MP Claims and Expenses

[Macca]

 

Makes ya sick how long they've been getting away with all this, they're all a bunch of crooks who haven't a clue what to do now they're getting caught out!

[Diego_Sideburns]

They're getting a roasting from the Grimsby audience on BBC1 Question Time at the moment.

[johnny punkster]

said before,say it again...

all politicians are w@nkers....ALL OF EM!

[Diego_Sideburns]

said before,say it again...

all politicians are w@nkers....ALL OF EM!

 

Good point well made.

[opinions4u]

Apparently Phil Woolas got a 10% staff discount on his Tesco receipt (the one that bought the ladies clothes and tampons for his personal use), despite his not working for Britain's leading retailer.

 

Good to see him finding ways to reduce his claims!

[jsslatic]

 

Makes ya sick how long they've been getting away with all this, they're all a bunch of crooks who haven't a clue what to do now they're getting caught out!

 

Has every MP been abusing their expenses? I haven't seen anything reporting that. Sweeping generalisations...

 

Anyway.

 

When we were at school, there was a dinnerlady who used to sell food at breaktime - toast, cakes, burgers, sausage barms etc. Yet for some reason, she didn't care how much you paid. So she'd say something cost eighty pence, and people would give her ten, twenty, maybe even fifty pence if they were feeling generous. No lie, one person once gave her 5p and a button. And this wasn't just kids, this was sixth-formers, prefects...everyone. Her queue used to stretch all the way through the refectory, whilst the other dinnerlady selling the same stuff at full price had a queue of about five or six people maximum. Now, if the school were to turn round (and I still can't work out how they never figured something was amiss), and asked why the takings were so low...would it be the students' responsibility? Or would it be the dinnerlady herself...who either allowed people to get away with paying too little money, or couldn't be arsed to check what she was receiving?

 

Whilst many politicians' integrities have rightly been brought into question, the fundamental problem is the system. Where were the checks to make see if a mortgage had already been paid off? Why didn't anyone putting through the paperwork think 'hold on a second, these two are married, they shouldn't both be claiming for this second home'. The system was there to be abused, and if something's there to be taken advantage of, it will be. MPs should know better, but the crux of the matter is that the correct checks and measures haven't been in place for years.

[opinions4u]

I will claim the absolute maximum that my firm will allow me to claim. Always.

 

I have no expectation that any MP should be out of pocket for "serving" their constituents. Equally, they should not be able to profit from their expenses. Clearly the range of things that they are allowed to claim for is far too wide.

 

If only a NIL turnout at the local elections was achieveable. That would send a clear message from the people.

 

None of these corrupt liars are worth the effort of putting an X in a box.

 

 

[rudemedic]

JSS- that surprises me since I know what school you went too, although it is kinda funny.

 

My Mum knows a thing or two about living in the North-West and spending some of the working week in London- I would say she spends on average one day a week in London (she's just got back from a 4 day trip). She is funded by the taxpayer and although some of her expenses might make some of the MPs expenses seem frivolous its cheaper than the other option- e.g. a Marks sandwich as opposed to a meal in a restaurant. Its quite simple MPs should have the same expenses as the rest of the civil service- and that means if they have to spend over 3 nights a week regularly in London (but also have to have a base elsewhere for whatever reason) they share a two bed flat. They don't get a mortage repayment on which they keep the profit of the house when they resell it. A full list of the MPs expenses from 2007-8 (I think) is availible on the Beeb website and clearly the most expensive expense category is the staffing costs and how many MPs 'legitimately' (i.e. its not against the rules) employ members of their own family but yet they still claim for it. Some of the MPs don't abuse the system- for example the MP for Heywood as my Dad knows him I'm aware of what his circumstances are and his claims seem if anything low. Most of the argument coming from MPs about their duboius expenses claims are that it isn't against the rules- but they set the rules and stuff keeps coming out on how some of them tried to make the rules more favourable to themselves. MPs are civil servants they should abide by the rules of the civil service anyone caught abusing the rules should be made to repay the money and if they can't well then that's the same as tax evasion/theft and that is punishible by a prision sentence. A prision sentance usually makes you have to return any honour you have (e.g. OBE) and you can't be an MP- lets see them fiddle the expenses now when they are punished more than they have been doing.

[Diego_Sideburns]

Whilst many politicians' integrities have rightly been brought into question, the fundamental problem is the system. Where were the checks to make see if a mortgage had already been paid off? Why didn't anyone putting through the paperwork think 'hold on a second, these two are married, they shouldn't both be claiming for this second home'. The system was there to be abused, and if something's there to be taken advantage of, it will be. MPs should know better, but the crux of the matter is that the correct checks and measures haven't been in place for years.

 

You have a point about the checks and measures not being in place. The whole system needs a complete overhaul and it should be conducted by professional auditors from outside the Parliamentary Estate. The Fees Office has proved itself incapable of running its own affairs and the National Audit Office's involvement has been ineffective.

