Why should MPs pay anything back?
They followed the rules, they had their claims approved and today they'll be told that some of those claims were wrong. MPs will get letters this morning telling them if they have to pay back previously approved expenses. Many aren't happy that the rules have changed retrospectively.
Is it fair to change the rules after expense claims have been approved? You can follow the debate as it unfolds on the 5 live now page on our website join in by text on 85058 (standard rates apply) or follow the debate on facebook and twitter.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
Subscribe to 5 live Breakfast
You can stay up to date with 5 live Breakfast via these feeds.
5 live Breakfast Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Podcast
5LNPI: Pre-Budget Report 10 Dec 09
10:14 Thu, 10 Dec 09
Are you feeling bruised or boosted this morning? The pre-Budget report has proposed a further National Insurance rise of half a percent and a 1% cap on public pay settlements from 2011. There's a new 50% tax on banker bonuses and the state pension's to rise by 2.5% Do you think this is a step in the right direction or are you losing out with these plans? Here's what you had to say.
Download or subscribe to this programme's podcast
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~53~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Aaaah yes. Time to revisit this subject this even though we have already heard the masses on countless phone in shows saying what they think, which is actually the same thing all of them think anyway.
Surely this programme should be about the sale of assets? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8301927.stm
Complain about this comment
The sale of assets would have been a very good phone-in topic. How much are they going to sell us down the river for now?
Complain about this comment
I'm pleased this subject has been brought into the public domain again
as I think the MP's were thinking we'd forgotten about it.....but we haven't.
Their rules were not acceptable to the general public in the first place and this needs to be addressed immediately and so if any MP has claimed for something they shouldn't have or avoided paying taxes by 'flipping' etc then so be it.
Complain about this comment
I do not get this. The gentleman Sir Thomas Legg - asked to review the MoPs expenses has come back to them - MoPs - individually and told them the outcome. Sir Thomas was asked to do theis review by all three main Party leaders I heard and has now allegedly been told by some MoPs that he (Sir Thomas) has exceeded his brief?
Exceeded his brief? How can one know from that American term - get go - what one will find when doing a review? Only go so far Sir and no further?
I really do think the MoPs do NOT deserve the patience they are getting from a hurting "General Public" - a lot of them fincially. General Public? No offence. But MoPs if they cannot just go with it - Sir Thomas Legg's decisions - albeit however allegedly flawed they may be you will lose me at least forever.
Complain about this comment
Blow me. My misspellings look almost studied. Believe me they are not. Financially. There - that is better.
Complain about this comment
When this first came to light many of them said they were allowed to do it so they did even though they knew it wasn't right, this in my opinion shows the morals of our MPs and MP. Feathering their own nests with tax payers money while we the tax payer struggle to pay for basic everyday essentials. How many tax payers will struggle to pay gas and electric bills while these low lives take our money to spend on their gardens, food, second homes etc. And just how much did Blair take? Very convenient his expenses were destroyed isn't it.
Complain about this comment
" Surely this programme should be about the sale of assets? "
Yes, it looks like Brown will be flogging these assets off at the bottom of the market, let alone the strategic importance of Urenco, or the immorality of flogging off the Dartford crossing, when the Dartford crossing should be free. So not only has the Government ratted on the orginal deal with the motorists, that the cost of building it is paid off with tolls, then the bridge would be free, but they are going to ensure that no Government can honour the promise to motorists for the crossing will be in private hands.
Complain about this comment
The system is riddled with loop holes - MPs decided on their own interpretation. Some have broken the rules and should be prosecuted. Others have demonstrated a lack of integrity and should not be allowed to hold office again. Our system of democracy is flawed because of party politics - a few decision makers surrounded and supported by lobby fodder.I do not want to be represented by my MP (who tried to buy a £1000 TV for his 'small' London flat about an hour away from his constituency) but I neither want to be represented by any party that has colluded with this system. Politics in this country is about weaving a web of lies, sending out sound-bites and keeping the lobby fodder on-side. The whole system of MP's expenses was created so they could claim not have a pay increase. It is part of the smoke and mirrors that is Government in the UK. If we are to continue with this version of democracy I support reducing the number of MP's as they serve no purpose. But I would very much prefer a total overhaul, a truly representative system where my elected representative works for the electorate and is not told how to vote by whips.
Complain about this comment
Sack all the MP's guilty of what is effectively Fraud and take the worst cases to court for prosecution...no excuses. These people should also be sacked as MP's what-ever the outcome. Time to clean out the rot and start afresh.
