Expenses again - keeping topical

More revelations over the last few days. No surprises really.

What still beggars belief is the MP's sense of "entitlement".

The Malik "500 other MP's claim similar amounts". i.e. The maximum

The Speaker's alleged "I din't come into politics to not get what is owed to me"

...and I could go on ad nauseaum.

My assessment of the one's who are refusing to pay anything back, is that they are fully aware that they will not be re-elected, thus the gravy train has stopped for them. They know that giving anything back is futile (in terms of their election hopes) and it's thus a question of morals versus greed.

No surprises at the outcome of that one eh?

So where do we go from here?

Soundbites like "root and branch reform" yada yada are all well and good, but in practical terms, how does one go about achieving that?

I think what we are seeing here is just the tip of the iceberg. We've already seen other stories regarding the House of Lords (Baroness Udding, Howarth and Hollis) as well as the utterly corrupt Taylor and Truscott.

I'm sure the Civil Service has it's miscreants, and don't get me started on quangos.

So, here we have big spenders of public money which needs to be accounted for.

I personally subscribe to the "value for money" mantra, i.e. the benefits outweigh the expense.

I don't subscribe to political soundbites from out current government where "we've increased spending by xx billion on yy department".

I could quite easily increase my spending on my groceries bill by getting a taxi to a supermarket 100 miles away. Does that make my groceries any better? Nope. Have I spent more money on them? Yes.

So value for money is important to me.

How do we assess whether the money spent is adding value?

Clearly someone needs to check what has been spent, and whether it has delivered value for money.
Not all change delivers value for money, sometimes the projected benefits don't materialise or costs overrun, but the majority of change should deliver value for money, and we must learn from change that does not.

I'm sure Terms of Reference and Measures of Success etc. are all nicely written down and tracked by the various government bodies, but who are they accountable to? (Clearly the public, but who actually sits down and examines the detail?)
The government? Hmm, they're as honest as the day is long (i.e. Scandinavian Winter).

One to mull over for the day I think!