Smith thought she'd be cleared
Jacqui Smith is now suffering from the triple whammy - sympathy, ridicule and outrage - which every politician fears.
The irony is that only last week she told friends that she expected to be cleared in the inquiry into the expense claims for her second home. The home secretary has been poring over her home, constituency and office diary to plot where she had spent each night in the past year.
She is confident that she has the proof that she's spent more nights in London than in her constituency and thus, under the Commons rules, could designate her family home as her "second home" and the flat she shares with her sister as her "main home". This, of course, allowed her to claim thousands of pounds from the ACA (Additional Costs Allowance) including that TV package with the "additional features".
Thus, she has gone from confidence that she would be cleared to what I imagine must be despair in the past day or two. She is not, after all, just a minister or an MP but the mother of two school age boys who may now come to hate the day their mum went into politics.
I've been arguing for weeks that it is the system of Commons expenses and the culture which surrounds it which has caused all the problems.
Allowances are treated as just that - allowances not expenses - which compensate MPs for the fact that governments of all colours routinely ignore independent recommendations to increase MPs' pay.
Commons officials have, until recently, encouraged MPs to claim the maximum and treated those that don't as if they're fools. The Speaker and the all-party committee which advises him vainly fought freedom of information requests at huge public expense without using the time that fight allowed them to clear up the system once and for all.
Nevertheless, someone always becomes the symbol of systems that have gone horribly wrong. It is unfortunate for Jacqui Smith that she is that someone.
To many MPs, she's a likeable working mum who didn't expect to be elected in '97; whose husband agreed to sacrifice his career to make hers possible; who works such long hours that she spends more days away from her family than with it and who knows that she's on course to lose her very marginal seat and thus, her job, income and allowances, at the next election.
To many voters she's a minister "on the take" who is not satisfied with a fat salary, a chauffeur and two homes but also claims more by employing her husband, calling her family home her second home and submitting bills for porn films.
The gap between the elected and those who elect them has rarely been wider. It is in all our interests that that gap is closed.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Oh dear
That sounds like an obituary
Complain about this comment
"To many voters she's a minister "on the take" who is not satisfied with a fat salary, a chauffeur and two homes but also claims more by employing her husband, calling her family home her second home and submitting bills for porn films."
There is a well known saying about cream rising to the top. Labour, of course, do not "do" farming.
Complain about this comment
OH the blessed irony of this.
10/10 for making a bit of a case for her Nick but as Labour were so fond of saying in 97 sleaze is sleaze.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
sorry nick...she is the home secretary for goodness sake...she was claiming for plugs...88pence plugs....fiddling your expenses is all about being conscientous its that simple.
the majority of decent people just wouldnt do it...and those did it surely would expect to be sacked?
i have no sympathy for either of them...how can you with the amount of cash they have had out of this country?
if her husband spent more time doing his job that he got paid for instead of indulging himself with his additional features (pornography movies as you seemed scared to say it) they might not of got themselves in such a pickle.
common decency dictates she should resign but hey who said anything about common decency when it comes to this current goverment?
home secretary...dont make me laugh...how can anyone ever take her seriously again?
Complain about this comment
"The irony is that only last week she told friends that she expected to be cleared in the inquiry into the expense claims for her second home."
===
Never mind the inquiry, what about the "court of public opinion"?
Complain about this comment
"She is not, after all, just a minister or an MP but the mother of two school age boys who may now come to hate the day their mum went into politics. "
Err Nick, the confidence that she would be cleared comes from BOASTING she spends more time with her sister than her children. Yes, I expect it is only now, that they are regretting their mother's choices.
Do I detect a Cheriegate moment being pushed our way? Oh please, no mention of keeping all the balls in the air. Pass me the tissues... second thoughts, make it a sick bag.
Personally, I am affronted that it is only after it has all come on top that she is "poring through" the various diaries to establish where her main home was/is in any particualr month.
Surely this is what you do, before you whack the claim in?
As I speculated yesterday, the queen can only have been requesting that her picture be taken off of this tainted money that Gordon is now printing.
Complain about this comment
This just goes to prove, once again, that all governments outlive their shelf life. Come on, Gordon, time to go and let the people decide.
Complain about this comment
I fail to see how MPs are underpaid. They are all former lawyers in the main doing public service work. They should be paid a max of say £50k and have expenses and be able to justify every penny. Anything amiss then they should lose their rights to expenses for a period or better still face the sack and a by-election in their seat. It is only by being tough this will be solved.
As far as Jacqui Smith is concerned I feel a little sorry for her, however the £10 is not the issue, and neither is the porn, the issue is her flagrant lack of morals in this situation where she seems to think using one bedroom at her sister's is ok to feather her family nest. Well I'm sorry Jacqui but it just doesn't smell right to me!
Complain about this comment
Snouts in the trough, the lot of them!
Eric Pickles hardly covered himself in glory on Question Time last Thursday either, trying to defend the indefensible.
Complain about this comment
She can quite easily avoid the ridicule and the outrage by resigning, standing down as an MP, and thus giving up all her expenses. Certainly seems the best solution for all, once she's paid us taxpayers back all that she's scammed already of course.
If she doesn't pay it back then it's a matter for the police, but I'm sure she can afford it.
One down, who's next?
Complain about this comment
Why would you bother being a politician, my Google searches are enough to have me locked up ...... it looks like!
Complain about this comment
The conceit of this government is breathtaking.
The stench of sleaze after twelve years is now becoming unbearable.
Everything appears to be within the rules; everyone appears to be not guilty of any wrong doing.
But now one government minister after another is running inot the same trap. The old newlabour formula of cooking the books and massaging the message worked only so long as the books were vaguely solvent. The moment Gordon Brown started to step on the newlabour spending gas in 2000 was the moment it went wrong.
Oppostion parties have been quesitioning newlabour accounting for a decade; with billions off balance sheet but the message was massaged over and over again.
Now it's all coming home to roost as newlabour politicians personal finances are seen to be as inept and spendthrift as their public finances.
125% mortgages were within the rules and people taking them out were not guilty of any wrong doing; all newlabour spin language for turning a blind eye.
This is the culture that has ruined newlabour and is ruining and ridiculing the Home Secretary.
She is not to be pitied; she is risible in her instruction to her hsband to go out and explain himself in a written statement; there is nothing to explain except that she has taken the decision to resign for the sake of the good name of the country, the government and her party, in that order.
It is a disgrace she remains in office and a demonstration of the weakness of the government and Gordon Brown.
Who gives a fig if she is a nice person? She is the Home Secretary and a certain level of behaviour is expected form her and her own.
Why can anyone at the BBC not appreciate that?
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
Far more concerning is the £40,000 of our money that Smith pays her husband to sit at home all day playing!
Complain about this comment
Nick,
What everybody has to think about in this matter and all the problems related to expenses is this one simple fact.
If it had not been for the press we may well have not known about this matter and the truth will never have been revealed. The fact remains the claim was submitted by Mrs Smith, and as such she as the MP is the only person who should be responsible for the submission.
The claim should never have been submitted and mistake or not the fact remains it was done and could well have never been revealed without the press investigating. It is a form of dishonesty and family values. This is the MP responsible for Law and Order. The whole matter of what she and other MP's are claiming makes it look like as taxpayers we are being deceived and used by our MP's to make life as comfortable as possible just for them.
Complain about this comment
Would it not be to MP's advatage to have accomadation (for instance an accomadation block in a military barracks)set aside specifically for MP's while they are in London away from thier consituancys, it would have the required security, dining facilities provided by the militay chefs and could have all they need while they are away from thier homes?? This would allow all MP's to have the required comfort to carry out thier jobs with out the need to claim for expenses, and they would all have equal facilities.
Complain about this comment
Yet another instance of how this government has squandered our money by not only adding more carriages to the gravy train but ensuring they are suitably furnished. Why do we insist on electing people who have no commercial instinct? Why do the very people who enter politics with the best intentions of hope and imagination get so bogged down inthe endless protocols that they succumb wearily to self profit at our expense?
Complain about this comment
No Nick - the system has not gone wrong - ZanuLabour sleaze is to blame -PLEASE roll on 2010 and goodbye to this corrupt, snouts in trough bunch of useless people.
Complain about this comment
She should go now. This latest episode is just the last straw!
Complain about this comment
Nick I certainly feel sympathy for Jacqui Smith on a personal level. What her husband does in the privacy of his own home is his business but by keeping it on the expenses claim he has brought her into ridicule and I expect him to be sleeping on the couch for a while, if not worse. Coming on top of all the other trouble she's had I expect this will finish her politically as there will be a reshuffle after the expected Labour meltdown in the Euro and Shire elections and Smith will be the sacrifical lamb, Ed Miliband for the Home Office perhaps? She will then step down as an MP next year, sparing her further humiliation as Redditch goes blue by a considerable margin. And to think that after the speech she gave to Labour MP's over 42 days you were blogging about how Labour backbenchers thought she would be an excellent leader of the party! How times change Nick!
I heard Kevin Maguire of the Mirror made a good point this morning, he said he knew of a journo from "a posh paper" who submitted an expenses claim for a hotel stay which included a dodgy movie. The paper's accounts section struck the movie out of his claim and he had to pay for it himself. So why couldn't the Commons fees office have done likewise? The impression is that they are just a rubber stamp operation who just sign off expenses without proper scrutiny. That needs to change if people are to regain respect and trust in politicians.
Complain about this comment
I'm not a supporter of Jacqui Smith or the rest of the government and the sooner they go the better but I don have some sympathy with her. Most people in working life claims what expenses they are entitled to according to the company policies which can vary a lot and they are then signed off appropriately.
There is a problem that MPs are required to work peculiar hours often away from their families for what are in reality not huge salaries given the responsibilities and in comparisons with say the top people in industry or the professions. We must be careful that like the clamour regarding bankers salaries and bonuses that we don't discourage talent from wanting to go into politics. I can't see many successful people from other careers opting out to go into politics on the current basis and so we are left with the current crop of professional politicians (of all parties) with no experience of the real world or common sense.
I don't therefore have a particular problem with MPs or anyone claiming what the rules permit except that they make the rules! Surely it isn't difficult for all the brains in the House of Commons to produce a set of rules which are reasonable to both them and the "Court of Public Opinion." If they can't I'm sure some of the bloggers to this site could produce a pretty reasonable first draft.
There must be questions however about Ms Smith's judgement, even Ed Balls admitted this morning that in this climate he takes particular care of his expenses claims, why hasn't she - its just plain common-sense. As regards her husband he is her employee as well and again there's no reason why this can't work it works all over the place in industry and politics but as his ultimate paymaster we are entitled to ask what value we are getting out of the relationship and the rules changes need to allow for some kind of disciplinary action against all employees of MPs that don't result in a conflict of interest between husbands and wives. Blood is thicker and most of us would struggle to completely separate a working relationship and family life in this situation.
If I were Jacqui Smith I would say enough's enough and jump before being pushed by declaring that she won't be standing at the next general election.
Complain about this comment
I think this comment should be removed:
She is not, after all, just a minister or an MP but the mother of two school age boys who may now come to hate the day their mum went into politics.
Not good to try and bring her children into this or guess the effect it will have upon them. Leave them alone and out of this.
Complain about this comment
"She is confident that she has the proof that she's spent more nights in London than in her constituency"
The proof being a lonely husband?
Complain about this comment
any moderators around today? or is this blog being censored?
the allowances were designed to allow mp's to do their jobs, this has now become a gravy train...When i was in business i was allowed to claim expenses when away from home, they were paid on production of receipts and were subject to limits like £20 maximum for dinner and can only stay in 3* hotel....why are mp's treated differently?
Complain about this comment
I awoke this morning and staggering to my computer found the messages "debate closed". Is this censorship, I wondered. A last act of nannyism by the Queen of Nannies, Jacqui Smith? However, soon this new forum appeared. What I'd really like is to see this person fired or have the grace to resign. Since both scenarios are unlikely, can we cease venting our ire in debates on the blog which cannot affect her or Nu Labour. Perhaps we should march, with placards, through the streets, joining all the others this week in London. "Smith Must Go"!
Complain about this comment
It is not just the films, it is the whole list of home improvements funded by the taxpayer - it reads like the prize list from the Generation Game. I am sorry, but this is totally illegitimate. Smith could have claimed expenses for staying at her sister's flat if she wished, or she could have stayed scott free at the Home Secretary's grace and favour residence in London. Instead, she chose to designate her main residence in Redditch as her "second home" so she could get it refurbished at our expense. As Home Secretary she is entitled to taxpayer funded security at her homes, but cookers, entertainment centres, fire places, sofabeds?
It is taking the proverbial, Smith has lost all credibility - Brown should dig out his moral compost and sack her!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Perhaps I'm alone in thinking that in certain cases the current media/joe public hysteria over MP's expenses has gone too far; in recent days on 5live I've heard people say that MP's should be on the minimum wage etc.
The current system is fatally flawed and needs reviewing but is the general public sensible enough to have a rational debate?
Part of the problem is that MP's are effectively classed as self employed and even basics such as stationery have be claimed for. It would seem more sensible for costs that are essential to an MP's role to be centrally budgeted coupled with proper oversight of expenditure to stop abuse.
I think a more concerning trend is that many parlimentary candidates seem to be party gonks with no experience outside politics. This not only means that they can relate less with the issues that matter to the public but are also less likely to believe that milking the system is wrong.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps she ought to resign from public life and spend more time with her hubby and kids.
(How will they all fit into her sister's house?)
Complain about this comment
Nick, you say that: "The home secretary has been poring over her home, constituency and office diary to plot where she had spent each night in the past year."
What a waste of time - why not just submit the timesheets of her security team, with their names blanked out?
Just demonstrates that the lady has no sense of priorities.
Oh, and why have all your older threads been closed to comments?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I for one expect elected parliamentarians to have good judgement and integrity. I have opportunities to "play the system" in my working life but I choose not to because I believe it is wrong. I have been called "foolish" but to me having integrity and not doing things because they are wrong is not "foolish", it is the natural thing to do.
Politicians of any party who are claiming they have done nothing wrong because "the rules allow it" are not demonstrating their integrity, they are demonstrating their ability to play the game and make the most of it.
£10 or £100,000 the issue is still the same.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, you seem to be drumming up sympathy for Ms Smith. Nobody could be less deserving. Had she not treated the entire electorate with contempt, perhaps she would be due some. Also, I don't understand this "Poring over her diaries" bit either, her expense claims are already in are they not? Anyway, are you SERIOUSLY telling me that we don't know where our Home Secretary is, every hour of every day? Get the police protection service logs, job done. As the police are being paid to protect her, their hours must be logged.
Perhaps she is "Poring over her diaries" to try and make things fit.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Employs her husband, shares with her sister, pays for her husband to watch adult films. Come on, we are being asked to suspend reality here to believe all this is innocent or acceptable for the taxpayer.
The scarey thing is how many more MP's etc are up to these scams??
Complain about this comment
Home secretary
to
Two home secretary
to
Two home movies secretary
Complain about this comment
How can you possibly put forward any sort of defence for this disgraceful couple. The fact that she is desperately trying to show that she may have spent more nights at her sisters home does not detract from the fact that her main home is where her and her family live. As for the films, is somebody going to go back over her claims and look for more abuse. She is a minister, the Home Secretary, if she is not above this sort of behaviour then she must go before she gets voted out at the next election.
As Nicky Campbell summed it up radio five this morning:-
Jackie how could you? The SHAME of it, £550 on a kitchen sink!!
Complain about this comment
So, this might accelerate the time for us to see a reform to MPs' pay, allowances and expenses. Good - but let's not forget pensions. Most MPs benefit from a 1/40th final salary scheme for a 10% personal contribution. This means maximum benefits can be earned after 27 years rather than 40 years in the private sector. If the basic salary is going to be increased substantially it will place a huge ongoing extra burden on the taxpayer if it remains as a defined benefit scheme.
Let's take the opportunity to change it to a defined contribution scheme. This might set an example that could, step-by-step, be followed for the higher paid mandarins in the civil service - and then we might just begin to get private pensions legislation that would make sense for the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
Claiming ACA for her family home in the Midlands because the sibling accommodation is her main home may be the kind of jiggery pokery that the officials in the Commons recommend MP's to take up.
The fact that it is not against the rules does not mean that Harriet Harman's Court of Public Opinion (or whatever it was called) would give it short shrift and it is one indication of how out of touch with the electorate those MP's who make these claims really are
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Jacqui Smith and Tony McNulty both serve to magnificently illustrate the gaping flaws in the current system. They may prove to be correct in their assertion that their claims are fully in accordance with the letter of the rules, but in their heart of hearts I am sure that both realise that that is not sufficient to make it right. Their claims both fail the test of common sense and reasonableness which is sorely lacking from the rules under which the system of MP's allowances works.
MP's should be paid receipted expenses, with a specified maximum per day, for expenses necessarily incurred as a result of their attendance in Parliament, or, if they choose to live in London, for their attendance in their constituency. (The rules should treat MPs with constituencies within 50 miles of Westminster as a special case, scaling down what may be claimed accordingly.)
