements by expense.
It's a completely potty system, but it's what was there. Everyone knew what was happening - MPs, press etc. It wasn't until there was a recession and public expenditure became tight that the press thought they'd make an issue of it. They've taken a holier than thou approach to it which sticks - as Stephen Fry said journalists are some of the worst people around for fiddling their expenses.
If you compare the salaries of other high profile public servants - say local authority Chief Execs - then MPs salaries simply haven't kept pace.
In 1997 an MP would have earned roughly the same as a local authority Chief Exec, if not a little bit more. These days you will struggle to find a CE that earns less than £100,000 yet an MPs basic salary is about £65,000. I've known a few MPs over the years and they work bloody hard for their £65k. A lot harder than a lot of top public servants that earn a lot more than they do. And when you add up the fact that they have to split their lives (and their families) in two by spending half their life in London and half in the constituency... then £65k is a joke.
Why would a good quality lawyer / headteacher / public servant / doctor / entrepreneur etc... give up their current job which is better paid to stand for election, to serve in Parliament, to serve their constituents, to put up with long hours and crappy lives for the sake of £65k?
If we want a system whereby the public are represented by talented and committed people in parliament, then we need to pay for it. Otherwise, we simply attract those who are rich enough to not need the salary (think of half the Tory front bench...) or those that simply don't cut the mustard (insert countless names here...) and parliament spirals into a laughing stock.
There, rant over. I've got an essay to write...
Dave