Sunday, June 08, 2008
Sleaze Again for Tories but Surely Child Care Costs Should be Met?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6472/a6472db6b56d0a3aae2140082e86ba4c6f701973" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/379e5/379e5de5f37dcb492af09cfa68547fcb44dfc03e" alt=""
Having said all that, and imbibed only moderately on the nectar of schadenfreude, I have to agree with one columnist that it seems maybe a tad unfair on Spelman. As Yvonne Roberts points out:
It's a bit rum that in a profession awash with allowances, including the cost of staying away from home, office expenses and a London supplement, there's no allowance for the one job that should matter as much if not more: someone to care for the children.
So it's 'thank God the pressure's off Gordon for a while' but also 'hasn't Spelman (and fellow women MPs) a case for child care being paid, in any case?' I think they have.
Comments:
<< Home
There shouldn't be allowances for any of those things. They should pay for childcare etc from their substantially-above-the-national-average wages.
Ian_QT
Well, at least your's is a rational comment; I say, if they are going to have allowances for so many things, child care seems to have a more compelling case for it than most things.
Post a Comment
Well, at least your's is a rational comment; I say, if they are going to have allowances for so many things, child care seems to have a more compelling case for it than most things.
<< Home