Whether this means staying in hotels or flats should be left up to them, but in no cases should a capital gain be permissible if they were to buy a flat and subsequently sell it.
Ministers should not be allowed to claim accommodation expenses if they do not use official accommodation to which they are entitled. It might be appropriate for the Commons authorities to provide overnight accomodation for out-of-London MPs, where their security is assured and they could be provided with appropriate services which would help them to perform their jobs. I am sure the Government must have a ferw spare building in London which could be put to good use.
This is not rocket science. It should not be difficult to come up with a manifestly reasonable rules which would have the support of the general public and which would reflect common practice in industry when it comes to the payment of expenses.
And finally, MP's pay and allowances should not be set by MPs, but linked to an appropriate civil service grade. MP's staff should be paid directly by the Commons authorities, according to defined pay scales, which would help to reduce allegations of impropriety when employing family members.
Complain about this comment
I am confused about this entire story. This outrageous misuse of sixty five quid.
I assume the reason it got mistakenly claimed was that it was on the same bill as the broadband, so rather an easy mistake to make. So no real interest there.
The fact that two of the films were 18 certificate (these were not some horrible, hard core porn, but available through Virgin), is not my taste, but neither is it any of mine or the BBC's or the press' business.
The most IMPORTANT fact however, the thing that the BBC is completely failing to mention, is that this bill must have been illegally obtained and that its publication is a GROSS invasion of privacy.
While the expenses claim should not have been made, the fact that someone publishes a document to which they have no legal right whatsoever, and the fact that the BBC re-publishes this document is at the minimum gross misconduct and quite probably an offence.
When it comes to public interest, that is FAR higher on my agenda than Jackie Smith's husband. The BBC is constantly arguing about invasion of privacy by the government and yet has absolutely no qualms about publishing what is quite probably a stolen document.
If the BBC and the media feel they have the moral high-ground, I am afraid they are very much mistaken.
Complain about this comment
Whatever the rules say, even if JS spent slightly more nights in her sister’s spare room than in Redditch, it is clearly a second residence. She should not be milking the system to make the taxpayer pay for her family home; the maximum we should be paying is a market rent for a room in someone else’s house, and actually she should have been forced to take up the grace & favour home so we could pay nothing.
Your point about MPs not getting paid enough might just make sense for a London backbench MP, but not for Mr & Mrs Smith who make nearly £200K between them even before expenses are paid.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A bit slow out of the blocks weren't you nick?non political journalists have been complaining about the allowances system for longer than a few weeks.I'm even more suprised that you haven't metioned the new rules that come into force for claiming ACA where mysteriously the word "main" has disappeared to save any more red faces in parliament.
As you already seem to have cleared Smith of any wrong doing could you explain the term "you must ensure arrangenments for your ACA claims are above reproach and there can be no grounds for suggestion of misuse of public money"Smith fails on the existing rules regardless of what so called political reporters think.
Complain about this comment
Whether or not Jacqui Smith (or any other MP, for that matter) will be found to have done anything against the rules with regard to their expenses claims, can I explore for a moment how these revelations are coming to light? There rarely seems to be a large number of these stories being published at the same time. Instead, one story after another drips out, week after week, concerning one MP or another. While the majority of these stories seem to involve government ministers (perhaps because these individuals are most newsworthy), more junior MPs from other parties have also been implicated.
What can one make of this? Is this a tit-for-tat campaign between the parties, each retaliating against another leak from the other? Or is there somebody among the administrative staff in the Commons gradually leaking these stories to the media? Whatever the case, and whichever side of the fence one stands on, this saga is hugely and corrosively damaging to politics as a whole. As Nick alludes to, the chances of turning a disillusioned electorate back on to politics (in the way Obama managed in the US) seem to be lower than ever here, which is deeply sad.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#18 floodrob
Animal House?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
What you have (possibly inadvertently) just quoted is absolutely incredible. Your story starts by saying: "she told friends that she expected to be cleared in the inquiry into the expense claims for her second home. The home secretary has been poring over her home, constituency and office diary to plot where she had spent each night in the past year".
If these "friends" are quoting her accurately, then they have told you that she made the claim WITHOUT REALISING WHETHER IT WAS TRUE OR NOT.
I think that is proof that this woman has to go now.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Claiming for an 88p plug should be grounds for dismissal alone as it shows such an incredible level of pettiness. We all know what is going here - they know most of them will be out of a job soon so they have to grab as much as they can now. The defence is always that it is within the rules - then the rules are the problem as the MP's cannot be trusted to behave in a moral way. The MEP's are far worse - our so-called democracy is being looted by politicians.
Complain about this comment
Very similar to claiming expenses, where are we on the Brown case: subletting a contituency office against the rules by a very experienced MP. Getting rental income against the rules is similar to getting expenses reimbursed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ms Smith is a person totally out of her depth. There have been enough cock ups in the Home Office to last a life time and yet she still survives in her job. Quite extraodinary.
Ms Smith`s explanation for all of this doesn`t really hold water. Broadband services,with Virgin Media, are billed by way of a monthly standard charge. Therefore it is quite a simple matter to spot anything out of the ordinary. She and her husband are either incompetent in the way they manage their family finances or deliberately over claimed on her parliamentary expenses.
I don`t understand why Brown continues to support her.Is it another example of his weakness as a leader or is he afraid that, putting another of the girls on the back benches, Ms Smith may join forces with Ms Harman and attempt to oust him before the next election?
This latest saga reflects very badly on this country at the time of the G20 meeting, the members of which must be having a good giggle at our expense. Forgive the pun! Nor does it reflect well on Parliament as a whole. All our MPs, in a number of instances quite undeservadly, have been tared with the same brush as being a load of fiddlers. No better in some cases than the benefit cheats who this government are anxious to clamp down on.
Gordon Brown`s decision to put off a review of Mps expenses, until heaven knowns when, is another sign of his poor leadership skills. A consensus is growing for MPs allowances to be done away with and for the pay of MPs to be siginificantly increased. Expenses like bath plugs and antique fireplaces coming out of their own pocket.
Since NuLabour came to power politics in this country have gone down hill and is it little wonder why more and more people are abstaing from voting. From the F1 debacle to the dodgy dossier, the list in endless. All this from a party who sneered at sleeze within the conservative party. Comparing the two, anything the conservatives did whilst in power now seems quite tame in comparison.
Complain about this comment
#15 Robin JD
Who gives a fig if she is a nice person? She is the Home Secretary and a certain level of behaviour is expected form her and her own.
Why can anyone at the BBC not appreciate that?
=================================================
You have hit the nail on the head.
Complain about this comment
Generally, politicians should err on the side of caution when claiming expenses, not try to flex the rules and then get away sith saying sorry and paying back the money.
If you can not bring yourself to looking cleaner than clean you should not be a poltician and look for another job.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Rather than "arguing for weeks" you did raise the topic of allowances once before (in the context of increasing MPs' pay) and many of us responded that in all other walks of life HMRC apply the "wholly and exclusively" use tests to expenses - why should MPs' allowances be any different?
Odd isn't it that this minor, but salacious, "Alan Partridge" incident is grabbing our attention at this time? It's not that this country is at war or in the midst of a major economic crisis, is it?
If your profile of Ms Smith as a likeable mum, accidental MP and unintended cabinet minister is true, then I'm sure most of your correspondents will be very glad for her when she can extricate herself from this whole, horrible business and spend more time with her family.
Complain about this comment
Firstly, why is she pouring over her diary for the second home enquiry when the police have foolproof and logged records of such things?
Secondly, a mixture of being bad at your job and abusing power is a certain path towards redundancy - Her position is completely untenable
Complain about this comment
Its the same problem as the 'bonuses' in banking. Lets use the english language in a very private interpretation. We'll call part of your salary bonuses even though we expect to pay it willynilly and you expect it to be paid by right. MPs - lets give you 'allowances or expenses' to pump up your income. But we will still expect you to collect them willynilly. Oh dear the public don't understand 'bonuses' are not bonuses as defined by the Oxford dictioanry, and that 'expenses' are not expenses as defined by the Oxford dictionary. And it is the taxpaying public who are being asked to pay the tab. What did you expect. As for closing the gap between voted and voters. The gap has always been the same, it just has not been on clear view. There has been no real attempt to tackle the issue. The main energy goes into trying to defend the indefensible.
Complain about this comment
Nick.
We now have a situation today whereby like in the repeating Case of the Home Secretary, for in that most part Politicans are treating their roles as any means to make as much money as possible with their Gravy Train of Expenses, for they are Claiming for things that the Poor in our Society can only dream of having for how many people on the misable payment of Income Support / JSA / Unemployment Benefit can afford to pay for and to watch Adult Entertainment let alone at all afford the cost of a Sky T.V.Package paid for out of their own pockets, while Politicans can Claim these same packages, and for many other Items at Public Exspense.
Most people now today feel that most Politician DON'T DO enought Work to warrant their CURRENT WAGES let alone being allowed to claim for additional Allowances to boost their overall Incomes.
The old Chestnut grunted by Politicians is that they MUST have a large Income plus Expenses, and Allowance otherwise they cannot afford to do the Job of an M.P.
However my advice to ALL M.P.'s is that your Game is now up with your forever Personal Claims for your own Social Benefit, and if you feel that you are being undervalued, and underpaid then Resign and GO, for there are many Unemployed people today, whom will I am sure will apply for a Job as an M.P. and Minister of State that doe's not require any forms of Job Qualifications, and anyone at worse can only bring the Country too a state of total Depression, and Deflation as it is currently being driven too by the current bunch of incumbent M.P.'s and State Ministers.
Complain about this comment
I have a cable package that provides television, broadband and telephone for a flat fee. In the current parliamentary system, I'd have thought it was reasonable that an MP gets a cable package with these three items, but any extras be paid for by themselves, including movies and all home telephone calls. Assuming Jacqui Smith's household has a similar set-up, I can't see how this situation can be a "mistake" - every month there's a fixed and identical amount claimed for, everything else should be paid by the MP.
Complain about this comment
Jacqui Smith hold a senior cabinet position and for this she earns £120k. This is obviously a lot of money - but consider that Sharon Shoesmith was earning £100k and there are thousands of inept council box-tickers just like her giving themselves huge pay rises and putting a strain on the public finances. Jacqui Smith holds far more responsibility and is always in the public eye.
Increase MP's pay and cap allowances at £20k.
Complain about this comment
A few other questions:
Why is no-one asking the obvious question? Was the claim for the TV part of Ms smith's Virgin media bill a one-off, or, as seems more likely, the entire bill was claimed every month, including pay-per-view films of whatever type?
And why anyway is she allowed to claim this when according to her it isn't her main home, her sister's house is?
Complain about this comment
What a pathetic waste of time. The economy is in a complete mess and we focus on two £5.00 purchases of soft porn! All MP's from all parties are the same. The role as an MP should be a Job, nothing more and nothing less. The MP's work for us the public and the whole allowances issue should be looked at. We the voters should have the right to determine the pay and allowances of all MP's and not the MP's alone. What seems a rather trivial piece of news is blown out of all proportion by the media and obviously the opposition. This story will shortly be chip paper, so come on get real news on our screens and in the papers. I am sure there are mouch more important issues out there today.
Complain about this comment
For the first time I am truly appalled by your scribbling. No one can justify what she and others are doing. I find it abhorrent that you are trying to justify what she has done along with her husband who “sacrificed his own career” to take up a role as her secretary for £40k plus per year which also allows him to be at home to look after the kids…….
This is so totally biased and what about the other MP who has been claiming for a second home which turns out to be a holiday home or was it a caravan. He must have breathed a sigh of relief when our Dishonourable Member of Parliament topped his hand and pushed him back to page 3 of the mail or so I am told.
Come on and let us have a well balanced report and not one that is slanted one way or the other.
Complain about this comment
There was clearly a great deal of care taken in the submission of the expenses.
An expenses claim that includes 88p for a bath plug demonstrates the care taken to ensure that every little possible item was accounted for and claimed for.
It begs the question therefore as to how a disallowed item, of perhaps 15 times the value, managed to slip through... unless at the time of claiming, it was thought reasonable.
In passing I must comment on the quality of the fence and Gate Mr Timney appeared from. The fence appears to be oak, all screws plugged, and the gate is nicely jointed. I wonder who paid for that quality craftsmanship on what is only a second home?
Complain about this comment
I presume that if the Home Secretary's husband had watched the adult movies at the House of Commons rather than at home, this would not have infringed regulations on MP's expenses. Please clarify.
Complain about this comment
Smith seems to be wanting to push the blame onto her husband when by her own admission she spends more nights with her sister than him. Shouldn't see him "on the seatee" for to many nights of the week at least!
However, I've not seen anyone query yet, just what sort of process is there that allowed for the claim to be processed all the way through the system and the claim be paid by the authorities.
Unless of course, free porn is one of the perks of the job for Home Secretary and as such it went un-noticed when processed as it was nothing out of the ordinary.
Complain about this comment
Its about time heads roled in this bungling government.
I have had enough of this shambolic New Labour joke.
Smith & Mcnulty should be sacked. They should be gone by 6.00pm today, like the fuel increases of 20 years ago, not left to be forgotten about for 6 months.
A very good journalist & exceptional DG of the BBC resigned over the dodgy dossier.
Where are the weapons Blair & Campbell???
Alistair Campbell mislead a whole nation with his sexed up dossier. Only for the BBC to be proven right. He was a non elected person who lied to the country & took us to war.
Now we have non elected, back hander Mandleson running round, supposedly trying to help with the economy. I think we can all guess where the country will end up now!!
Complain about this comment
"The irony is that only last week she told friends that she expected to be cleared in the inquiry into the expense claims for her second home."
Really? She sounds as though she is joining Gordon Brown in the -out-of-touch-with-reality camp. Surely, nobody in the real world can believe that a woman who is married, with two young children and whose home in Redditch - presumably - pre-dates her election to Parliament can be justified in claiming her "main" home is a room in her sister's house. To those of us in that real world it looks as though she chose to designate it as such so that she could claim the maximum possible amount of money for her "second" home.
We can only hope that at the next election the good people of Redditch will turf her out of her seat, and so put her husband out of work as well.
And if to many MPs she is "a likeable working Mum ...." etc it shows just how out of touch they are too. Just who are those "many MPs"?
Complain about this comment
As a working woman with family I find the comments, "She is not, after all, just a minister or an MP but the mother of two school age boys.." a tad patronising. Does being a working mother excuse her from making sure her expense/allowance claims are legitimate? Of course not. There are millions of working mothers out here in the real world, away from the Westminster village, who are not paid anywhere near as much as she is and who would not be fiddling expenses; even if accidentally. She is yet another sign of just how far removed political figures have moved from what they should be about: serving the country first, not serving themselves. As a taxpayer I have no problem at all with politicians claiming expenses for items legitimately required to enable them to carry out their duties properly, but this is not what is happening is it? What is happening is that the entire system seems to be geared towards politicians lining their pockets rather than simply being able to do the job effectively.
Complain about this comment
Of course David Cameron didn't want to lean too hard on her. His comment that he tells his MPs if what they claim is not defensible, then don't do it was obviously not heeded by Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary. He obviously thinks it is defensible to claim £103k for his London flat, when his family home is only 17 miles from Westminster. These facts have only come to light thanks to Labour's Freedom of Information Act, without which all this would still be treated as confidential. Now that all expense claims are going to be made available for public scrutiny, we will see who has claimed what, and who is continuing to claim in the future. There is likely to be a huge reduction in expense claims from now on.
#thedicey
David Cameron claimed for his light bulbs, imagine that!
Complain about this comment
My heart bleeds.
Complain about this comment
My only observation is is that this is not 'whiter than white' - which we were sort of promised ?
Complain about this comment
The sub-plot to all this is that our beloved MP’s think they’re worth a pay rise. There was a guy on last week’s Question Time (the one with a squirming Mr Pickles) who said that if the MP’s didn’t feel they were being paid enough, then they should move on and give their job to someone else!
Complain about this comment
Let's hope the inland revenue thoroughly checks the tax returns of Ms Smith's sister, Mr McNulty's parents and Gordon Brown.
Complain about this comment
Looks like the BBC's clock needs moving forward one hour.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I am not particularly outraged about the latest incident - the ridicule and embarrassment are punishment enough - the second home issue still grates.
Nick's defence of the Home Scretary however is nauseating - she should not have gone into Parliament if she was not prepared to put in the hours and could always move her family up to London, as her husband could easily relocate in his capacity ss her paid researcher possibly earning more than he did in the career he "sacrificed".
Presumably when she loses her seat she will receive compensation and will have accrued pension rights, my heart bleeds for her!
Complain about this comment
“Allowances are treated as just that - allowances not expenses - which compensate MPs for the fact that governments of all colours routinely ignore independent recommendations to increase MPs' pay.”
