Michael Ancram, MP for Devizes, rang me this morning anxious to amend his column in this week's Gazette after he was given a bit of a mauling by the Sunday Telegraph over his parliamentary home allowance.

The Telegraph had got itself into a proper lather because the MP claimed around £20,000 to spend on his house in Marlborough. This is perfectly legit but what vexed the Telegraph was the fact he spent it on painting the house and getting rid of moss.

The paper was fuming because the allowance is supposed to help MPs fund a constutuency home
as well as a place in London near the House of Commons.

Particularly those who are based a long way from London and would otherwise have to wander the streets or frequent places of ill repute if parliament was sitting until after the trains had stopped running. (Thank good ness that never happens.)

The Telegraph argued that a bit of painting and moss removal is not exactly a vital expense and questioned whether the public ought to be funding it.

Michael pointed out that there were 250 claims higher than his, although obviously not all of his fellow cllaimants own a substantial part of Scotland or are married to the duke of Norfolk's daughter.

This is what had the Telegraph in apoplexy, which is rather odd seeing that its target audience is mostly retired colonels and the landed gentry who would jump at the chance of getting hold of some public money to repair their stately piles (and I'm not referring to the NHS).

I can see both sides of the argument. It would have been fairer of the Telegraph to have also listed all of the allowances that Michael is entitled to but hasn't claimed.

What is equally amusing is the indignance registered by a profession that is fabled for bordering on the realms of fantasy when it comes to submitting its own expenses (and I'm referring to national journalists here of course, us in the regional press are as straight as an arrow when requesting our own meagre recompense).

The issue of MPs' allowances, expenses and donations is a hot topic at the minute and the nationals are fixated on trying to outdo each other when it comes to catching MPs with their financial undergarments around their ankles.

It is getting to the point now when these exposes are met with utter indifference. Revealing that at MP has been slightly inept in the probity of their claim has all the shock value of revealing Christopher Biggins is fond of show tunes.

The debate does again raise the question of whether our politicians should be paid for doing their job. Being in a position of power should not be an opportunity to make money. I have often thought the very fact someone wants to be in government ought to disbar them from doing it.

But equally leaving only to those who can afford to do it leads to inequality and a government made up of the landed gentry, something that will be familiar to anyone who lived through the Heath era.

Just the other day I was chatting to the wife of an ex-Chippenham townh councillor whoi had had to give up because he couldn't afford to take the time off work.

That same town council has now raised its council tax precept to fund an allowance pot. Is this a flagrant abuse of power or a fair and democratic way of ensuring that those who make decisions that affect our daily lives come from all walks of it?

One thing is for certain, we will come down hard if any of them blows it on moss removal...