I HAVE taken a good shufti at the proposed cuts in expenditure that the partners in crime from the Westminster marriage of convenience have stuck before us. No surprises there. Anyone would have thought that the press had been tipped off as to the contents of the document over the weekend but shame on me for having such base thoughts.
So the minsters, of all shades of opinion, are going to have to pig it and share their cars from a central pool rather than each having their own. There is even talk of them walking on some occasions - not when there are no press photographers about they won’t. Or is that just another base thought?
Beyond that where has the axe fallen on the budget of the Palace of Fun at the bottom end of Whitehall? Well that’s a good question and one that, no doubt, a few would rather wasn’t asked.
Cuts in the subsidies on the bars, restaurants and tearooms in the House? Cuts in the costs of MP’s office administration? Cuts in overall staffing levels? Cuts in overseas ‘fact finding’ missions? Cuts in the levels of MP’s support and research staff? A reduction in the overall level of sickness pay received by MPs? New legislation taking 50% of all MP’s outside consultancy fees and plonking the lot into a central government fund?
So the nosebags remain full and the troughs are still overflowing. The jollies and junkets continue and the help available remains verging on the staggering.
Of course, there have been adjustments made to the levels of handouts that our legislators are dolled out each week on a gilded platter but those all pre-date the general election.
No doubt, the opposition, ever the people’s champion, will raise one heck of a stink about it all. They will charge in demanding that cuts should be universal and seen to be fair. They will insist on an immediate reduction in perks, swindles and baksheesh in Parliament. They might and there again, I suppose, there is a vague possibility that they won’t. But if not them, then who?