I’m sorry Nick, but you have clearly gone native. Or have you forgotten that a backbench MP earns £67,000 p.a. before expenses and or allowances. Hardly a subsidence salary - is it? And that’s before we get to the Gold plated pension etc… So please Nick, no more sob stories on behalf of your friends! We the license-fee and taxpayers of this country, pay your salary and we expect you to stand up for us, the ordinary man and woman on the street, not the political elite.
“I’ve been arguing for weeks that it is the system of Commons expenses and the culture which surrounds it which has caused all the problems.2
No Nick, you haven’t – like most of your BBC colleagues, you have been largely ignoring this issue in the vain hope that it will just go away. Well the public won’t let it. We are sick and tired of being taken for mugs by our political masters.
As for Ms. Smith – a couple of points you seem to have overlooked (yet, again)….
1) You suggest: “The home secretary has been poring over her home, constituency and office diary to plot where she had spent each night in the PAST YEAR. She is confident that she has the proof that she's spent more nights in London than in her constituency and thus, under the Commons rules, could designate her family home as her "second home" and the flat she shares with her sister as her "main home". [Emphasis Added]
If true, this would indeed put her in the clear for last year, but she hasn’t just claimed ACA for last year has she? What about those earlier years when she wasn’t Home Secretary? Are we supposed to believe that she was also living in London during the long parliamentary recess when she was a back-bencher and GVN whip, i.e. when she had no GVN Department to run? Pull the other one.
2) You have forgotten to mention that as Home Secretary, Ms Smith has the option of a very comfortable grace and favour home in central London. By turning down this rent free accommodation, she has maximized her expense claims…. Why should we be paying for her coffee table, sofa bed, kitchen sink, plug, internet connection, TV subscription at her family home? As Home Secretary she earns in excess of £100,000, throw in the pension, the memoirs and the near guaranteed seat in the House of Lords (once she leaves the Commons) + her husband’s £40,000 p.a. from the taxpayer and don’t you think she could afford to pay for these items herself?
More general points include…
a) Most MP’s have not turned down promising careers elsewhere for the greater public good. Like most of her colleagues, Jacqui got a considerable pay-rise when she became an MP.
b) MP’s knew the pay-scale when they decided to stand for office. So how and why should they be allowed to fiddle their expenses now?
c) Throughout this piece, you have deployed the concentration camp guard argument – ‘Our MP’s were only doing what they were told’… nobody forced Ms Smith or Mr McNulty to put in a fraudulent expense claims. No-one was putting a gun to their head. This just won’t wash – they chose to make the claim, and they must take the pain if it turns out to be fraudulent….
So Nick, get a grip and stop falling for the Westminster spin. MP’s get a good salary as it is, they do not need to engage in dodgy expense claims to get by, so start reporting it like it is, or frankly get out and let someone-else have a go…..
Complain about this comment
Its like watching a sharks convention,viewing the tory hypocrisy on here.............How can these tory propogandists possibly take on a selfrightous OTT air when they have people like the ultra greedy Winterons,Spelman and Conway in their party..more blinkers than a Newmarket trainer
Complain about this comment
So...slap in the expenses and doctor the diary later to prove them? Snouts in the trough, the lot of them.
I have to m/cycle 37 mile each way all year round to my teaching job just minutes from Westminster but can't claim a penny...but MP's living a third of that distance away can claim for a second home!!! I pay for my travel out of taxed income and my taxes pay for these people to have free houses!!!
It is actually quite sickening...I can't think of any other word for it. I despise these people more than the bankers...at least bankers don't pretend to be public servants!
Complain about this comment
poor Jacqui, I feel sorry for her - she should resign, though, because her credibility is shot to pieces - so should McNult
but what's more interesting is to look at who first put in place this ridiculous expenses set up involving second homes, the John Lewis list, all the rest of it - it was Margaret Thatcher
what a big surprise
Complain about this comment
Nick, your blog should have slowly-playing, mournful violins as its soundtrack. POOR Jacqui Smith and her POOR boys....what a shame...she works so hard.
She took the job on, knowing full well what she was getting herself and her family into. She also submitted her expenses - either with the extra "in error" or in full knowledge of them. She is therefore either incompetent and not thorough, or she is fraudulant. Either of the two merits her resignation or dismissal.
However, since when has this government ever worried about sleaze? Or incompetance for that matter? Gordon Brown is not contemplating resigning even after all his disasterous judgements and the failures they produced. They used to go on about Tory sleaze, even though I don't like the Tories they seem beacons of respectability compared with this lot.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To many MPs, she's a likeable working mum who didn't expect to be elected in '97; whose husband agreed to sacrifice his career to make hers possible; who works such long hours that she spends more days away from her family than with it and who knows that she's on course to lose her very marginal seat and thus, her job, income and allowances, at the next election.
...........................................
To say I'm furious about this is an understatement.
Jacqui Smith knew full well what the job entailed before she stood for election. If she spends more days away from her family than with it, then it is in her power to do something about it. If she loses her seat, her job, income and allowances at the next election, she will have been lucky to have stayed where she is for so long in the light of recent events.
Her husband gave up his job because he knew he would earn more money working for Jacqui. That was his choice.
As for her "poring over her home, constituancy and office diaries", I find it astonishing that you even printed this. If any one of Joe Public was found to be claiming a tax allowance to which they may not be entitled, I'm sure that the powers that be would get somebody from the tax office to "pore through" all his/her records and make sure every penny was repaid. Why should Ms. Smith be any different?
And as for her desperation, I really don't care one iota if she has to go. You reap what you sow in this country. She employed her husband and the responsibility lies with her to make him fully aware of the terms and conditions of his, and her position. If she has already done that, he is obviously not up to the job.
I have absolutely no sympathy for these people (and that includes MP's on all sides of the House) and if they choose to appear as though they are "on the take", then they deserve everything they get.
I believe that this episode with Jacqui Smith is just the tip of the iceberg. Dig a bit deeper (please Nick) and expose the rest of this shower who keep telling us they only have our best interests at heart while behind our backs, they are busy lining their own pockets at our expense!
It seems to me, that the reason MP's ignore independent recommendations to increase their pay, is that they know they will be a lot worse off. These allowances should be stopped as soon as possible. Let them do the job because they want to, and not because of the financial trappings it brings. There should also be an independent body to deal with their expenses and this should be monitored closely. MP's should be asked to produce all receipts, like the rest of us. I thought that's what their Parliamentary Secretaries were paid for. Apparently, I'm wrong.
To add to that, MP's have suggested we pay them an extra £40,000 a year, for which they will surrender some of their allowances, but details of which allowances have not been disclosed. At a time when the whole country is pulling in its belt, the very last thing these people should be asking for, or given, is such a large increase in pay!
It really does beggar belief.
Complain about this comment
37. At 09:33am on 30 Mar 2009, ColonelDigby wrote:
Home secretary
to
Two home secretary
to
Two home movies secretary
I think you missed out Home Alone, otherwise excellent
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So....we the taxpayers pay Ms J Smiths husband to manage her affairs and complete her expense claims at the taxpayers expense . Can this be right , or fair or sensible or indeed good business practice ?.Or is this just another snout in the taxpayers trough ?
Complain about this comment
What gets me is these people simply saying "It's within the rules" - as though there were some logic in those rules.
Smith counts the number of nights spent at her sisters and says it is more than the number of nights spent at the family home. Let's assume she's a caring mother, who quite enjoys seeing her children.
She's saying her sister's pad is her "first home", so we can pay the mortgage on the family home...
Balls and Cooper live WITH their children in London. The children go to school there. Let's assume they are caring parents, so don't drive back from the constituency house every schoolday Monday morning. So that would make it a minimum 5 nights a week in London. Can they really spend more nights at the constituency house?
So Balls and Cooper consider the constintuency house as the "First home", so we can pay the mortgage on an expensive house in London...
That's really consistent, isn't it?
The rules simply allow MPs to designate whichever house they choose in order to optimise "allowances".
But, if they decide to sell up, they can tell HMRC exactly the opposite, to avoid any capital gains tax...
Forget Labour/Tory/LibDEM or whatever. The system just stinks.
Complain about this comment
Can we be clear about "Mr" Jacqui Smith's role. As her Parliamentary aide he is a public employee and thus,presumably,accountable directly. How does he perform his Parliamentary duties from her "second" home, some distance from London while also having family responsibilities ?
Also, is the tax status on the 'second' home clear ? As it's not her main residence can we have a clear assurance that there will be no claim for capital gains tax relief when it is sold. And can Ms Smith's sister confirm the tax payments she has made on the rental to her sister ?
Complain about this comment
The small flaw in Gurubears 0938 comment is that the minister responsible for ensuring that such documents are kept secure is................THE HOME SECRETARY!
Complain about this comment
If Jacqui Smith had had political successes to her name in her time at the Home Office, then things might be different, but conspicuously she has not. But then to have a partner cosily on the payroll, and both an allegedly dodgy claim for accommodation expenses and acute red-top embarrassment from the aforesaid lucky partner with the ink still wet, cannot be compatible with office in a government with any kind of sense of its own seriousness.
I have been looking back in my earlier posts to find the date on which I first predicted her early removal from office, around the time of the fuss about Damien Green. Many will have been surprised that she even survived what might otherwise have been a robust reshuffle, unless as a sign of Brown's own weakened position at the time.
But that prediction was premature. If Paw Broon has not totally nodded off, it can surely not be premature now. So let's try again: I give it a week.
Complain about this comment
Apologists can equivocate about "allowances" versus "expenses," but surely the allowance was for a home she was supposed to own, not for her to live in someone else's and pocket the difference?
It's the duty of you, Nick, and other journalists, to do some digging and find out what the wording of these "rules" are and report them. Please don't let us hear that they are unwritten, like our "constitution."
Complain about this comment
This was a "personal issue" until I paid her for it !!!
Complain about this comment
Why are we , the humble British taxpayers paying for Ms J Smiths husband to watch porn films ?
Complain about this comment
"Also, I don't understand this "Poring over her diaries" bit either, her expense claims are already in are they not? Anyway, are you SERIOUSLY telling me that we don't know where our Home Secretary is, every hour of every day?"
A better question is why this task wasn't given to her husband who is getting £40k a year of our money from her staffing allowance to sit around watching porn - probably 3rd rate porn as well if it's on cable.
Complain about this comment
The rule about second homes are clearly not intended to allow an MP to designate their family home as the second home, and claim allowances for it.
Why claim allowances on the family home at all?
Its disgusting that an MP can get away with this breach of the spirit of the rules by claiming that it is within the letter of the rule.
This is corruption and she should be ashmamed.
If Jacqui Smith cannot see this then I would argue that she is incapable of common sense judgements and a liability in her role.
Complain about this comment
Why does Gordon Brown's moral compass desert him every time there is an issue of newlabour sleaze?
We have been given Jacqui with her waccy baccy, her expenses and her adult video husband.
We had Peter Hain and his unlawful deputy leadership fund raising.
We have Paul Myners, City Minister and his offshore tax evasion.
We have Fred Goodwin and his doubled up pension pot.
We had Hattie Harman and the enquiry into her deputy leadership funding.
All of the above given the full support of Gordon Brown. Was his moral compass buried at the time? Has his moral compass lost the ability to find true north? Do compasses north of the border have a different morality to the rest of us?
The moral compass of Gordon Brown appears to have all the moral authority of drunk in a brewery.
At the moment Gordon Brown is a victim of the old adage that these are my rules and I say who lives by them; apparently none of his mates or cabinet ministers.
Once a govenrment descends into this kind of anarchy; one rule for us and another for the masses, it is very near to the end of its natural life.
This one reached that point a year ago with its inability to accept its role in the financial collapse.
Gordon Brown is now up to his neck in sleaze and appears to believe jumping on a plane will amke it go away.
Welcome home Mr Prime Minister to a country where you are in office but no longer in power; undermined by your own sovereign, governor of the bank of England, chancellor and people.
The people are tired of this sleaze and you no longer have the requisite authority to do anything about it.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
The Commons' Authorities allowed this claim through, it appears they don't audit claims. Both Smith and McNulty claim they have done nothing wrong. The bare faced cheek and greed are offensive and wrong, Smith has apologised will repay the money as though it was an innocent oversight. Smith is guilty of knowingly claiming money for which she was not entitled, she says error, why is it not negligence or fraud and a resignation matter? The only way for politicians to restore public confidence is to get tough on expenses "fiddles", simply saying sorry is not enough
Complain about this comment
nick
Jackie Smith has fraudulently claimed for something not covered by the "rules".
If one of her civil servants doing the same would be fired and prosecuted.
I wait to hear that the police have arrested her and charged her with fraud
Complain about this comment
What really stinks is that there are two sets of laws.
If a junior member of staff at the Home Office was to rip off her expenses - the result big trouble.
If the boss rips off expenses - the result - that's a "personal matter" according to Gordon.
Plus let's not forget the third law of the media - the even-handed BBC will put the deeds of the "progressive" boss in the best possible light.
Complain about this comment
EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
If this is the way she has to go, so be it, I don't really care as long as she goes.
As for sympathy...
- HOW much sympathy do those wrongly accused of terrorist offenses receive?
- HOW much sympathy do those tortured in foreign lands with the help of MI5 receive?
- HOW much sympathy do those peacefully protesting against this government receive from her police force?
- HOW MUCH SYMPATHY DO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY RECEIVE WHEN TRYING TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY?
The expenses, the porn, mere trifle compared to 'brief'.
Complain about this comment
#50 Ctesibius
Very good point, marvellous. I think this is a case of not seeing the wood for the trees!!!
Complain about this comment
I agree with post 36
its a worry how many more will there be in the woodwork , its outrageous that they can employ husbands etc the mind boggle at how much they are allowed to steal , and i must say his apology was laughable , the look on his face said he thought we were all idiots it was rather forced and inadequate .
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I find this whole story delightfully ironic, given that Jacqui Smith has done more than any other MP to erode the privacy of this country and it's populace.
The real issue is that Smith personally signed off the expense claim and that she was paying for a TV subscription package. I don't think terrestrial TV signals in London are that bad that a cable TV service is required, so she shouldn't have been claiming any TV in the first place. She should have stuck to the basic internet package only.
For any MP to claim a TV subscription under expenses as part of their communications allowance (which is more likely to mean telephone bills) and for it to be used wholly and necessarily for their work they would need a subscription to the news channels, and even that is pushing it as their party should be doing all the work necessary to monitor the news channels for them.
And finally, I'd love to know how you can "accidentally claim" for pornography on your expenses. I'd imagine my employer would be hoisting me up onto the gallows for such a foolish gaffe...
Complain about this comment
On this occasion (according to the rules) it's a fair cop.
With the second homes expenses issue, she may well have operated within the rules, but for many people that will be irrelevant. She can say " I've done nothing wrong" all she likes, but it will cut little ice here or anywhere else
She will wish she'd never uttered the phrase "court of public opinion".
Because that same court finds her guilty as charged.
Complain about this comment
Lest we forget, I've got two names to mention....
- Tony McNulty
- Eric Pickles (I know he hasn't 'broken the rules', however, his out-of-touch explanation for needing two homes on Question Time was staggering, the sheer audacity of the man)!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
the time stamp on these posts is an hour out - clearly hasn't moved forward with the clocks - is this the sort of incompetence, and NuLab bias, that we pay the licence fee for?
(quite a nice photo of Jacqui, btw, isn't it?)
Complain about this comment
Trust Nick to take the politician's viewpoint on the story.
To the ordinary Joe, it doesn't matter that she may have spent more nights in London than in her home in Redditch in the last year. The fact is that she could have deigned to spend her nights in the grace-and-favour apartment (maintained for her benefit at public expense whether she stays there or not), but of course this would have meant no second home allowances to claim. So she chose instead to maximise her allowances by declaring her sister's spare bedroom as her main home.
That stinks and no amount of soft-soaping by Nick can hide it.
And I've heard no question asked and no explanation provided as to why she didn't take up the opportunity of using her taxpayer-funded London apartment.
We're asked to sympathise with her two sons, who will be exposed to ridicule. But perhaps her and her foolish husband should have thought of that before diving snout-first into the trough of MP's allowances, and putting in an expenses claim for porn films.
Her husband didn't give up his career to look after his family, he is staying at home and drawing a nice little earner as her constituency manager, courtesy of the poor bloody taxpayer again. That's another arrangement that should be investigated. It's called nepotism anywhere outside politics.
My view is that Jacqui Smith is milking the system as fast as she can, knowing she'll be out on her ear in a year's time. The most disgraceful aspect is that she'll get away with it because we have no effective method of getting rid of sitting MPs once they have the Prime Minister's support. He's so weak, he can ill afford a resignation at this time.
The real problem is that MPs have been allowed to set their own pay and pensions and the rules for claiming their allowances and expenses, so no wonder the rules are so weak.
They're too cowardly to even try to put up a case for a worthwhile pay increase and to do away with these abuses, because they know that they're held in such contempt that they'd be hung, drawn and quartered by public opinion.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I just don't get it. No update since 9:55 and it is now 11:50. The lawyers must be poring over loads of stuff.
