Two sides of the public coin...

I see that the MOD is in trouble for trying to claw back, what they consider to be, an overpayment of compensation for our injured troops (The Times, Thursday July 30 2009). On top of that, they want to limit the amount of money paid out to any returning forces personnel injured in the line of duty, who may go on to suffer further complications after their initial surgery. Although denying that saving money is the driving force behind their appeal against increased tribunal awards for two injured servicemen, the fact that they are seeking to ensure that the interpretation of the compensation scheme is properly applied, suggests that the levels of compensation being paid are seen to be to high by the civil servants administering the scheme. This is known in the trade, as 'protecting the government purse', a phrase that I have heard used many times in local government circles to describe the process of gate keeping budgets used for benefit claimants and alike. There is nothing wrong with gate keeping public money in this way, in fact it demonstrates how seriously this responsibility is taken by government officers in the course of meeting their obligations and duties, The trouble is though, that this level of gate keeping does not seem to apply to those who write the rules and who are supposedly governing our country, i.e. MP's and government ministers. You know the ones I'm talking about, the ones who use public/government money to buy duck houses, have their moats cleaned etc. and who are also not required to submit receipts for the smaller amounts of public money that they decide to spend, which of course allows corruption via the back door to flourish nicely thank you. This then is an example of how two sides of the same coin, the public coin, are so vastly different; one regulated side for you and me and the other seemingly unregulated side for the elected members of Westminster. Nothing surprising there then.