How much extra food does one need to be an effective MP?

So, as the dust finally starts to settle following the Telegraph’s expose-a-thon, there’s one unanswered point arising from the expenses scandal which really stands out for me. Why was it ever considered reasonable to give MPs a food allowance?

There are clearly myriad questions arising over the content of the Green Book, many stemming from the fact that the allowance/expense system was a product of MP’s own creation. But, however poorly policed and adhered to, there was clearly some element of consistency in that the system’s main aim is to allow MPs to do the job they’ve been elected to do – namely represent their constituents both in the constituency and in London. Enabling them to claim the consequent expenses for the cost of securing secondary accommodation seems fair.

But how could anyone have decided that a food allowance should form part of the system. On what premise could it be argued that MPs need to eat more as a result of their positions. If they were to leave Parliament, would they suddenly find their food bills dropping by £400 a month. To me, this is indicative of the lax attitude and thoughtlessness at the core of the whole system, and frankly shows why they deserve all the flack they get. Unless, of course, one’s appetite mysteriously increases on being returned to Parliament. The John Bull-esque physique of some of our representatives suggests this may be more than a flight of fancy.