What I will say in respect of Miss Smith is that it is not these expenses which are going to do for her. If anything goes pear shaped during the G20 meeting in England this week-end, then she should resign. Not this, this we can just laugh at but if there is civil unrest during the next two or three days, then she must go. She must not spend time on these problems, she must concentrate on the maintenance of civil order.
I hope Gordon Brown finds the time to do PMQs on Wednesday!
Complain about this comment
If an employee wrongly (or even fraudulently?)submitted expenses on her behalf surely the best thing Mrs Smith can do is sack the employee - and get someone in to do the job properly.
This shining example would then serve to help Gordon Brown by getting him to sack the bunch of numpties and dimwits that form Her majesty's Government - and so let the people get somebody in who can do the job properly.
One other thought - it took the Conservatives nearly 18 years to become mired in sleaze. Well done New labour - you clipped 5 years of that record.
Complain about this comment
So Jimmy Brown thinks that this is just a "personal matter" does he Nick/BBC?
Maybe if Mr Timney was using his own cash to pay for lurid television services then fair enough and I'd agree.
However, stealing money from my wallet to go and pay Mrs Palmer and her five lovely daughters a visit not just once, but twice, is simply an insult beyond and insult.
Oh and would anybody else in any other walk of life who "mistakenly" left such "additional services" on their bill, whilst staying away for their company in a hotel for example, be let off due to it being a "personal matter". Or would there be some disciplinary action and even sacking...hmm.
Somehow I think we all know the answer to the above, unless you happen to be an MP that is.
Complain about this comment
Given Ms Smiths recent activities, it comes as no surprise that there had been no outcry from MPs when the cost of utilities such as gas & electricity and transport costs soared beyond what the ordinary worker could afford. MPs were silent because they claimed these costs back adding a few false claims whilst they were at it. They live in a different world, totally disengaged from the lives of ordinary folks. Had this incident happened to a civil servant she/he would have been sacked. Utterly disgraceful.
Complain about this comment
Nick said "It is in all our interests that that gap is closed".
It is not in our interests that MPs get more money than their salary today. They get a starting salary of over sixty-three thousand pounds per year for a salaried position with a very generous pension.
And either this is only a part-time job, or else ministers are all doing a disservice to either their constituents or else to their ministerial office. Lots of backbench MPs further confirm that it's a part-time job by having lots of side jobs - non-executive directorships and the like. And fair-dos - I think MPs do well to keep a foot in "the real world".
But enough is enough... how can MPs be overpaid when there are so many candidates for each vacancy? If we pay them more than the present wage, I think we're very definitely attracting MPs for the wrong motives.
Their current salary is more than enough. We should give them all an admin assistant, a modest office in their constituency, and travel expenses on a per-mile basis, excluding the first 25 miles a day (the regular commute of most of us).
As for London accommodation, they only need somewhere to sleep Mon-Thu nights during parliamentary sessions. we should give them something akin to a nurses home close to Parliament, with a room each if they wanted it. No other expenses for them to fiddle, a standard cost for everyone. Oh, and we should dispense with the subsidised house of commons bistro as well - MPs should eat to the standard they're willing to pay for, just like the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick, Have you noticed the words "she did not see the films". as always with your mates NuLabour it's what they don't say that counts. It does not say that she was away on business. Was she in the House?
Complain about this comment
"....this is very much a personal matter for Jacqui..."
Those were Gordon Brown's words regarding the 'mix-up'.
Perhaps now our government may realise how important the right to privacy is to the people on the United Kingdom!
Complain about this comment
#50 is on to something. Surely there is a story here in terms of her judgment.
Nick - read what you write and then think about it. You really are a second rater.
Complain about this comment
Don't care about the "adult movies".
Don't care it is a Labour Minister.
Do care about the rank hypocrisy. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. We will do everything we can, blah, blah.
Seems to me all they are doing is messing around left, right and centre, talking alot, delivering nothing and costing us a pretty penny. The only people these MPs represent are themselves. Oink, oink.
Complain about this comment
Nick, MPs are "underpaid"?
Just a thought, you might like to reflect upon:
WE ARE BORROWING MONEY "HAND OVER FIST" FROM THE CHINESE TO PAY FOR THE HOME SECRETARY'S "SECRETARY'S" SMUT AND JOHN LEWIS LIST STUFF.
MY CHILDREN (AND PROBABLY THEIRS) ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR HARD EARNED TAKEN FROM THEM AT SOURCE WHEN THEY LEAVE SCHOOL AND FIND JOBS TO PAY FOR THE MP'S "EXTRAS".
AT THIS POINT, I DO NOT SEE THEM AS "UNDER REWARDED" BUT RATHER AS UNDESERVING.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown says this is "a personal matter".
No it isn't. This was OUR MONEY. It's that simple.
When are thay (and you) going to get that?
If any of us mere mortals treated expenses claims like additional income, as MPs clearly do, we'd be sacked and might well find ourselves prosecuted for theft.
It's a good job pigs don't behave like that, otherwise comments about snouts in the trough might be apposite...
Complain about this comment
And another thing, the difference between John Prescott and Jaqui Smith?
John Prescott slept with his staff..
Complain about this comment
Another awful article to give more impetus to another tabloid story. Gutter reporting. She has a very important job to do. A lot of responsibilities. Journalists should be more responsible themselves and choose what to publish. Blogs like this just let the story run longer than it should. What happened to the quality reporting that we used to expect from the BBC?
Complain about this comment
I couldn't care less about two £5 films on expenses, and am quite happy for MPs to receive allowances (or extra salary) to more accurately reflect the level of income someone competent could get from other jobs.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the Home Secretary however, as long as she continues to support things like an overarching DNA database, CCTV cameras everywhere, keeping track of everyone's email and web browsing habits, mandatory sentencing guidelines, and so on.
If she wants us to live in police surveillance state where every aspect of our lives is monitored and recorded and every minor transgression is held against us according to rigid and inflexible application of the rules, no matter how trivial and inconsequential, then she has to accept the consequences. Perhaps she can now see the fallacy of the "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of" argument.
Complain about this comment
The porno films are only the tip of the iceberg. No wonder we are in such a mess. While banks and financial institutions were heading for disaster nobody was watching because they were too busy trying to work out how to screw every single penny they can out of us.
Complain about this comment
The 'Court of Public Opinion' which Jacqui Smith was so keen to call on would not ask how many nights she spent at her sisters. It would ask "How much extra did it personally cost Jacqui Smith to lodge part-time with her sister"
If she got more in expenses than she incurred in costs she is making a profit at the expense of the public purse in a way which no ordinary person would seek to defend.
For breathtaking hypocrisy alone, she should go.
How you (Nick) can defend her beggers belief. Oh, boo-hoo she is a working mum and is 'within the rules' on expenses. There are lots of working mums who don't get to fix their own rules on expenses nor come across as hypocrites when they unjustly enrich themselves while criticising others who have done the same in the banking sector.
Complain about this comment
"How can these tory propogandists possibly take on a selfrightous OTT air when they have people like the ultra greedy Winterons,Spelman and Conway in their party..more blinkers than a Newmarket trainer
Tolpuddle"
Tolpuddle...instead of trying to muddy the waters, can you mount a defence of Jacqui Smith for those of us who are neutral? Who are just fed up of watching MPs abuse the system?
It's no defence of wrong-doing to say that everyone's doing it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Thus, she has gone from confidence that she would be cleared to what I imagine must be despair in the past day or two. She is not, after all, just a minister or an MP but the mother of two school age boys who may now come to hate the day their mum went into politics."
yeah....like she cares so much about her kids nik that she doesnt even consider their family home her main residence! what does she like say actually the kids, no forget them they are part of my secondary life...my life with my sister now thats my real life!
nik...sorry to say but your article is absolutely non-sensicle....she committed fraud....simple as that Nik. what defence is there?
i tell u what i bet damien green is laughing his socks at this....what goes around comes around hey nik!
Complain about this comment
You were right Nick,
Seems she is having a one on one with Brown now
Suppose we must await the announcement in time for the one o'clock news
Complain about this comment
who works such long hours that she spends more days away from her family than with it and who knows that she's on course to lose her very marginal seat and thus, her job, income and allowances, at the next election.
My heart bleeds for her.
How about our troops Nick who are dying in far flung countries Because of Blairs War?
Troops away for months on end from families who are left to live in apalling MOD housing.
Troops earning a fraction of What Smith earns.
How about the average working man who works 25 years to earn what Smith earns in an elected term and then when he retires he's got no pension because Smiths Boss (Brown) has destroyed it while Smith and her Ministerial hoppos walk off into retirement on huge pensions.
Nick, some of your comments are insulting to the average working Brit and I suggest you come out of New Labours ivory tower and start questioning your Labour biased reporting.
Complain about this comment
Ok Nick, we get it. You miss a rather large part: "whose husband agreed to sacrifice his career to make hers possible"...and now gets paid £40,000 a year by you and me to 'run' an office. That's the wage of a senior civil servant going to an 'aide'. She doesn't have to be away from her family, they could all live in London and she could spend two days a week at the constituancy.
And you play the system card. Pathetic to be honest. 'It wasn't me it was the system', 'I was simply following orders', a defence that is legally established as invalid. None of them have to claim it, none of them have to work it so they get their house re-fitted for free, none of them are forced to take out a mortgage to cover their debts on a house 8 miles away and then get the people of this country to pay it off for them.
Yes, the system is all wrong. But they are the people who create the system, run the system and use and abuse that system.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I thought that Busted Gordon had only one thing left in his favour : his honesty and his probity.By keeping the likes of Smith , MacNulty and Myners ( + of course the best of them all , the dodgy lord )in his cabinet he associates himself with their greed and dishonesty.
I do not mind MPs being paid whatever it takes for them to do the job but I DO object to them taking us for stupid idiots!!( I have done nothing wrong , Honest guv !!! )
The Nulabour sleaze and arrogance makes the Major's MPs sleaze look like a gang of kids stealing a few sweets in a corner shop in comparaison !! They were real amateurs at it, the labour dodgy guys and girls are the real pros !!
I feel sorry for the last remaining honest labour ministers like Darling,they would not do their political future any harm by quitting this shameful cabinet.
Complain about this comment
#83 sagamix
Yes, and there are also plenty of Tories living within a 50 mile radius of London and claiming for a second home - Eric Pickles is one (you can see his pathetic stuttering explanation for it on last weeks Question Time)!
Nice little earner - no wonder the Tories weren't too worried about the Housing Bubble until it burst!
Complain about this comment
Not interested in the detail, just disgusted at the lack of respect for high office that she, and many of her cabinet collegues display almost all of the time. We have been brought into disrepute as a country and it is shameful. She should resign, or Brown should sack her if they had one iota of an idea as to what the "right thing" is in public life. Of course nothing will happen.
Complain about this comment
No 16 said: "Far more concerning is the ?40,000 of our money that Smith pays her husband to sit at home all day playing!"
----- ----- ----- -----
That's unfair.
He isn't just playing. He also writes complimentary letters about Jacqui Smith to the local papers, while not bothering to point out that Richard Timney is also Mr Jacqui Smith.
I say she's ungrateful.
The man writes all these letters while his wife spends all her time in her sister's flat and she gives him an "ear bashing" for watching a couple of blue films.
Complain about this comment
This is nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with a ruling claque.
It's not so long back that a tory MP was discovered to have been giving oodles of our cash to his wastrel children.
IMO, MPs should be paid a salary set by an outside and neutral body which can make comparisons with other incomes.
There should be allowances (or perhaps better, expenses) for those who live outside commuting distance from Westminster, and the working hours at Westminster should be such that people can commute using public transport.
Those that have to stay in or near London all week because commuting is impossible should be housed in state-owned property. This doesn't have to be all in one place - any suitable property can be bought by the state and occupied rent-free by the MP (in lieu of his/her claiming rent).
Complain about this comment
The Brown situation is typical of what's wrong with politics-it's used as a one stop gravy train to squeeze the last penny from the public purse.It's scandalous...........too much cronyism and what's in it for me culture.The ideal of being proud to serve the public went years ago.....they don't give a damn about you and I as long as their cosy little nests remain lined.You can't trust any of them with their mealy mouthed comments and and pomposity.You could sack 90% of them and this country would be a far better place.It's all about greed and hanging on to power and privelege at all costs.......never mind who you step on.
Complain about this comment
Oh come on, now Gordon Brown says this is a private matter for Mrs Smith.
Utter rubbish. The money claimed was from the public purse, taxpayers money. Yes the PUBLIC purse.
Here we go again brushing it all under the carpet.
Fiddling expenses in whater terms you call it is defined as being dishonest. Fraudulent. Claiming for mucky movies is not a claimable item.
This cannot be defended by anyone including Mr Brown. A disgrace to the nation.
Complain about this comment
Nick
You have a chance to put questions to Jacqui Smith and her colleagues.
Why don't you ask them what they think the "Court of Public Opinion" would make of all this?
Why don't you ask them what the difference is between bankers defending their bonuses by saying they 'acted within the rules' and MPs defending their expenses by saying the same thing?
These are the questions that everyone in the public is asking. Why aren't you?
Complain about this comment
This just shows how out of touch MP's are compared to 'normal' people.
No normal person has ever paid for porn since the invention of the internet.
Complain about this comment
I feel the real thing here is that they are both so thick that they did not see this on the bill before claming to cost of this from my tax money. Surely anyone who is supposed to be making decisions about major political issues should be capable of checking a simple bill before submitting it for on an expenses claim. Does this show that neither Jacqui Smith nor her advisor husband is capable of checking anything at all? I do not think she should simply resign as home secretary but she must resign as an MP and let her constituents decide if she can remain in Westminster.
Complain about this comment
I don't normally comment on political stories as they are often pointless side shows to the real issues.
However in this case I must make an exception.
I think the point of this story is it shows just how much Government and ministers are completely out of touch.
we don't care if the £5 is paid back or not - we don't care that Jaqui's husband is not being satisifed by his busy wife (and no moderators - it's not slander as he has admitted he purchased the film)
No - what drives the public mad is the clear indication that J.S. submitted her entire 'virgin package bill' for expenses - regardless of which of those calls / internet usage were actually personal or not.
As someone who has filled in expenses before I am always careful to eliminate personal calls and personal costs which are not work related. The difference between me and an MP is that I am basically HONEST and do not lie for a living. I also do not think it's acceptable to simply say 'oh it's only a little bit of money' - because unlike my Government I am very aware of the cumulative effect of everybody doing 'just a little bit extra'.
Scum, scum, scum - I shall not weep for Jaqui when Golem has to shuffle her out. She is a bad home secretary (despite his claim she's doing a good job) and she has done more to damage civil liberties than Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin.
It's so depressing how one part of the nation is so unaware of the other's existence and struggle - but soon they will know and it won't be a nice experience for them.
Complain about this comment
God save us from career politicians.
Complain about this comment
Nick - can't agree with you on MPs pay / Jacqui Smith.
The solution to bad law is to change the law, not to break or abuse it. And who is better placed to do that than an MP? And the Home Secretary at that.
Have we seen any calls from those accused of inappropriate expenses claims for reform? No. Certainly not before the fact and not much after the fact.
And the fact that she has to trawl through her diary to find out if she is within or outside of the number of nights required to qualify... why doesn't she already have those totals BEFORE claiming the allowance?
Sorry, but I'm struggling to see your logic.
And the suggestion that MPs are underpaid? Nah. They were even criticised recently for increasing their own pay well above inflation while keeping nurses, firemen etc on a pittance... and this is a woman on a cabinet minister's salary, not a mere backbencher.
There should be some degree of altruism expected of an MP - you should be doing it out of a sense of duty, not for gain. That may be too much to ask for, reasonable remuneration is of course to be expected, but we do not want to end up like France where corruption is what is expected of politicians.
And this latest film thing at a time when she is already under investigation - can we believe it? And even if we do believe that... someone that makes that kind of mistake in the context of the ongoing expenses investigation... should we trust them to run the Home Office?
Time to go, I think.
Complain about this comment
I see that the best defence the Labour trolls can manage is that this isnt a News story.
Well in response to that you will note that in 97 it was exactly this type of story that swept you to power.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
Complain about this comment
I have no sympathy for this party or nick.However he has avalid point these are not EXPENSES they are allowances or as the MP's believe entitlements because that is how they are managed.Look we have far to many MP's.Lets reduce the number start paying sensible wages then all of these games, that all the parties play, will stop.It is incredible to me that a leader of a tinpot council or NHS trust earns more than the PM.(perhaps present incumbent excluded).Pay peanuts get monkeys fits well at the moment.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
she's gone hasn't she. Position untenable. Too much distraction from G20, the big issue.
Complain about this comment
Sympathy? Only a double-whammy of ridicule and outrage, Nick.
Methinks there's a mole at work here. The revelations could not have come at a worse time for beleaguered Brown nor his hapless home secretary.
MPs are looking over their shoulders wondering if they'll be fingered in the next expenses scam, while the credibility of the home secretary lies in tatters.