 

In public office one musr be seen to be whiter than white and not guilty of the sort of expense fiddles that may be accepted in other walks of life. Whilst many MPs' integrities are beyond reproach, the generalised criticism of politicians comes about due to the public's perceptiuon that MPs have been found not to possesss the necessary moral fibre to hold office, because they have taken advantage of the loopholes the MPs themselves have allowed in the legislation and regulations passed to police their expenses. It may well be human nature to do that but, when in public office, acts attributed to human nature are not acceptable if perceived by the public to be morally wrong.

 

Public perception is everything and the public's remedy to those classed as miscreants is to vote them out of office, In doing so it must be clear that those voted into office in their place are controlled by properly audited procedures.

 

All this will put many people off voting, but that will let in those well-organised minority groups, whose members will make sure that they vote.

 

If you don't vote, you forego the right to complain afterwards. If you are not already registered to vote you can still register up to 19th May.

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_v...tions_2009.aspx

Edited May 15, 2009 by Diego_Sideburns

[johnny punkster]

All this will put many people off voting, but that will let in those well-organised minority groups, whose members will make sure that they vote.

 

If you don't vote, you forego the right to complain afterwards. If you are not already registered to vote you can still register up to 19th May.

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_v...tions_2009.aspx

 

..and thats the problem.

why vote when there isn't a real alternative..they're all the same!

then if you don't vote,the scummy parties get stronger.

but as already stated,mustering the effort to vote for these fiddlers isn't there.

but they'll be back again,because the minority in this country who do vote will make sure.

time for compulsory voting ...or voting on a sunday?

[Zorrro]

For those who don't vote:

 

Abstention or spoilt vote?

[OldhamSheridan]

I think we have to distinguish between those who are taking advantage, and those who are potentially commiting fraud.

 

Those who claim excessive amounts, switching homes, buying trouser presses are not actually doing anything wrong.

 

A man claiming for tampons I would venture is getting so close to commiting fraud that he should be arrested and brought to trial. Two MP's claiming for the same property needs questions asking. Claiming thousands of pounds on a non-existant mortgage needs similar questions asking. Claiming for a property for a family member in a third home miles from either the London base or the family home, should again be interviewed under caution. Like others, I could go on.

 

Some of these are clearly illegal, and simply paying the cost of a tampon back should not divert from the potential crime commited.

 

I want nothing short of prison for some of these corrupt miscreants.

[Ackey]

Whilst many politicians' integrities have rightly been brought into question, the fundamental problem is the system. Where were the checks to make see if a mortgage had already been paid off? Why didn't anyone putting through the paperwork think 'hold on a second, these two are married, they shouldn't both be claiming for this second home'. The system was there to be abused, and if something's there to be taken advantage of, it will be. MPs should know better, but the crux of the matter is that the correct checks and measures haven't been in place for years.

I'm not going to argue that your wrong, to a large extent you're not. But, who is it that develops these checks and balances? Who created the system? Ministers who were no doubt taking expenses to be there! So if you were asked to develop a system that could reduce your income would you do it? Hell no!

 

I think government has far far greater problems than the weaknesses of their expenses system. However this is in the limelight and if it's a foot in the door for change than that's how it has to be.

[OldhamSheridan]

However this is in the limelight and if it's a foot in the door for change than that's how it has to be.

 

I agree, dissolve parliament and let OldhamSheridan take over as tyrannical leader.

 

I guarantee happiness for all*.

 

 

 

*Or death.

 

[Diego_Sideburns]

..and thats the problem.

why vote when there isn't a real alternative..they're all the same!

then if you don't vote,the scummy parties get stronger.

but as already stated,mustering the effort to vote for these fiddlers isn't there.

but they'll be back again,because the minority in this country who do vote will make sure.

time for compulsory voting ...or voting on a sunday?

 

The BNP could gain a big advantage from current public frustration. Its TV election broadcast last night opened with Nick Griffin referring to the MPs' perceived transgressions.

 

The most convenient way is to vote by post.

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote...ng_by_post.aspx

[johnny punkster]

The BNP could gain a big advantage from current public frustration. Its TV election broadcast last night opened with Nick Griffin referring to the MPs' perceived transgressions.

 

mmm.wonder if he's read mien keif?

seems to be picking up some tips on gorging public anger...

[johnny punkster]

For those who don't vote:

 

Abstention or spoilt vote?

 

done both..what does either achieve?

 

"vote for crap#1...crap#2...crap#3...oddball#1...oddball#2...scummy party#1..."

 

great choices eh?

[Diego_Sideburns]

mmm.wonder if he's read mien keif?

seems to be picking up some tips on gorging public anger...

 

Is that a culinary version of Mein Kampf?

