Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Parliament & Primary Schools - The Parallel

Could Gordon Brown be more out of touch with public opinion if he tried?

The MPs expenses fiasco, understandably, has been the big topic of conversation in workplaces, pubs, and post office queues the length and breadth of the land. The impression I'm getting from conversations (held and overheard) is that it's not so much the money, but the fact that these people - the people in charge of our country - can not be trusted. So what does he propose? Make them understand the rules, stick to the rules, and accept draconian punishment if they don't ? No. He proposes in "independent body" to oversee the whole issue of MP's expenses. In other words, confirming that they can not be trusted to deal with it properly and honestly themselves, so someone else has to be appointed to watch over them.

Mrs Wurzel works in a primary school which of course has to toe Mr Brown's Government's guidelines. What happens there if a child repeatedly misbehaves and can not be trusted to follow the rules? Is the child punished? No. He or she receives "0ne on one" tuition, or in other words someone independent of the class teacher is appointed to watch over them.

Spot the parallel here?


  1. Yes, the issue is one of trust and judgement. Parliament has bought some time with the interim measures on expenses, but the MPs who will now be debating the Parliamentary reforms include those whose judgement has been called into question. That seems like a flaw to me. It is necessary to have a good clear-out and elect some MP's that we can trust before proceeding with any reforms.

    As for comparing Parliament to Primary schools...

    ...PMQ's !

  2. I`d leave it all to Joanna Lumley.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.