It's a sorry state of affairs when a home secretary cannot make serious statements of state, without everyone sniggering behind her back. Time for her to fall on her exes.
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/will-smith-be-fall-guy-in-expenses-fall.html
Complain about this comment
"To many MPs, she's a likeable working mum who didn't expect to be elected in '97; whose husband agreed to sacrifice his career to make hers possible; who works such long hours that she spends more days away from her family than with it and who knows that she's on course to lose her very marginal seat and thus, her job, income and allowances, at the next election."
You really have let yourself down with this article Nick. For "many Mp's" at the start of that paragraph you should have been honest and written "me".
As for the last part of the paragraph, more honesty could have led you to write "and so is determined to squeeze every penny that she can out of the system while she still has the chance".
Complain about this comment
I am really furious.
These are the people, that are going to crush your car if you "inadvertently" have no tax or insurance.
Not for the knights of the road the old "I'll just pop down the post office and make it right, is that okay?"
"No, sonny, park it up and its off to the crusher with your wheels."
But like Blunkett before and the old rail tickets etc. pay it back and it'll be alright... genuine mistake like guv.
The benefits cheats who might "inadvertently" forget to mention on their claims that they are working cash in hand...... I am paying for expensive adverts on the radio and t.v. featuring the bloke out of the office to say "We're coming to get you and you could face...."
And it turns out.... THEY ARE ALL AT IT!
They ought to be charged with trying to overthrow Parliamentary democracy the current crop of MPs... of all parties.
Complain about this comment
Come on Nick your article is more of a plea for Jacqui Smith... So what if she didn't think she was going to be elected in 97 or that her husband put her career before his or even that she might lose her marginal seat at the next election. I have long resented her as Home Secretary, her failure to apologise for errors, the treatment of the Police, her incompetance on a range of issues and with so many people currently losing their jobs & homes through no fault of their own, why should the public have sympathy for her or her future!
Complain about this comment
I just want to make one (secondary?) point: PORNOGRAPHY does matter.
There is no such thing as good porn and bad porn. The “legal” pornographic industry is linked both to “legal” prostitution and illegal prostitution (male, female and child), sexual abuse and sexual trafficking and slavery.
On the other side of the line, being a porn-addict “adult” is personally destructive (and MrTimney would do good in trying to get himself some help), and when pornography trickles down to young people, as it inevitably does, then you are responsible for its destructive effects on “non adults” too.
No, porn is never a purely “personal matter”, or “a bit of fun”, it is a dark and gloomy underworld, not the kind of “fun” one would expect to find in the family home of a Home Secretary.
It is legal, allright, so let’s blame “the system” that allows it. This whole episode is a symptom of a very real sickness.
Complain about this comment
"The gap between the elected and those who elect them has rarely been wider"
Well I'm not usually one to knock your efforts Nick, rather the opposite but I have to ask where have you been this last few years?
I have been making this very point here for well over two years.
It starts with an electoral system where the largest minority can ride roughshod over the will of the majority who didn't want their policies. Ever more invasive and autocratic legislation and systems of governence at national and local level which protect and isolate those in any form of power from the people that pay for it. This leads to a arrogance of those in power that makes them behave as if the rules were just for the "little people" and that spin and disinformation rather than openess and integrity are the routine. It's not just Ms Smith. What about Peter Hain's election expenses, employment of family in non existent jobs, secretariries who are actually nannies, Lord's accepting fees for influence etc, etc,.
Nick until we fundamentally change not just the expenses system but the whole electoral system there is little prospect of permanently pulling power back to the electorate from an increasingly isolated, authoritarian and morally corrupt executive which as the figures clearly show have barely more than 1/3 of the votes cast at the ballot box. This is not a party political point, it has been so for the last 60 years and the disaffection and disillusion of the electorate with all of the politicians has just grown and grown.
Complain about this comment
I don't get it. I am a civil servant, and I can make claims for various expenditure etc. Before putting my signature to the claim I declare that the expenses have been "actually and necessarily charged by me solely on the Public Service". Any infringements of this would render me liable to disciplinary action, including termination of service and loss of pension rights. Obviously not the same for members of Parliament!
Complain about this comment
Nick,
She doesn't 'share a flat' with her sister, she lodges in her sister's house. Please try to get rid of your pro-government tendencies.
Complain about this comment
83. At 10:21am on 30 Mar 2009, sagamix wrote:
but what's more interesting is to look at who first put in place this ridiculous expenses set up involving second homes, the John Lewis list, all the rest of it - it was Margaret Thatcher
what a big surprise
So it's Thatchers fault for every MP who has been on the take for the last 20 years...........................what a load of garbage.
That's like a man who's made redundent today, blaming an MD of that very company from 20 years ago for his redundancy because of his management decisions back then.
Complain about this comment
The other most important point here as well is that an MP should be a representative of his constituency. I for 1 am fed up of reading about all parties parachuting in a candidate in "safe seats" to reward some party lackey.This is not how westminster was originally envisaged. This also increases costs to the taxpayer as this guarantees 2 payments to the MP.
Complain about this comment
Why have the BBC not addressed the matter with balance?
It is not the system. It is either her incompetance or malice. Either way she has to go. I would also like to knw why the BBC did not raise that she now claims she has evidence to prove her sisters home was the main residence. Well that then gets her into trouble as to apply for a school for her children she would have put her family residence as the main home. If she has done that she has broken the law over schools adminstration or if not she has abused the MP expenses system. If she has proof for her sisters home then the BBC should have immediately raised the legality of her schools choice. The porn issue is just a secondaary matter that adds to the evidence but she should have already gone over the expences versus school choice.
Complain about this comment
Her police garde can list the exact nights she stayed at her main residance, all she is now claiming is the number of days she didn't stay at her so called second home.
For the sisters flat to be her main home she needs to spend the majority of the nights in the year there, she can assume the year is 48weeks long to allow for 4 weeks holiday. But as her partner and her children do not live there so her claim looks dodgy from the start.
Given that we have the G20 meeting here and are on a high state of terror alert, I feel she should resign or stand down untill/if her name is cleared.
As for G.Brown calling for a review that will not report back till after the next general election thats a disgrace.
We need action now and the caught of public oppinion is that she has her hand in the cookie jar.
Complain about this comment
I've been arguing for weeks that it is the system of Commons expenses and the culture which surrounds it which has caused all the problems.
Mods are you watching.
Yes I agree with you Nick the poor little dears can't be expected to control themselves when there is such a buffet of largess laid before them after all they're only MP's.
Which commons officials have engouraged MP's was it Speaker Martin.
"The gap between the elected and those who elect them has rarely been wider. It is in all our interests that that gap is closed."
I would also argue
The gap between the lobby journo's and those who pay them has rarely been wider it is in all our interests that that gap is closed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am sat here just wondering what an earth has happened to the British, have we become so apathetic that we no longer care about principals.
How on earth anyone can make excuses for this woman is totally byond me. Here she is earning 120-140 thousand pounds a year with a husband who is claiming 40 thousand for helping her do her job and she still has the audacity to claim for things like a plug.
We can say that this is just 10 pounds for adult films, and does it matter. Well I can assure you to a lot of pensioners and low income families struggling along it does matter. Are we so removed from reality that we do not see what is wrong here. This is tax payers money, taxes that should in all instances be used wisely, a lot of people worked hard to pay their taxes, in order to help others, not to put money in the pockets of MPs so they can have a lifestyle that most can only dream of. Believe me if Smith had not been caught out, this expense would have gone through as per normal.
No Nick MPs should not be paid more money, the expenses lark should stop immediately we are in a recession for goodness sake. We may even have to go to the IMF and you are suggesting they should get more money if the expenses stop. They already have the privilege of a gold plated pension that has been taken away from most of us.
We have Brown lecturing bankers and the world on being honest and getting their house in order, what example are those in Government setting. What on earth must other countries of the world think about our system of Government, when Smith hits the headlines with this sort of thing.
The Labour party came to power saying no more sleaze, and yet this Government has been embroiled in sleaze almost from day one.
We have our troops struggling for equipment and their rights for proper medical care, pensioners in poverty, people losing their jobs, our economy in dire straits and McNulty and Smith living on the fat of the land, they should resign immediately, the public should demand that they do. Enough is enough.
Complain about this comment
All this leaves me wondering what's next? Perhaps we'll see a heightening of the 'terror' alert or some spiffing law and order wheeze in order to deflect public attention from this less than honourable Home Secretary. It never fails to amaze me that these gravy-train artistes can refer to one another as the right-honourable this and honourable that. Is this the 'honour among thieves' I've heard tell of? They take us into an illegal war in Iraq, take massive powers upon themselves in the name of keeping us safe from terrorism which they made more likely through their actions and fleece us mercilessly through their expenses accounts. Where's the honour?
Itchy.
Complain about this comment
is it any wonder we are in the state we are in. Bankers, politicans all taking every last bit of cakr they can, employing consultants at high cost so that the blame for failure is not laid at the feet of Ministers or Permanent Secretaries. I wish I could find an honest politican, then I might be inclined to vote again but at this point in time I see absolutley no point in voting. Shame on them all!
Complain about this comment
Sympathy? I don't see much of that. Jacqui "Jack Boot" Smith deserves all that's coming too her.
Complain about this comment
I wonder what Dan Hannan would have to say about this, eh Nick?
Complain about this comment
Has anyone told the G20 leaders due here Thrusday that the Home Secutary has spent the weekend trying to prove she didnt fiddle the books instead of checking and rechecking their security?
Complain about this comment
Dear Jacqui,
I'm sure you wish that this had not happened, but it has. I am also sure that what is rushing through your mind now is how can you get out of this, how can you massage the facts, tough out the criticism, survive. Don't believe your own propaganda, definitely do not do that, that poison is lethal. As are the kisses of the closest. Tables and sinks and videos and paying your husband. The little deceptions, fibs that became lies without meaning to, so so silly. People, the people, remember them Jacqui? They really aren't stupid, bigoted yes, but not stupid. Another mistake. The truth, as it is so often, is clear. Don't worry It is only greed. Can you imagine how the young idealistic Jacqui would have cried for what has happened. Sit quietly for a second alone, yes alone and let your mind settle. As it says in the book...
Look inward for the most distant view.
...and see for miles.
Complain about this comment
Who's checking her claims for her, and why does she think that for a Gov't elected on supposedly "getting rid of slease" that she or her P.A. should not be taking more care.
Answer.... this is a complacent Gov't who do not understand how the public feel, and/or more importantly think it does not matter what we think.
This is one of many things pointing towards a "Need for Change"
Complain about this comment
The great unanswered question is this.
Smith employs her husband as an assistant on £40,000 a year. Has she sacked him for completing the claim incorrectly?
Complain about this comment
I suppose we cannot expect more of our MP's like honour and responsibility because journalist like the Political Editor of the BBC doesn't expect any better and can quite see their hardship.
Complain about this comment
The fact that two of the films were pornographic is obviously extremely embarassing for Smith but it has allowed her to deflect the blame to her husband, even to the extent of hiding from the press and leaving him to make a public statement. However, the incident raises further issues:-
1) The type of film viewed is irrelevant. It could certainly be argued that a politician needs a sky/cable package to have access to 24 hour news but she should not be claiming for any additional packages, films or pay per view from the taxpayer.
2) Is this an isolated "mistake" or is this just the only time she has been caught? Clearly her expenses claims cannot now be automatically accepted as accurate or legitimate and all her past claims should now be investigated by the Commons authorities.
3) According to newspaper reports yesterday, when submitting claims for expenses MPs are required to personally sign a form declaring "I confirm that I incurred these costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily to enable me to stay overnight away from my only or main home for the purpose of performing my duties"
Clearly she has, at least once, provided a false declaration. It may be an honest mistake but surely her other claims should now be checked.
4) It was also reported that previous claims included two widescreen tvs. How can two tvs possibly be required "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" to perform her parliamentary duties? I suspect a thorough check of her claims would result in many failing this test.
5) What research is her husband currently carrying out for her? (I will avoid the obvious joke). He gave up his job (does civil engineering provide a good training for a parliamentary researcher?) to be her assistant/researcher but stays in Redditch looking after their children and does not appear to spend much, if any, time at Westminster. Is this any different from the cases of Caroline Spellman, who claimed for the cost of her childcare, or Derek Conway who "employed" his sons when they were not in fact carrying out any actual work for him? Should the authorities not be checking what Mr Timney does to justify his salary, variously reported as between £20000 and £40000 per annum?
6) Why does the Home Secretary, with the resources of the Home Office, Police and the security services need to employ, at the publics expense, her own personal assistant/researcher?
Complain about this comment
Some real comedy on here - blame Thatcher? Right, she's not been PM for over 18 years or even an MP for 17 years.
Then there's the "the Tory MPs do it too!" Yes, we know. And they need throwing out on the streets too.
And last, but not least, apparently knowing what MPs spend OUR money on is an invasion of privacy.
As attempts to deflect hands being caught in the till, they're contemptible and laughable.
Complain about this comment
On top of all this, the MP's have announced a pay rise of 2.3% from April
How many others will get an increase?
Complain about this comment
EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID - JUST ADDING MY NAME TO THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AS ANGRY AS HELL OVER LITTLE MISS PRIMA DONNA SMITH'S LAME EXCUSES.
SHE IS UTTERLY USELESS AS HOME SECRETARY.
Complain about this comment
@99.TheWalrus123 wrote:
The rule about second homes are clearly not intended to allow an MP to designate their family home as the second home, and claim allowances for it.
Why claim allowances on the family home at all?
Its disgusting that an MP can get away with this breach of the spirit of the rules by claiming that it is within the letter of the rule.
This is corruption and she should be ashmamed.
I am afraid that it is not just her that should be ashamed. There is an inexcusable twisting of rules going on throughout our political system. Whether it be "lords for sale" or "second home switching" these games are quite frankly a disgrace. At a time where we are all having to tighten our belts these selfish politicians should be the "public servants" they should be or be thrown out on their ears. "the rules allow me to...." is a shameful lack of integrity and maturity.
The rules need to be tighter and the politicians need to grow up! "He said i could....." Is a kids reason for doing something they shouldn't!
Complain about this comment
What this actually says about M.P.'s in general is that they will bend the rules to any extreme to enable them to justify expenses incurred in carrying out their job as an M.P.
This is obviously as high as their 'second home' right down to the wretched 'plug' at the other! We must assume that all M.P.s are probably using these same parameters. I think it shows that the rules need to be changed.
Complain about this comment
Two Points
1) RE RobinJD - What abount Mandelson Mortgages and Yacht?
2) "The gap between the elected and those who elect them has rarely been wider. It is in all our interests that that gap is closed."
Who is "our"? The population? the politicians? or just the BBC and Labour?
Complain about this comment
You will not be able to appreciate my anger at all, yes I put them all in the same bag, politicians, they are all PIGS in the trough...
They need to dig themselves out of this that they put themselves in by carrying out some positive corrective actions and prosecute those that have fraudulently been claiming public money under the vain reasoning of ‘it’s not against the rules’. Well sorry; if you contextualise the rules these actions ARE against the rules.
I repeat PIGS in the trough…..
Complain about this comment
Could someone please answer me this.
Ms Smith has a grace-and-favour apartment, but doesn't use it because she stays with her sister.
Does she not use it because someone else is already living in it?
Complain about this comment
Surely a simple way of defining the home is that if you owned it before entering parliament then it is your first home and therefore not able to claim any expenses for it, other than possibly an amount for telephone calls etc, as for anyone else who works from home occasionally.
Personally, I think the best option is for the Houses of Parliament to utilise an apartment block somewhere near Westminster (there must be one lying empty or half built at the moment)and provide each MP (and Lord if covered by the same rules) with a fully furnished apartment with Satellite TV/Internet etc provided so that the MPs have somewhere to stay whilst in London. The expense may be high in the first place in setting it up, but I'm sure over time that there will be savings. Then there will be no problem with expenses as the Houses of Parliament will effectively "manage" the block and make any repairs/renovations as and when necessary.
Complain about this comment
Anyway, leaving aside Ms Smith and her porn fiend husband, interesting comments from Golem Brown on the Dunfermline Building Society saga today:
"Let's face facts - the Dunfermline building society is the author of its own mistakes: mistaken judgments, mistaken investments, mistaken policies."
Substitute "Golem Brown" for "the Derfirmline Building Society" and it would be a totally accurate assessment.
But they do say "it takes one to know one", so Golem Brown should surely know a failure.
Complain about this comment
"111. At 11:52am on 30 Mar 2009, sagamix wrote:
the time stamp on these posts is an hour out - clearly hasn't moved forward with the clocks - is this the sort of incompetence, and NuLab bias, that we pay the licence fee for?
(quite a nice photo of Jacqui, btw, isn't it?)"
Oh dear. When this is the best that the New Labour Champion of the BBC forums can come up with then she really is in trouble. Although I think you could have said how the Tories are just as bad (which they are). A pox on all their houses.