Complain about this comment
Surely this programme should be about the sale of assets? "
Yes, it looks like Brown will be flogging these assets off at the bottom of the market,
================================================================
Just like the gold 10 years ago but it's ok because Ctoo said other countries did likewise.
If only they collectively jumped of a cliff maybe Gordon might copy that as well ;-(
Complain about this comment
Yet another wasteful debate about MP's expenses where the majority of your 'select' callers you put on air were more concerned about comparing their own financial situations and working conditions with that of the MP's which is totally counterproductive!
This was exactly why The Daily Telegraph revealed this information earlier this year not out of any belief in this Tory supporting paper's care for democracy and accountability but because it distracted the public from far more essential and fundamental defects of the parliamentary electoral system!
As an 'expert' rightly said on the programme prior to this phone-in there is a crisis of democracy. However the MP's expense saga is merely a sympton of this crisis not the cause. The crisis is that all the mainstream political parties and most politicians are all apologists for the free market economic system of capitalism and despite the fact that's its been bailed out by £billions even into £trillions they all believe that this system is the only system society can conform to. This is a scandal far in excess of the MP's expense issue and the fact that the public are totally ignoring this fact, and seemingly oblivious that the elected Commons never voted on this bail out is exactly what our rulers and their favourite paper wanted!
One can bleat on about whether MP's should pay these expenses back but it won't alter the real problems of the system, where, for example, it was revealed last week that supposedly political neutral Army General's like Dannatt have been talking to the Tory Party for the last 17 months!
Notice there is no phone-in about this?
F
Complain about this comment
Why bring this topic back when the bankers who have crippled the world economic system are getting away with it.
MPs expenses, however emotive they are, are a p... in the ocean compared to the fiddling bankers.
Complain about this comment
12. Old_Leftie
"...the bankers who have crippled the world economic system are getting away with it..."
Hi OL. I thought we had a Government who set up rules (financial regulatory regime) to regulate commerce? Is it really the Wild West, and whose fault is it?
As for the MPs if they over claimed expenses then they should pay us back with interest. I hope incumbents caught fiddling face as much adverse publicity as possible from their electoral opponents.
Complain about this comment
I have no problem with the MP whose consistuency home is distant from London claiming for her sister's London home - as pointed out in your phone in, if she bought/rented a place the taxpayer would have to pay anyway. Isn't this all a bit of a smoke-screen anyway? The government telling MPs that rather than having a pay increase (which would annoy Joe Public) you can claim up to the amount the pay increase would have been. Just another little matter this government have sneakily introduced thinking we mere mortals won't notice?
Complain about this comment
It is possible that 630 MPs have claimed something like £6m in expenses which although they may be within the rules are not genuine expenses of doing their job. 2nd homes should be different from their main dwelling and should be close to Westminster. In a society where we refuse cancer treatment, because of the expense, we are making ordinary people work to 66, and our armed foorces are fighting a war and dying, because of lack of equipment, it is immoral that already rich MPS should take so much extra money out of society. Dont forget that the parliamentary regulators are apopointed by parliament. So the fact that they have not broken any rules is merely because dubious and unethical practices have in effect been rubber stamped by parliament itself.
If we had an independent police force instaed of one in which the top positions are political appointments, there would no doubt have been many sets of criminal proceedings by now.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I am all in favour of change for the sake of improvement, I can see no reason for changing from the old style message boards!
Bring them back so that we can all get back to discussion about real news matters and not just the small selection chosen by the bloggers
Complain about this comment
I think that the majority of people reacting to this a missing one very important point about MPs expenses. That is that MPs have two places of work - London and their constituency.
If my emoployer expected me to work in two places then I can realistic expect that any additional costs that I have to make as a result I can claim back on expenses.
In most cases, mine included, this is hotel acommodation. But for MPs it is sensible to allow a second homes allowance. Then if that is the case then you must be able to furnish it and maintain it. This is reasonable. They shouldn't however be allowed to profit from the sale!
However, I am expected to provided receipts for all my expenses, except for mileage but that's still checked to make sure its sensible.
The question appears to one of reasonableness. If they are now retrospectively changing the rules on what was reasonale that's not right.
Some callers have said that all MPs are corrupt and are guilty of fruad. This is clealy bnot the case. The question is only whether it was 'wholly, exclusively and reasonabl;y' in the course of their dutuies.
If the Fees Office said it was reasonable then surel;y it is the Fees Office that should be taken to task.
Clearly there should be an ovewrhual of the system. Receipts for all expenses and clear rules are esential. But to tar all MPs with the same brush is out of order.