[johnny punkster]

Is that a culinary version of Mein Kampf?

 

lol..german language isn't my strong point...neither is german/austrian "literature"

[Diego_Sideburns]

lol..german language isn't my strong point...neither is german/austrian "literature"

 

However your good point was that, like Adolf Hitler, Nick Griffin and the BNP, just like every other party, are using the technique of mass communication (election broadcast) to get the message across. Also like Hitler, this is being done against a background of economic depression and political turmoil. Against that background the Nazis grew stronger and in the 1932 elections became the largest party - the BNP hope to do the same.

 

Everyone who has a vote should use it rather than regret later.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Diego_Sideburns

[beag_teeets]

The whole archaic system is what has led to this situation and I can't see it doing us any good trying to save it, we need to replace it with something better. At the next election I can not see any other outcome than Cameron and his Etonian chums forming the next government with a crushing majority and the whole cycle will begin again.

 

The whole thing needs to change, we need to scrap the commons and the lords and knock the Palace of Westminster down and start again, the chamber of the house of commons leads to hostility, the benches facing each other in the manner they do is antagonistic to start with then the gap between them is just over 2 sabre lengths apart so that members are unable to fight each other with swords! The whole thing is worse than 2 kids standing pointing at each other saying "he started it" and leads to antagonism rather than being conducive to good government. The lords has to be completely reformed to become an accountable second chamber of some description, elected, appointed experts, whatever but accountability has to be built in somewhere, it needs to have teeth too to hold the lower chamber to account and stop some of the badly thought out excesses becoming law.

 

The monarchy has to be removed from the process and parliament needs to become the parliament of the people rather than her majesty's. The electoral process needs to be reformed to be closer to the principal of one man one vote one value, mandatory terms should be considered and be of such a length to avoid short-termism and quick-win politics that doesn't get anyone anywhere fast.

 

As a country we need to have a long hard think how to deal with the opportunities and problems we have in front of us, crime, economy, education, health, employment, energy, transport, technology, information.... and decide how we can make the most of our resources to make this country and the world a decent place to be.

[beag_teeets]

done both..what does either achieve?

 

"vote for crap#1...crap#2...crap#3...oddball#1...oddball#2...scummy party#1..."

 

great choices eh?

 

 

We had this discussion in the White Hart some time ago, I couldn't argue with your point then and I can't today but you could decide which is your least favourable outcome and do your bit to stop that happening. There are no guarantees that the result won't be your least favourable one but that is part of the strength/weakness of democracy.

[johnny punkster]

"At the next election I can not see any other outcome than Cameron and his Etonian chums forming the next government.."

 

mmm....which public and very elite schools in scotland/england did brown and his cronies come from then?????

 

agree with everything else though...is a feckin mess and every term of new parliament starts the same circle as the last,no matter what colour rosette they wear.

 

 

[Diego_Sideburns]

The whole archaic system is what has led to this situation and I can't see it doing us any good trying to save it, we need to replace it with something better. At the next election I can not see any other outcome than Cameron and his Etonian chums forming the next government with a crushing majority and the whole cycle will begin again.

 

The whole thing needs to change, we need to scrap the commons and the lords and knock the Palace of Westminster down and start again, the chamber of the house of commons leads to hostility, the benches facing each other in the manner they do is antagonistic to start with then the gap between them is just over 2 sabre lengths apart so that members are unable to fight each other with swords! The whole thing is worse than 2 kids standing pointing at each other saying "he started it" and leads to antagonism rather than being conducive to good government. The lords has to be completely reformed to become an accountable second chamber of some description, elected, appointed experts, whatever but accountability has to be built in somewhere, it needs to have teeth too to hold the lower chamber to account and stop some of the badly thought out excesses becoming law.

 

The monarchy has to be removed from the process and parliament needs to become the parliament of the people rather than her majesty's. The electoral process needs to be reformed to be closer to the principal of one man one vote one value, mandatory terms should be considered and be of such a length to avoid short-termism and quick-win politics that doesn't get anyone anywhere fast.

 

As a country we need to have a long hard think how to deal with the opportunities and problems we have in front of us, crime, economy, education, health, employment, energy, transport, technology, information.... and decide how we can make the most of our resources to make this country and the world a decent place to be.

 

Can't fault your thoughts but all this will take a long time. Meanwhile if everyone uses their vote, whoever gets into power will have a true majority, rather than a majority of the minority who make the effort to vote. Even if unhappy at the thought of voting a party in, at least you can have the satisfaction of keeping an unwanted party out.

 

[Zorrro]

Meanwhile if everyone uses their vote, whoever gets into power will have a true majority, rather than a majority of the minority who make the effort to vote. Even if unhappy at the thought of voting a party in, at least you can have the satisfaction of keeping an unwanted party out.

 

The problem with this is that it's heavily reliant on everyone being politically clued up.