Complain about this comment
What gets me most about this story is the idea she expects anyone to believe that she "mistakenly" claimed for the porno films. How is that supposed to work exactly? Does she just take every bill that arrives on the doormat of her house (sorry, second home) and automatically put it into her expenses claim without reading it?
In my book, that kind of cavalier attitude is actually worse than deliberately claiming for the porno films. It makes you wonder how many other things she's claimed for that she shouldn't have done given that she clearly doesn't know what she's been claiming for.
Complain about this comment
Recent revelations regarding the 'misuse' of allowances by senior government ministers make the misdemeanors of Derek Conway seem like small fry. It's a hard job running the country (into the ground). Perhaps we should make bigger allowances for them.
Complain about this comment
Hang on a minute, did someone hold a gun to all 630 MP's heads and told them they must stand for parliament ?? Thought not. When I apply for a job if I don't like the salary offered I don't take the job, simple.
This lot get elected and then bleat on about how they're not paid enough, simple solution resign and get a better paid job. Oh sorry I forgot, most of you have now demonstrated just how unemployable you are.
Time to get your CV dusted off Jacqui because when you fall you're out by two incomes, yours and your husbands !!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
126. At 12:05pm on 30 Mar 2009, RobInManchester wrote:
Well, what you wrote seems so detached from political reality as to be hardly about politics at all. Smith's evident talent for attracting political embarrassment, particularly in light of her lacklustre if not downright absurd record in office are rightly the story of the day. I doubt whether any political commentator would regard the uncomfortable spotlight now falling on her as anything but relevant and appropriate.
Possibly our politicians too occupy a planet where reporting this story is somehow unacceptable. Which may explain precisely why the public have lost confidence in them already and are losing patience with them now.
Complain about this comment
#83 Sagamix
Ah the old chestnut - blame Thatcher
Complain about this comment
I'm sick of hearing about such trivialities. She's probably a bit too busy doing her job and looking after her children to be able to give her allowances as much time as she would like. I seem to remember the things the Tories did were enough to have some of them prosecuted and imprisoned. Some people ought to get things in proportion here. News people please note that this kind of rubbish filling the news does NOT excite.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps bringing this into real politics for a minute. Her and others' expenses are just a drop in the ocean compared to what the government wastes day-in day-out. That doesn't excuse her and in any other walk of life she would be sacked or resign.
Maybe the media and opposition should spend as much time looking into waste elsewhere and holding the government to account and we'd all be better off. A good place to start would be Brown's current junket around the world and the G20 following.
Complain about this comment
Let me just say, I can't stand the woman.
But those of you who are trying to shame her by saying such like what was she doing with all that politics when she should have been spending more time with her family.
Well, that's sexist.
Because that statement could equally apply to, I'd guess, just about every male MP there is.
(How much time did Blair spend with Leo?)
She should not be lambasted for it if they are not.
Complain about this comment
Jaqui Smith.... expenses probe.....
Why should we be surprised? She is, after all, M.P. responsible for Feckenham.....
Complain about this comment
I have just read that MP's are having a 2.33% payrise from 1st April - nice to see they are still in touch with reality.
In my profession there are no pay rises this year and the possibility of shortened hours for the good of the company.
How about the MP's doing something for the good of the country - will Clegg and Cameron show the leadership Brown is incapable of?
Complain about this comment
The English long ago perfected the art of dirty politics.
For example, Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone hated each other - personally, professionally and politically.
An example during a debate in Parliament:
Gladstone: "You sir, shall die on the gallows or of venereal disease."
Disreali: "That, sir, depends on whether I embrace your principles...or your mistress."
Unfortunately we now have to extend the political meaning of 'dirty' to accommodate the snouts in the tough attitude which seems prevalent in all parties.
The majority of MPs seem to be woefully enured to the realities of life outside politics.
They even have the gall to suggest they are underpaid. It would be interesting to research their market values outside of politics. A few, the lawyers mainly, would earn more. But what about the remainder?
We need fewer MP's and more accountability for those that remain.
As for Smith and the movies. I couldn't give a damn whether the film was 'Noddy and Big Ears' or 'Sexy Sadie'. The fact that the prevailing view appears to be that the taxpayer should pay is the issue.
I'll also ask, again, what is the tax position of those relatives who put MPs up in their spare room and who claim an allowance for the privelege. What happens to the cash?
Nick - a hint to help you become a better investigative journalist - follow the money.
Complain about this comment
138. At 12:19pm on 30 Mar 2009, extremesense wrote:
Yes, and come the hour, Pickles will, so to say, get his.
But that will be then, this is now, and what one would really like to know is what kind of leg if any Jacqui Smith has to stand on. Only the embarrassing fuss that would surround the possibility of appointing the likes of Harriet Harman to the job can be giving Gordon any pause at all in the impulse to accept Ms Smith's resignation with all speed.
Complain about this comment
She is confident that she has the proof that she's spent more nights in London than in her constituency"
What is the funniest thing is that Greenwich dosn't count as London
Still to some of the rants on this post( and on Question time), we should pay our MPs £150k all in. I wont the best in charge and am willing to pay for it. When people talk about 50K, or less, do you know what you get for that money in London..a bank manager.
Complain about this comment
Smith has doen wrong and seems to think she hasn't. I mean the odious Main/Second Home scam she has pulled rather than Hubby's slip up on the dodgy film front.
Mr Smith has done wrong and given a politician's apology (ie apolgise if I have upset you etc etc.)
Brown, who relies on his own Moral Compass, but rented out his taxpayer funded consitituency office, doesn't seem to care.
No-one seems to know how to behave properly, or even how to change what are clearly the world's most risible set of "rules".
In which order should these three publicy funded spongers resign? Or should they just all go in one fell swoop?
Complain about this comment
Its very simple (as was described in one of the nationals last week)
Reduce the number of MPs and Lords and either
a) pay them a sensible salary for working full time as politicians
b) continue pay them £60K + genuine expenses for part-time work
I'd vote for b) so that they all stay somewhat in the real world provided it is a "real" job i.e. they can't work for their party, hold more than one political office or in the news media.
I think it would also help if parliament didn't meet in the most expensive city in the UK.
Complain about this comment
"Smith Thought She Be Cleared" is one of the funniest headlines I've ever seen. Does Smith really think that a bit of diary poring will magically make her big house in Redditch(where her hubby and kids live), her "Second Home", and the backroom of her sister's house her "Main Home"? She's either having a larf (at our expense, taxpayers out there), or is living amongst the other poor deluded occupants of Planet Balls/Cooper.
Complain about this comment
first-off, thers are so many good posts here -- I liked #67, #80, #82, #86, #92, #122, and others.
also, the idea of a publicly maintained set of studio flats for MPs as suggested in #18 would be a good solution to many of these problems.
NR, you say "Commons officials have, until recently, encouraged MPs to claim the maximum and treated those that don't as if they're fools."
if that is so and you knew it, why didn't the BBC report this? perhaps if we had been told, say, 10 years ago, this "encouragement" could have been stopped years ago.
Complain about this comment
The whole thing is an outrage. Next thing you know there'll be MPs receiving money in brown envelopes, persuading their children to lie under oath to claim expenses and falsifying diary entries as evdence in court.
Hold on a minute..
37 - Classy stuff, Colonel
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 83 extremesense 138
I am glad you both see fit to play political games over such an important issue. Shall we play your cat is blacker than my cat and resort to the really low playground stuff.
Thatcher has been out of Government for many years and can in no way have made as many mistakes as this Government. I am quite sure with all her failings she could not have anticipated that a Labour Government would have been as greedy as they have turned out to be. After all are we not supposed to be able to trust our Public servants.
You need to bear in mind that the Labour party was formed to help the working man, that has been their mantra all these years. Yet we have Blair who came in office only to feather his own nest, and many other politicians in the Labour Party, who are interested only in their own gain. How does that square with the working man do you think?
The Conservatives are not in Government, have not been in Government for 12 years, and represent opposition not the people of this country on the world stage, Smith does.
Why do I not spend some time reminding you of all the things which Labour did wrong in the 70s when the country was brought to its knees and the public said we will never vote Labour again. Sure enough the people put Labour out of office for 18 years, and for me I wish it had been longer. We may not be in this mess now.
The reason I will not is because it is a pointless exercise. No one is saying that the Lib/Dems or the Conservatives are whiter than white, but at least they are making some effort to reform the system, Brown is not. He wants us to wait another year while his MPs get fat on our money, and the public continue to suffer.
If these arguments you put forward about Thatcher are the only ones in your armoury, I would suggest Labour would be better off without them.
Complain about this comment
Whatever system that is in place to pay out allowances or expense chits will always be fallible if it is managed in house by the recipients. On top that the culture of gimme, gimme gimme combined with advice on how to maximise claims is a sure outcome of sleaze. The system has been revised twice under the current government.
1. It should be managed externally.
2. MPs should claim in the spirit of the law.
3. Give a final ultimatum: clean up your act or the whole chamber of MPs have to step at the next election and not stand again for at least one parliamentary term. Sort of like in sport yellow and red cards.
Wont happen. There should be a maximum number of parliamentary terms an MP can serve anyway, which reminds me what happened to the notion of public service? It was not so long ago that local councillors did not receive salaries; they had day jobs and were part time councillors.
Complain about this comment
Nice to see in this hard time when private sector workers are losiung their jobs, taking pay or pension cuts, the MP's have given them selves a 2.33% pay rise.
Lifes good on the garvy train.
Complain about this comment
In the 1970,s my father was a local councilor. My mother had ,before his election, applied for a repairs grant on our A listed home,for which we were eligible.
The grant was duly awarded,but my father,given his position of authority in the village and of course his personal views on the flouting of positions of power,of which he held dim views,refused the grant explaining at length to my annoyed mother,that society cannot be upheld with integrity,if those in elected positions are seen to misuse public funds,and that in an ideal world where all elected people ,do have honesty and integrity, opportunities to claim on public money should be avoided whenever possible. The position my father held was an UNPAID position. I was very proud of my father and his staunch upholding of what he deemed to be the honest way...and continue to uphold this in my own life.
Perhaps local government,councilors,chief executives,given the apparent levels of creaming the goods,squeezing the perks AND OTHER CORRUPTIONS ,all coming to light these days, should take a long hard look at just how responsible they are for the drip effect that can carry down to; ie insurance fraud,DSS fraud etc. Why should the poorest ,and the tax payers be expected to behave with integrity and honesty when those in control are seen to being unable to do so.
Complain about this comment
on the wall @ 147
she has done more to damage civil liberties than Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin
c'mon, if you're gonna do hyperbole, please do it right ... you forgot to add the essential "put together !!!"
amateur
but I have to say what's fascinating me about this whole shennanigans is still not a dicky bird from Nick about the expense claims of one Derek Hannan - anyone else intrigued by that?
touch of CLOWN BIAS creeping into the BBC Politics Blog?
Complain about this comment
So Nick, she was only getting as much from the system as she could.
Bit like Fred the Shred then?
These are the same people who have been holding the "Court of Public Opinion". They don't like it up them though do they?
Complain about this comment
It took a tax payer earning £10 per hour to work all the time the partner of the home secutary to relax watching the films to generate enough income tax to pay for the films.
And they wonder why the court of public opinion wants her to resign.
Complain about this comment
Let me get this right.
As a taxpayer, I now fund the Home Secretary's husband's personal proclivities which, on all the evidence before me, extend to self-abuse. Meantime, today I listened to Keith Vaz MP speaking on the World at One telling me nonchalantly that this is a media-fuelled, non-issue about which I should not trouble myself.
Hell, this is my hard-earned cash we're talking about. We're finding the going very tough in my home at the moment, and the future looks at best uncertain and at worst bleak. Whilst I tell my wife and children that for this year's summer holiday we may just be able to stretch to a week in a tent, I am supposed to accept as perfectly normal having to pay for a Government minister's husband to watch pornography.
Will somebody please tell me what's happening here?
Complain about this comment
Sorry, no sympathy for Jacqui Smith at all.
My wife works all the hours God gave, is frequently away from home in the Uk or abroad, has a salary that doesn't reflect the work or hours she does, regularly stays at my mother's home to keep expenses low and doesn't (can't) claim for the stays, has to buy suits only for work.
And I am at home cooking, cleaning and running my own small business.
Yet we can't claim extra. Not only us, thousands of other people in the UK are the same boat.
There is nothing special about MPs so why are they treated as a special case.
If we tried the tricks they do the Inland Revenue would be down on us like a ton of bricks.
MPs are even allowed to smoke in the bars in Parliament (disgusting habit) whereas companies and restaurants would be fined for doing the same.
Its one rule for MPs and another for the rest of us>
Complain about this comment
169 Jonny Storm
Totally agree. None of them are worth voting for.
I remember seeing long ago about in the USA a van driving around during an election with an empty chair on the back and a sign saying
"VOTE FOR NOBODY, BECAUSE NOBODY REALLY CARES."
That just about sums up the current state of Parliament and our MPs.
Complain about this comment
# 16 dagemo
... with himself, it would seem.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I see that MP's have voted themselves an inflation-busting 2.3% pay rise.
I'd love to have been able to vote myself a pay rise - especially when I'm spending other people's money.
Jacqui Smith's unfortunate episode seems to herald a good day to bury bad news. This smacks of their arrogance and blatant hypocrisy. I sincerely hope the BBC will be making this one of their top stories, Nick, and not sweeping it under the carpet, which is what usually happens.
Complain about this comment
Nick/Moderators
Please, please don't censor posts against today's Blog. This is such a serious issue; citizens are outraged at this shocking abuse of public trust and the relationship between those who govern and the governed. Let the people speak. Damn, our voice gets heard in few other places, least of all where it should most of all: Parliament.
We must eject this Government before it's too late.
Complain about this comment
Calling all posters.
I'm sure that the party teams monitor these posts so why don't we all start our posts with
I OBJECT STRONGLY TO MPs WASTING MY TAXES ON THEIR EXPENSES
Complain about this comment
Nick
Looks like your apologia for Ms Smith has gone down badly.
How about a fresh post addressing some of the issues in the comments above, for a change? If it's good enought for Michael White in the Guardian...
# 171
Estarriol, my name is Ged
Complain about this comment
What I don't understand is why he bothered with the films when we were clearly already paying for his internet access so he could have found all sorts of Gentlemen's entertainment online for free!
Typical Labour, instead of getting value for money they go for the expensive option!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So it's okay to break the windows of Fred Goodwin's house for being a bad banker but somehow we are supposed to accept that Jacqui Smith, the destroyer of personal liberties and abuser of expenses, is allowed to keep her job.
So was it a personal matter for Fred Goodwin?
Is it a personal matter for Paul Myners?
One can only assume wacky Jacqui has not been fired yet because the prime minister himself has lost all authority..and would anyone be surprised by that?
The BBC seem content to report on this inept, incompetent and profligate government as if they still had some kind of authority, both moral and fiscal. Could anything be further from the truth?
The governor of the bank of England goes to see the Qqueen for her first ever meeting with the governor and the BBC still thinks it's the prime minister who has authority?
Is the BBC blind to the gradual erosion of prime ministerial authority? Is the BBC blind to the unbelievably sublte ways of the unwritten constitution of the UK? Do the BBC not seem to realise the prime minister is slowly but surely being pushed out of office, paralysed by his own paranoia and hounded out by his own disillusioned and rudderless troops.
Gordon Brown has been asked often enough to accept the blame for some of the financial crisis; he's had numerous colleagues shoulder some of the blame on his behalf yet he steadfastly refuses to cept responsibility.
Have the BBC not noticed the isolation of Gordon Brown? Have they not noticed the ebbing away of support for his band of faltering advisors in the government of all the talents?
How many newspapers need to come out and say the man is a liability with no way out of the current problems before the BBC work it out for themsleves and start reporting on the failure of the govrnments attempts to dig us out of this crisis or even just mange a way through it? How many non government ministers need to report that we have simply borrowed too much money and it is completely unsustainable before the BBC actually entertain the debate?
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Have we heard/you investigated whether or not Jacqi Smith's sister declares the money her sister pays her or does her house have its own trough?
Complain about this comment
well..........the silent majority are almost deafening on this one !It's quite clear from an almost unanimous public that we do not trust our MP's any more and that all confidence in Crash,darling darling and our Jacqui(whose mouth butter would't melt in) evaporated many moons ago.
They are two faced,conniving,grabbing and less than clean in their dealings-complete joke if truth be known.Living on borrowed time(like everything else they claim to have).......the sword of Damacles draws ever nearer.It's about time someone put the boot in.
Complain about this comment
If she had any sense of propriety and integrity she would already have resigned.If Brown likewise felt any sense of obligation to the taxpayers of this country, she would already have been removed from office; sadly neither Smith nor Brown have the necessary strength of character to do what moral obligation requires of them.
Complain about this comment
The whole filthy stinking gravy train of this corrupt governmnt continues. I work overseas now as a Teacher and I tell the truth to students about UK politics and government. I tell them the image of the UK in some parts of the world of being a pillar of honesty and integrity is a fallacy and that its a gravy train as much as other corrupt political edifices in other parts of the globe.
