It's not your money, it's ours!

Speaker Bercow is showing that he has as much idea about the feelings of the people who pay his salaries as his predecessor. Admittedly Michael Martin spent £724,600 on refurbishing the residence between 2000 and early 2008, plus a further £992,000 on the garden and improved security, whilst John Bercow has only ordered redecorations costing £20,659.36, but that is so far. The Telegraph reports that:

"£3,600 has been spent on fitting locks to the windows and having workmen check that access ducts in the wall panelling are lockable or childproof. A further £3,880 has been spent on planters to provide additional child safety on the terrace. One of the two studies is to become a playroom, with £1,087 spent on redecorating it. The note suggests putting washable paint over existing paper. For the drawing room, a £6,764.30 sofa suite has been ordered, together with window seat cushions costing £760. In the kitchen, a new large clock is being provided at a cost of £80, together with a noticeboard and blackboard, costing £86.73, a hob guard at £47.88 and an additional high-level pulley clothes airer. The utility room is being remodelled at a cost of £497 in order to provide more hanging space. The floor in the room, and in the bathroom, is being replaced. A double bed is being bought from Ikea for the housekeeper’s apartment for £479. It is understood that a further £20,000 has been allocated to cover general maintenance."

The new chief trougher, or rather a spokesman justified the expense with the inevitable "will nobody think of the children?" type statement:

"The Speaker believes that these are reasonable costs and they reflect the fact that he has a young family to accommodate. He believes people can see that it is not extravagance and that the money has been spent wisely, for example the bed that he has brought in is from Ikea".

In fact what it really shows is that he can be frugal but only where his family housekeeper is concerned.

The part of the report that really pissed me off though is when John Bercow is reported to have

"told Commons staff that he will personally pay for other items such as a children’s Wendy house that will go on the terrace, and a climbing frame for Speaker’s Green, adjacent to the apartment."

I'm sorry, of course he should pay for those items, he's not doing the taxpayer a favour by paying for them. Has he still not got it? His children are his, not ours. We will, reluctantly, pay for essentials but Wendy houses and climbing frames are not essentials. Mind you neither are large clocks, window seat cushions etc. etc. etc. What does he think his huge salary is for? Does he think that his salary is all to go into savings whilst the taxpayer pays for all his living expenses?

I did also enjoy(!) this piece of self-justification:

"While the new Speaker’s spending is certain to attract criticism, he will argue he has spent far less than his predecessor, Mr Martin, and point out that the changes had to be made because of his children."

"He has spent far less than his predecessor"; is that a valid excuse? First, Bercow has only be in position a few months, so give him time. Second is he promising that this will be the end of the expenditure? Third would a murdering doctor get off because he has killed less people than Dr Harold Shipman? As for the children explanation; maybe that was another reason to elect Ann Widecombe rather than John Bercow.

I do hope that the rumours of a credible candidate being prepared to stand against John Bercow come the next general election are true. I wonder if I can move my vote from my current constituency to Buckingham as I actually think I would enjoy seeing John Bercow unseated almost more than my current Labour MP.