Richard North said: "Reducing the emoluments of our parliamentary representatives would not in any way resolve the defence equipment issue."
I, too, read the Torygraph's front page. Unlike you, I did not get the remotest impression from the article that the writers' main point was that if MPs got less money, soldiers would automatically get more equipment.
The impressions I took away from the article were:
1. It was designed to make trouble for Labour in the run up to their conference;
2. It was an account of the unfairness felt by the censors of MPs' expenses, compared with the lack of proper equipment for the low paid soldiers (an emotion, not, as you claim, a direct linkage of the money);
3. It was a puff for the new book: 'No Expenses Spared';
4. It was designed to boost the Torygraph's circulation.
Your research is excellent, your facts are true, but you neglect the importance of people's feelings.
Believe it or not, I have feelings too ... although many will disagree. I agree with your "take" but would add that I am disgusted to the point of screaming fury that the media (and the DT in particular) so shamelessly exploits such important issues for its own purposes.