Complain about this comment
Obviously you've been overwhelmed.
Interestingly I don't see a lot of posts supporting the government line on this, which may be one of the reasons that moderation has stalled.
I wonder how many of the government apparatchiks who read and post to this blog are feeding the info back to El Gordo, warning him that they have reached the level up with which we will put no more.
Complain about this comment
Courtesy of the Daily Telegraph Ms Smith was said to claim £24,006 - the maximum yearly amount permitted - on her £300,000 family home from 2001 to 2007 her total claims were said to be £116,000.
In the same period she earned £142,000 as Home Secretary and claimed a total of £152,000 in Commons expenses for 2006-07.
I believe her husband is paid around £40,000 - I am not sure whether this is included in the above.
The BBC breaking news is that she claimed a further £22948 for 2007-2008.
Whether these figures are entirely accurate or not you have to question the mentality of MP's who think this is justified.
Outside of Politics Ms Smith could not command a salary anywhere near that amount and is simply grabbing as much as she can whilst she can within the Parlimentary guidelines.
MP's who think this is acceptable [of any party] should be booted out of politics - what happened to the notion of public service?
Complain about this comment
Was it just me or did the news item of Jacqui Smith's husband apologising by the garden gate bring back memories of David Mellor?
It seems so sad that a government that set out to be whiter than white; have an ethical foreign policy; freedom of information and devolution will be remembered for so many squalid things and illegal wars.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
As I pointed out to you this morning, you have just been handed a story which is much bigger than the Home Secretary's phoney claim for porn on her husband's behalf. The Home Secretary's 'friends' appear to have inadvertently confirmed that she has been making fraudulent claims over which is her 'prime residence'. Why are you suppressing this story, which contradicts everything she and her defenders have said?
Let me explain.
The big hoo-ha about Jackie Smith has been that she has claimed a large sum in expenses for the use of her home in her constituency, where here husband and children live. She has repeatedly insisted that because she spends most of her time living at her sister's address in London, her sister's house is her primary residence and the house in her constituency is therefore her 'second residence', so she can make the claim. Fair enough.
Now, in the opening part of your story this morning, you say: "The irony is that only last week she told friends that she expected to be cleared in the inquiry into the expense claims for her second home. The home secretary has been poring over her home, constituency and office diary to plot where she had spent each night in the past year."
Now, you must have heard this from her 'friends' (more than one)? Or at any rate by some means which is presumably confidential this information imparted by her 'friends' reached your ears. Some of these expenses for her 'second home' were submitted years ago, and we all know that such a claim can only be lawful if she KNEW she had spend the majority of her time there. Yet you say that LAST WEEK her 'friends' were saying that she 'has been poring over her ... diary to plot where she had spent each night in the past year'. In other words, her 'friends' have told you that until last week she didn't know whether her claim that the house in London was her prime residence was true.
That sounds very like fraud to me. It also sounds like all the assertions by her, the Prime Minister and others, that her claim was 'within the rules' are also completely wrong.
Now, I've made comments here in the past because I think you allow yoirself to be influenced so that you do not write anything which is too critical of the Government. It appears that in this you have been given a piece of information which demonstrates that she has lied in order to maximise her expenses, but you have chosen to look at this piece of information only to ameliorate the embarrassment to the Home Secretary of her husband's porn habit.
Will you now investigate, with these 'friends', exactly what their revelation that she has not looked at her diaries before to where she lives before she makes her expenses claim actually means for her? I know that she, and the Labour Party, may not like you doing that, and I know that it may get a bit icy for you in the canteen, as her sister works at the BBC. Unfortunately for her, and possibly for you also if you didn't mean to, you have this morning published the 'smoking gun' which shows her to have made fraudulent expense claims.
Complain about this comment
here's hoping this will be the straw that broke the camel's back.
i was unfortunate enough to live in ms smith's constituency until last october, and i believe she's done far worse than fiddle some expenses. during her time as MP, the education system has seriously deteriorated, and the a&e department at the town's hospital is under threat of closure. my mum led the campaign to save our schools, and jaqcui smith did nothing to help - she just didn't care. if she can't even help her own constituency, why on earth is she being trusted to run a department as important as the home office?
she also rejected a referendum on the EU, despite the fact that a survey done in her constituency showed that an overwhelming majority of people wanted a referendum. has nobody told her she was elected to represent the views of her constituents?
if this doesn't finish her, i can only hope that the people of redditch finally see sense at the next election.
Complain about this comment
#136 kevinboateng
I think the defence you're referring to is commonly known as the Nuremburg defence - and of course it didn't stand-up then.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
ADDITION
The other common phrase is about
"Managers being promoted to their level of incompetence"
Just look at Darling, etc
Complain about this comment
"...who knows that she's on course to lose her very marginal seat and thus, her job, income and allowances, at the next election."
If only the rest of had guaranteed jobs for several years and a resettlement grant and generous pension when we lost them.
Complain about this comment
Coo-ee. Glad to see that such as this is now newsworthy.
It was getting tiresome being moderated for being 'off topic' simply for asking what folk were referring to.
Complain about this comment
2008 MPs Expenses Full Report
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Makes for interesting reading, especially Away from home allowances claimed by messrs Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Gerry Adams!
Complain about this comment
After Ms Smith resigns, or more likely after she gets her comeuppance from her constituents I suppose that her family will then uproot and move to her main residence in her sisters house. The second home, in her constituency and paid for by the taxpayer will be then sold to provide her with a tidy pension pot. Not bad for ten or so years in public service. The only losers being her sister and the taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As the PM stands by Smith, Operation Smokescreen begins...
Terror plot in Plymouth 'accidentally' foiled, including discovery of imitation weapons.
Calls for police investigation to find moles leaking expense claims...
RobinJD @100 weejonnie @183
Not forgetting Vaz and his lawyer mate, the 3 Lords for hire, Straw & the Saudis, Abrahams, two pensions Prezza, etc. etc. etc.
Complain about this comment
#161 UK-SILENT-MAJORITY
I get your point, however, there seem to be a number of Tory MPs living within a 50 mile radius of London claiming for second homes.
Wouldn't you agree that also is pretty dodgy or at least out of touch?
I don't mention the LibDems purely on the basis that they have party policy not to take the mickey with expenses.
Mind you, if this gets rid of another New Labour home secretary who is systemically setting about destroying the freedoms we've enjoyed for many years, then great, I'm delighted.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Jacqui Smith,Hazel Blears et al.............lame ducks-crash's puppets (or should that be muppets ? ).They have the personality of a garden gnome.......come to think of it,the one with the fishing rod.Always on the look out for an "easy"steal.
Complain about this comment
Don't you just love it...almost 60 posts awaiting moderation,for up to 3 hours...Nick attempting to get a sympathy vote for our trough gobbling Home Secretary..other blogs terminated..
..and to top it all off,Government apologists saying it's all Thatchers fault.
It all stinks of both the Beeb and Government being in panic mode because they can now see the inevitability of Labour being annihilated whenever an election is called.
Bring it on!
Complain about this comment
196 - Mrshamilton
"I'm sick of hearing about such trivialities. She's probably a bit too busy doing her job and looking after her children to be able to give her allowances as much time as she would like" - Sorry, that is a poor defence, she should know better than this.
"I seem to remember the things the Tories did were enough to have some of them prosecuted and imprisoned." - They were held to account, If I fiddled my expenses I would be fired, as would anyone else. Some accountability for this government would be nice, although highly unlikely.
"Some people ought to get things in proportion here. News people please note that this kind of rubbish filling the news does NOT excite." - I agree, she should already have been fired for claiming 'second home' allowance on a family home. This should by rights be a non-story.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What is the difference between a Tory Shadow Minister employing a nanny to care for her children and M/s Smith employing her husband to care for her children?
M/s Smith is a Labour government Cabinet member; M/s Spelman is a Tory and was a Shadow Minister [Leader of the Commons]. Surely the law does not allow such discrimination?
Complain about this comment
I would happily "sacrifice" my career if my wife could get me £40 k as her "assistant" -its all very whiffy isn't it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
She has clearly sat down with her husband and discussed how best they can bleed the system via expenses. Her blatant lack of morals, poor judgment and total disrespect for her job as Home Secretary should make her position untenable. There is a greater need than ever for government and authoruty to be setting an example to society, and this is what we get. She and her sleazy husband are a sad indictment of what we have come to expect from the Labour government - eevrything is 'within the rules' - someone needs to remind these people about the difference between 'the spirit of the law adn the letetr of the law'.
The fact that Gordon Brown came out in supoprt of her shows just what a moral coward he is and exactly why the country wants rid of him and his corrupt cronies. Bring on an election and let the people decide.
Complain about this comment
I think we need to change the system and rule relating to all aspects of MPs conduct which Jacqui Smith personifies to excess.
Regarding her choice of main residence. She says that this was cleared as OK by the parliamentary authorities. Given the absurdity of her claim did she provide them with all of the relevant information in a full and frank manner or was she "economical" with the info provided ? There is a very likely possibiility that she will lose her seat at the next general election. Where will she live then ? I have a feeling it won't be with her sister. Where is she registered on the electoral roll?
Regarding her husbands alleged 40k a year salary for being her assistant or whatever. Was this job actually formally advertised so anyone could apply for it ? Was anyone else even considered for the job? As this is taxpayers money being used to fund the job, I think that such appointments should be fair and open to all.
As for not breaking the rules. I don't think the rules were created to deal with such situations were MPs play the system for their own financial gain. There is no reason why the review of all this should not start now. It wouldn't take to long for a group of reasonably intelligent people to come up with a workable scheme.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
pre-moderated??? just joined this forum / blog whatever ,,, well i guess there really is no such thing as free speech.....
Complain about this comment
A few years ago Martin Bell caught the mood of a nation fed up to the back teeth with sleaze and resigned as a journalist to stand for election as an independent on an integrity ticket. The man in the white suit was duly elected and was a breath of fresh air compared to the majority of MPs at the time, with their noses deep in the trough. Eventually Martin Bell became something of a caricature in this role, but God knows the time is ripe for someone similar to stage a repeat. Against the likes of Jacqui Smith or Tony McNulty (or one of the many Tories who will also prove to be milking the same system dry), such an individual would walk into Parliament.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that the best spokesman the Labour Party can wheel out is Keith Vaz not the man I'd want speaking on any issue involving morals or integrity.
Complain about this comment
There is, of course, the little mystery of why Ms Smith chose not to live in the official residence available to her as Home Secretary. I wonder if the fact that she would then be unable to claim any expenses for a second home (which every right thinking person knows is really her main home)had any bearing on her unusual decision? I wonder what would happen if the Prime Minister decided not to live at Number 10? I don't see the disconnect between politicians and public getting smaller any time soon - people are now only too aware of just where the loyalty and priority of politicians lies, and it ceratinly isn't with us!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A simple solution to second homes
Ban them, but provide a bunkhouse in outer London for them to use just like any other London commuter - best if it is put on an overcrowded tube line - and not one that goes direct to Westminster so that they 'enjoy' the full benefit of interchanging!
Complain about this comment
#264 continued
maybe one of those Japanese capsule hotels!
Complain about this comment
So here we are, a topic of modest significance (ignoring the salacious element, what's new about ministerial "sleaze"?), moderation queues running about an hour late and the "debate" descending into the usual slanging match (Toffs versus Dereks).
The BBC Parliamentary Court Correspondent has now returned from a whirlwind tour with the ex-Chancellor ahead of the - slightly important - G20 summit. We have had various reports based on transcripts of speeches, but still nothing substantial in the way of reaction and reception from the countries visited and leaders met.
Now ok, it's been a hectic trip perhaps and far from thrill-a-minute, but this is lazy journalism.
Complain about this comment
Of course, MPs are probably right to claim for second homes even when they live a few miles from parliament.
The trains are nearly always late, the underground is fraught with delays, the buses when they run are hardly ever on time, and taxis are held up in the congestion.
Sack the Transport Minister I say.
Complain about this comment
Nick - It is time politicians realised that when they pass laws affecting what Joe public can and cannot claim as expenses that we the people expect MPS to have to abide by them as well.
A Tory MP claimed on Question Time that he was entitled to a second home as he lived THIRTY FIVE miles from Westminster. If worked 35 miles from home and tried to claim anything even of my Income Tax I have no doubt the revenue would say NO.
As for MS. Smith perhaps she will see the error of her STASI database state and ID cards and then perhaps she will have earned the sympathy and even forgiveness of we the people.
Complain about this comment
The growing list of what MP's don't pay for gets longer by the minute.
Perhaps a more poignant question would be to ask what they actually DO pay for?
Hardly anything, it would seem.
Complain about this comment
Ridicule and outrage perhaps - but I have no sympathy for someone who earns what she does but would claim 88 pence for a bath plug - especially when there are people in this country to whom 88 pence is a lot of money - clearly she has never had to survive on minimum wage or JSA.
Complain about this comment
#209 Susan-Croft
I'm not quite sure what you mean by resorting to playground stuff although I'm guessing that because everyone hates New Labour, including myself, we shouldn't mention the Tories in the context of greed, on-the-fiddle, cooking-the-books, being out-of-touch, etc?
Simply because they're our most likely liberator from this awful government, I don't think we must not turn a blind eye. I also don't think we should be selective in looking at the mistakes of previous governments - it would be disingenuous to do so.
My view is that Thatcher was awful and so was Blair. Now Brown, of course.
This doesn't make me anti-political, it's simply that I'm totally disenchanted with the so called majority-vote democracy that we have in this country. We have got to the stage where the majority or at a least a huge minority of people in this country are unrepresented by a political party - that's why people don't bother voting anymore.
Why are we in this dreadful position? Simply because the electoral reforms promised by New Labour have not materialised.
We need more political choice, coalition government, restrictions on campaign finance and the end of having to live with the same government for more than eight years (which would probably happen as a result of political reform). Oh yes, and reform of expenses.
As for your other points, Blair is another Tory and New Labour was his vehicle to power - the Conservatives were dead in the water by that point so that was a blind alley. He wasn't never bothered about the working man, his audience were Rupert Murdoch and the newspaper editors aswell as the captains of industry and banking.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Like the conspiracy notion that hubs fell on his sword (so to speak) as a get out.
However, at 270 and counting can't find it again!
Complain about this comment
"I'm sick of hearing about such trivialities. She's probably a bit too busy doing her job and looking after her children to be able to give her allowances as much time as she would like
Mrs Hamilton"
If my clients (I'm a tax advisor) tried a similar argument with HM Revenue & Customs, you can imagine what response they would get.
Could you explain to me again why Mrs Smith is above the rules she demands that the average citizen has to abide by?
Complain about this comment
I like the idea of all non-London MPs and Lords being provided with Government funded accomodation close to Westminster as and when necessary. If they do not consider the accomodation to be good enough for them they are free to make alternative arrangements at their own expense.
One further condition - the quality of the accomodation provided should be the equivalent of that provided to the families of servicemen on army bases.
Complain about this comment
As shellingout points out @ 185 doesn't the Home Secretary have an official residence in London anyway? If that is indeed the case why does she need a second home at all? Presumably, also if she lived there it would be "all found" so there would be no need for any kind of allowance or expense claim.
As for MPs being underpaid, I have a good knowledge of the employment market and many of them wouldn't earn anything like £65k if they weren't in Parliament. In fact - as they say in my neck of the woods - I wouldn't pay them in brass washers.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I notice that I now get a new message about being pre moderated because I am a new member. Exactly how long does one have had to be a member before one is no longer new. i think I am not new, in fact I am vintage. By the way I am sixty next week and notice the changes which have been slipped through with regard to my bus pass. Why do I feel some sort of conspiracy. I think Gordon is the best PM this country has ever had. The government is the best there ever was, and there is not to be a repeat of the Great Depression, and this is a free country where everybody is happy.
Complain about this comment
While happy to join the rest of the press in throwing bankers etc to the tender mercies of Harriet Harman's 'Court of Public Opinion', you choose instead to attempt a robust defence when one of your nulabour paymasters finds herself in the dock of the same 'Court'. Now if it were a Tory MP.......
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It was a mistake and just a minimul amount. Who's kidding whom?
What is this saying to the many victims of day to day petty theft?
Never mind the fear experienced by ordinary people walking the streets if they have their bag or phone nicked. It's alright for the perpetrators to say sorry and get off with it 'cos it's such a minimal amount.
How many people must be as incensed as I am that someone holding one of the most important positions in this country is allowed to get away with it because the PM doesn't want his boat rocked before the G20?
Complain about this comment
i wonder why G Brown claimed £17,073 for living away from main home expenses when he lives rent free in 10 downing street! The cheek of these people is awesome....that old defence "it is not against the rules" holds no water when you are manipulating the rules. ....does the home secretary really believe a room in her sisters flat is her "main residence" of course not...as home secretary she is entitled to live rent free in a grace and favour house..but of course if she did that she would not be able to claim such outrageous expenses!