What we cannot have is that only people with huge personal wealth can afford to stand as an MP. That is not democracy
Complain about this comment
14.lizziesoso wrote:
"…I have no problem with the MP whose constituency home is distant from London claiming for her sister's London home…"
Except that this MP didn't claim for her sister's home. She claimed on her family home.
Complain about this comment
17. unionbeetroot wrote:
"…What we cannot have is that only people with huge personal wealth can afford to stand as an MP…"
What are they on £64,766 pa? Not exactly on the poverty line is it?
Complain about this comment
I live in Harrow and work in central London, as does my MP. He claims for his house in Harrow as his 2nd dwelling, and he claims £000's in travel expenses. I have one house and pay all of my own travel and household bills. This is only the tip of the iceberg. What we really should be investigating is all the PFI & PPI schemes which have cost £ millions for very little in return, and all of the consultants employed in the public services on huge salaries. The last 12 years have just been one big slush fund, and now it is the general public who have to pay back money taken from them in the first place.
Complain about this comment
I listened to Peter Bone today evading the question about a claim for £5,100 for laundry. It was not for laundry, it was for food, and he knew that and very nearly said it but stopped himself. He received over £220,000 in 2007-8 including £40,000 for his wife. He also claimed second home allowance for a flat in Westcliff-on-Sea when he first entered parliament and that was paid.....how far is that from Westminster? How did he get away with it? He rents a flat in London now.
He thinks he's worth much more, 1p per day per constituent per annum, total over £286,000. Maybe per constituent who voted for him, £82,000, would be more realistic.
He also wants to abolish the NHS and have us pay 5% of our income to private health care providers.
I would have loved to hear his comments on these facts. Maybe next time.
Complain about this comment
I suggest that there should be a hostel for all sitting and future MPs. That would solve the problem of where to stay when in London if their constituency is outside of London. If their constituency is in London and they live outside of London, then maybe each constituency could have a suitable home for sitting and future MPs to use. That way we are not paying costs for every MP again and again when new ones are elected. If this was paid centrally by government, not by the MPs, it would save millions in the long run and benefit sitting and future MPs. They all have offices provided by government so why not accommodation.
I also suggest that 1p per day per year per actual vote for them, not total constituents as Peter Bone would like, would be suitable renumeration. They would do more to help their constituents and really earn their money, especially if they want to be re-elected. The better they say they are going to be in the run up to the elections the more votes they are likely to get...and the more money they get...simple. We could all have MPs who actually listen and help their constituents.
Radically change the system. Let's get MPs who look after our country and us, and who are honest, into Parliament.
Complain about this comment
Sack all the MP's guilty of what is effectively Fraud and take the worst cases to court for prosecution...no excuses. These people should also be sacked as MP's what-ever the outcome. Time to clean out the rot and start afresh.
Zeitgeist old chap - One wonders what would happen if a benefit fraudsters refused to pay back their ill gotten gains.
Complain about this comment
One has to ponder that most Trough MPs got their expenses under correct rules at the time, but were outed by a vengeful insider.
Now the rules have changed, and the Chief wants to rewrite history. Do not panic boys, the leaders will soon be on the streets come the elections next May (one hopes that we are allowed to mention this on the bogs?)
We should really be discussing Mr Brown’s Fire Sale, but alas, our editors in chief have stifled the means to elaborate more!
Complain about this comment
When discussing Jackie Smith, yesterday why was the BBC comentator allowed to mislead the public. He stated that if she had declared her Redditch home as her main home it would not have cost the tax payer anymore as she would have had to rent or purchase a home in London. The Home Sec has access to a grace and favour residence in London, which she chose to ignore, if she had used that there would have been substantial savings to the tax payer.
Complain about this comment
That was Nicholas Campbell or his twin that said on the Big Question – We never ask the wrong question/s.
Say something nice about your MoP? What has he or she done for you? Lol
Quickly moving on Shelagh but imagine me wearing that last look of yours in the Corrie piece on my face – times ten. This has not been MoPs finest hour has it? Or finest few days? It is not the alleged outrage reported on coming from the euphemistic Tea Rooms in the various Houses – it is the muffled nature of who is actually being outraged. Names please. If I was outrage you would hear me from wherever you were standing for in Great Britain.
Well – you would in normal circumstances anyway. lol. I recall a former MoP diarist mentioning a late MoP in one entry back in the late 1950s. That was in the Tea Room too I think. Talk about and allegedly – gossip. I never pinned down that matter you know
No - I feel unable to comment on your Phone In piece today Breakfast but Good Mourning in any case. And that was not an error in my Stelling. Honest! No offence Jeff! lol
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS