Because we feel that if we publically join forces on one issue, people might expect us to join forces on other issues that we don't agree with.

Very well put Chris.

I really wish that political communication wasn't reduced to soundbites. If you look at the figures, it is obvious that either salaries in the entire public sector need to go down or employees need to be laid off. The government should start getting into the technicalities of what they are doing so that we see that they don't have any other choice.

This, then, is an opportunity for the cabinet to show the country the meaning of 'loyalty'.

Wow, you have totally convinced me.

I think outside 'work' (as opposed to outside 'earnings') is something that voters shouldn't want. I don't want my MP spending 15 hours a week doing something else. But I do want him/her to have a wide-ranging knowledge of life outside politics. If more people belonged to political parties there would be more scrutiny of these things at the selection stage.

'MPs' essential objection to the watchdog is that it appears to presume they are criminals even before the first receipt is submitted.' This sounds like the conflict is a relational one rather than a structural one, arising out of a group of, let's face it, mostly self-managed and self-important people suddenly being told what they can and can't do by junior administrators. It sounds like the whole thing was rushed.

I would have a concern about matched funding - it seems to me that it would be open to abuse by the larger charities who have enough cash to redirect funds from one fund number to another in order to claim a higher amount. How would you control for this?

Having checked the expenses of senior managers, I don't know what all the fuss is about. IPSA needs to be competent and MPs need to respect the rules.

Very interesting.

The Telegraph forgets that Cabinet Ministers are elected representatives of the people. If its recent handiwork is found not to be in the public interest then it has doubly insulted the electorate.

Definitely. We don't need to let him into the country to prove that we have engaged with the issues.

Glad to see the cabinet putting up a more robust defence on this issue. I would, however, have liked to see courses being designed more flexibly to introduce night classes and incentives for mature students to go back to study.

The National Curriculum was brought in under the Tories, no?

I am in agreement with Ken Clarke's prison policy, but this is one person who really deserves to be locked up for the public's safety.

Excellent article.

This is good. Most teachers have probably contravened the rules at some point anyway so this will really take the pressure off.

Some object to the government being a nanny. I definitely object to the State being a lover!

Haven't read all the comments in depth, but emphatically want to express the opinion that the Mail is rubbish and really shouldn't be the touchstone of public sentiment that it often is.

TypePad HTML Email Sorry, I actually intended to post this in response to the other person in the conversation. From: TypePad

TypePad HTML Email This kind of ranting and reasoning doesn’t deserve a response. I’m done trying to discuss it with you. From: TypePad

It's amazing how you can tell the state of my mind from a couple of sentences. Let me be clear: in much the same way that I think doctors deserve a higher salary than retail workers because of the greater skill and risk it requires to do their work, I think that those who literally put their lives on the line for the country deserve a decent pay package and the peace of mind that comes with knowing that things are taken care of back home. I also think it would be politically disasterous to make a cut in soldiers' pensions at a time when they are actively engaged in conflict. While we're at it, we might want to increase nurses' pensions.

Absolutely. Of all people, those in the armed forces deserve to not have to worry about their pensions.

I really love the emphasis in this article on policy development. Our representatives are there to do what is best for us and that requires serious consideration of the issues and the research.

Really couldn't agree more. The representation of religion in society over the last couple of decades has been so shallow that we as a public don't appreciate the 'implications' that seemingly fair but simplistic legislation has for people of faith.