Complain about this comment
Ms Croft @ 209
I am glad you see fit to play political games over such an important issue
I'm not playing games, Susan, I'm a seeker of the truth, a Clear Thinking Progressive - you, on the other hand, never see beyond the obvious and everything you say is filtered through a blanket of stale, reactionary values and shot through with bias
depressing
Complain about this comment
Jacqui Smith receives 78,575 pa as a Cabinet Minister over and above her parliamentary salary of 63,291 pa. the Telegraph tells us that her total expenses for the year just ended is 157,631. Grand total 503 quid short of 300,000.
Her constituency is in Redditch, which is about 1.5 hours drive from London and she has the use of a London residence while in office. So what the hgell does she need her sister's gaff for?
Complain about this comment
bouncer @ 225
he could have found all sorts of Gentlemen's entertainment online for free!
you sound very sure of that
Complain about this comment
#233 meninwhitecoats
The CEO of West Sussex County Council, I believe, is paid about 200k per year, more than the prime minister. What this highlights is the need for a complete job evaluation survey, and from that an introduction of higher rate tax to level out eccessive earnings. If you disagree, tell us what the members of Parliament at all levels are worth, and then tell us where you fit within that structure. Then tell us how much fred the shred fits and the owner of the local shop, and the local engineering works and the Chief Constable, and the lolly-pop person.
Let's have a job evaluation scheme, and then tax excesses. What do you say?
Complain about this comment
Update: End of Business on Monday and Smith appears to be in her job, still. Mr Smith has also not resigned yet, despite embarassing his boss (the wife), and living a life on the taxpayer-funded gravy train.
When it comes to election time please remember, these are representatives of the group who don't want you to know what they spend their exes and allowances on, and vote accordingly.
Complain about this comment
I am tired of the tax dodging thieves who masquerade as Honourable members of Parliament.
Charges of fraud and fiddling would be made against any of us , it is about time they were made against these MPs
Complain about this comment
As usual Nick you side with the labour politician, this is not a failure of the system. This is someone ripping the system off and the taxpayers. We all work with systems for expenses but will keep within the set system. When I go away on business or at home if I buy something that is not within the system, I PAY FOR IT MYSELF WITH MY HARD EARNED MONEY THAT I HAVE PAYED TAX ON, WHY CAN'T THE POLITICIANS
Complain about this comment
mrshamilton 196
You make such outrageous comments which have no substance at all, that I genuinely wonder why.
Your rants are always about the Conservatives but you never back your arguments up with any facts. Your claim that a Government Minister using tax payers money for the wrong purposes is not important and is a non story and yet it has had the biggest response from the public and media we have seen for a long time.
Then you say J. Smith is probably too busy looking after her kids to do her expenses properly. She does not look after her kids, her husband does. The husband who is taking 40 thousand pounds from the taxpayer as one of her staff. He also does her expenses, whilst making time to watch adult movies which he claimed for.
I presume then you think it is ok for someone in high office to take money from the taxpayer for misuse, because the Conservatives did some things you did not agree with when they were in office 12 years ago.
Complain about this comment
Dear moderators, thank you kindly for sending so many of my posts for moderation at a higher level.
It is very gratifying that you find my posts so thought provoking that this is the case.
For my part I am glad that I make my posts so concise - seldom more than a couple of lines.
Someone more sensitive might think they were on a BBC blacklist, or at least a grey list.
So glad that my Licence Fee isn't going to waste/
Once again, thank you.
Complain about this comment
It's sad that since Alistair Campbell's slugfest with the BBC, you've become so docile/apologetic for the ruling party.
As many people have pointed out, your apologetic/sympathetic tone is surprising.
We've an unwritten constitution, MPs making things up as they go along.
To say they deserve more money - well leave politics and go out and earn it! That's how it's done in the real world.
These people are lightweights (Blear, Milliband, Blears)...look at the old days...can you imagine these lot with the intellectual capacity of Crossland, Callaghan, Macmillan, etc? What can they write - Edwina Currie-like pulp fiction?
To be so meticulous as to claim for 88p plug, yet miss the other bits? It's the thinking behind all this. To now be able to sort the diary to say where the "first home" really is - didn't she know this before she put in her claim? It shows the mentality.
This from someone yet to comply with the EU court decision on DNA database re people not guilty of a crime. This from the person obsessing about 6months phonecalls and emails, obsessing about databases of our lives, who errs on side of (police) State rather than liberty. These people who know nothing - these career politicians - run our lives.
Why do you apolgise for them?
Why?
Complain about this comment
white coats @ 195
Ah the old chestnut - blame Thatcher
I'm not blaming her, as such, that would be rather silly after nigh on 20 years - no, the current political responsibility for all of this lies squarely with Mister Brown - he'll pay the price at the election, I'm sure of that, and rightly so
I do, however, find it quite interesting how so many of our problems can be traced back to the Thatcher period - I also can't get over how TOUCHY people are about this - even though I always make it clear I'm not letting Brown off the hook, that I'm just exploring cause and effect, I get absolutely slaughtered for my trouble - Susan Croft @ 209, for example, giving me a right old telling off for the umpteenth time - I dunno, it's almost like it's verboten in Clownland to even mention her name ... Margaret Thatcher, I mean, not Susan Croft
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Why should we trust in Jacqui Smith to list how many nights she spent at her two homes? Surely, as Home Secretary, her whereabouts are always known and logged by her security/police officers. Why not ask them for the information?
Complain about this comment
#282 Sagamix
Many things you are, including and interesting and provocative blogger who makes discussion on this site more fun and helps keeps us all including Nick on our toes.
But "a seeker of the truth"? Come on now!
Cheers,
Badger
Complain about this comment
What a shame that the moderators didn't seem to like the nice little poem I wrote. For anyone who's interested, I've posted it over on Guido's blog instead.
Complain about this comment
They, like the rest of us in business already are should get used to being scrutinised with respect to expenses.
Same trough - different pigs !
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
196. At 2:06pm on 30 Mar 2009, mrshamilton wrote:
I'm sick of hearing about such trivialities. She's probably a bit too busy doing her job and looking after her children to be able to give her allowances as much time as she would like. I seem to remember the things the Tories did were enough to have some of them prosecuted and imprisoned. Some people ought to get things in proportion here. News people please note that this kind of rubbish filling the news does NOT excite.
===
She clearly is NOT too busy looking after her children because, even as we type, she is preparing the figures to prove she spends most of her time in London,away from her family!
Complain about this comment
I have just heard that the total for the allowances and expenses of MPs for 2007-2008 amounted to 93M GBP. How much did the Dunfermline Building Society clainm it needed? Less than 93M GBP, I believe.
I also understand that later this year all such expenses and allowances for ALL MPs will be published later this year.
I anticipate that there will be a lot of extra business in the Westminster area for dry cleaners capable of removing brown stains from the backs of trousers over the next few months!
Complain about this comment
253. b-b-jack wrote:
What is the difference between a Tory Shadow Minister employing a nanny to care for her children and M/s Smith employing her husband to care for her children?
Not sure what your point is... there isn't any discrimination so far as I can see. Different fiddles. Does this help?...
Spelman was nicked for effectively subsidising her nanny, no family relation, paying her out of her parliamentary expenses. Spelman's case was this: She paid the nanny, Mrs. Haynes, £13,000 p.a. for doing secretarial work(97 -99). The nanny was paid no salary for taking sole care of her three children, receiving free board and lodging instead. (Basically £13k for childcare and some letter writing). When the nanny gave up the 'constituency work' to concentrate on the nannying, Spelman paid her a £13,000 salary out of her own pocket to cover the childcare. The secretary who took over from the nanny was paid £4,800 a year less than Mrs Haynes for doing the same constituency work, creating a discrepancy in salary and thus the subsidy charge. Spelman will repay £9,600. I think she got off lightly.
In the Smith's case, the Home Secretary's husband, Richard Timney, is paid £40,000 p.a. to act as her Parliamentary assistant, and working from home(?), he is able to look after the kids. All within the regulations. Having her spouse work for her has created problems, for example his letters in the local press attacking the Conservatives, without declaring his status. And now the soft porn scandal. The child care is not the issue here, it's Smith's claims for allowance on her 'second home' and its refurbishment, and now the taxpayer subsidising her husband's private entertainment.
So I'm not sure where a case for discrimination comes in.
Complain about this comment
Is it now permissible to use the "Jacqui Smith" defence in court?
Can I now go out shoplifting and claim that the Home Secretary, the person in charge of law and order in this country, says it is OK to do so provided I apologise if caught and promise to pay the money back?
Complain about this comment
Nick tells us - Commons officials have, until recently, encouraged MPs to claim the maximum and treated those that don't as if they're fools.
Who says Commons officials have encouraged any such thing? MPs, no doubt. And even if they did, so what? Surely better to behave decently and be thought a fool in the artificial world of Westminster than not, and be seen by the public as a cheat and self-benefitting chancer ?
If Jacqui Smith really expects to be cleared on the family home issue, it shows how far out of touch politicians like her have become - imperious and impervious. Being cleared of not breaching rules which allow MPs to profit from behaviour which is offensive to common sense and common decency is not proof of doing nothing wrong. It's proof of a rotten culture.
I hear the argument that MP's have been encouraged to regard so called expenses as a proxy for salary due to successive governments having baulked at paying the right rate for the job for fear of public antipathy. If true, that just tells us that the deception comes from the top and runs deep. As the man said - Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.
These MPs are on a salary which is more than 2.5 times the average of the people they represent and Ministers do a wee bit better than that. They are not on the breadline and they should not be coming up blatant ploys, like risible designation of family homes, to maximise their so called expense claims.
Politics should be a vocation, not a career. MPs in general and ministers in particular show provide moral leadership, not lessons in how to milk the system, whilst pausing only to condemn and pursue benefits cheats.
Complain about this comment
Despite your sympathetic article Nick, I have no sympathy for the robbing, conniving, grasping people we seem to have for MPs.
The system is wrong and allows too many favours to be had whilst in office. MPs should be allowed expenses against receipts just like any other hard-working person. You know like you have to do when you have a job (you listening Mr Pickles?).
Paying the mortgage on a second home on expenses is indefensible when no other vocation allows it. Especially given the fact that the second home then becomes an asset that the MP can then sell on, or rent out.
The same goes for allowances that let MPs fit out second homes on the taxpayer.
BUT this is not an argument for increasing MPs wages. Instead, all that needs to happen is that MPs should be allowed REASONABLE expenses based on reciepts. So that means renting a house or flat in London and paying for fittings and furnishings out of their own pocket like the rest of us do. That means commuting into Westminster if it's less than 1.5 hours away (which is the yardstick used by the DWP for Jobseekers).
The "Lets Increase Wages" argument should be dead in the water because the same problem crops up: why should MPs close to Westminster get pay rises to cover second homes that they didn't need in the first place?
The whole moneymaking scam that is expenses and allowances should be stopped NOW!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Apparently the expenses claimed on her "second" home in Redditch included 1000 for an antique fireplace, and 550 for a sink. Not to mention 88p for a plug.
There is no justification whatsoever for this spend on these items using taxpayers money. It simply has to stop, and soon.
Complain about this comment
285 owenwasright
I would hope that your job evaluation proposal includes investigating Jacqui Smith's husband's 40,000 a year salary she pays him as her "assistant".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Yet again Gordon Brown has found to be wanting - again way behind the curve and again forced to admit to the blindingly obvious. Brown has shown a total lack of understanding of the public`s mood on this and many issues. We are in a recession where people are losing their jobs by the thousands and everyone is tightennig their belts. But he is quite happy to continue to support one of his ministers who has an income well over £100K whose claims are rather dubious to say the least and to cap it all has even claimed for an 88p bath plug. Ok she is not alone; but he just does not get it at times. I am afraid his move today to bring forward a review of Mps expenses is a move too late. His previous attempt to kick it all into the long grass was ill judged and it is on this he will be judged, not his U turn today.
Complain about this comment
sagamix@282 wrote:
"I'm a seeker of the truth, a Clear Thinking Progressive"
Clear Thinking Progressing... wonderful how each new day brings a new oxymoron.
Complain about this comment
owen @ 285
good game good game
I'd say ...
top banker 500,000
home secretary 250,000
chief constable 200,000
council leader 150,000
lollipop 15,000
then I'd put me (assuming Nuisance Blogger is a job) in there at something like 25,000
Complain about this comment
Brown's proposed action to replace the allowances with a flatrate sleepover payment sounds about right. I work in local government and our auditors are all over our expenses claims and there are very strict rules to follow. Parliament should, of course, be the same because it's public money. It's a bit harsh to grumble retrospectively about bad rules, but there's definitely been resistance to giving up these perks by our elected members. As for Nick's crafty description of Jacqui Smith as 'a likeable working mum' - oh sorry, that was what some MPs think of her - how patronising can you get?! Very clever of you Nick to try and diminish her gravitas in this way. She wouldn't be in the job if she wasn't competent and hardworking - whether a 'mum' or not. Presumably most MPs are parents, but I don't hear you describe the chaps as 'dads'. Such old fashioned lazy journalism!
The system is at fault and it keeps tripping MPs up, but let's not turn this into a childish vindictive witch hunt, even if it does feed your wish to bash the incumbent government. Stick to serious issues of policy, please, not petty mudslinging.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Dear Nick,
Quick look the other way as MPs are award themselves a 2.33% salary increase!
That's about £1400 more each year for nothing really.
My firm has laid off 20 staff and we are having a pay freeze until next year!
Roll on 2010. Any chance of a coup d'etat before then, if so, where do I sign up?
Xxxx
Complain about this comment
Here you go, keep a track of your own MP, how far are their snouts in the trough?
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HoCallowances0708.pdf
A couple of interesting points come to light.
1) Why does Gordon Brown need GBP17,073 in "away from home" expenses when he has the use of TWO grace and favour residences, 10 Downing Street and Chequers?
2) Why do Gerry Adams and Martin MGuinness need GBP21,131 and GBP21,000 respectively in "away from home" expenses when they will not even take their seats in Westminster?
My own porcine representative, the aptly named Hogg, claims the maximum GBP23,083.
Oink, oink!
Complain about this comment
Does the husband pay tax on his 40,000 a year?
Are they going to repay the money they claimed for all the other movies they have watched?
Does the husband claim any benefits? He needs closer scrutiny.
Presumably somebody has checked that she definitely was not there and that the husband is not being used as a scapegoat.
If they took the time to claim for an 88p plug then it is obvious that they must have seen the film charges itemised and carried on to claim for them.
She must go now having lost the confidence of the police, the public etc. and having become an object of ridicule and a laughing stock.
Complain about this comment
They say they are working within the rules, but would MP's rules hold up in court. Why have HMRC inspectors not raided every MP's expenses. Or the police should go to the CPS for fraud investigation.
It would also be quite easy to see where MS Smith was by checking the police records over the last few years. As Nick said Plotting here where a bouts. Not guilty your honour It was not me.
All MP's expenses should be checked by Inspectors, and if found guilty pf wrong doing fired with loss of pension and future salary.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I recently read a very interesting book by Peter Oborne, "The Rise of the Political Class"http://www.amazon.co.uk/Triumph-Political-Class-Peter-Oborne/dp/0743295277
In it he paints a picture of politicians only in the job for their own ends, at first I thought he was being a bit hard on some of them, but after recent events he is spot on.
He also had a few paragraphs concerning yourself and your colleague John Piennar, he does not paint you in very good light as a poltical journalist and after some of your recent pro Labour articles I can only agree.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Its easy to make all the very predictable Sleaze and noses in troughs comments, weather it be about Smith, McNulty or Conway etc etc.
Perhaps now those who opposed the Freedom of Information Act, in other words The Tories will in Hindsight (nothing new there) realise what a good bit of legislation it is and will ultimately be the driver of change.
Unless, like the Human Rights Act, they intend to change it as soon as they get in. God knows what it would have thrown up in the 90's if it had been there then.
BTW an interesting qoute from the Aussie PM today.
"Mr Rudd, who praised Mr Brown as "the driving force in making sure that governments around the world act together", suggested the G20, bring held at the ExCel centre in east London, would be part of a longer process."
hmmm, the "driving Force"
Must grate a bit in here??????
Complain about this comment
If people don't respect the lawmakers they're less likely to respect the laws. A big problem. I agree with Nick, they should be on at least 100k, if they can't even sort this out, how confident can we be that they can manage an economy. I hope the government wasn't hoping to announce crackdowns on benefit dodgers or pornography any time soon.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 292
Now you know I would never tell you off I enjoy your posts too much, you always making blogging fun.
Anyway you got me back at 282.
Thatcher though is a bit of an old chestnut, it was years ago.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hi Nick
I understand that you find Jacqui Smith likeable and it is always disappointing to see someone who one likes hit trouble.
However your sympathetic portrait of her has its flaws.
1. She claimed the money and if an 88p plug is any example went to a lot of trouble to do so.
2. As a senior politican she cannot blame the system . If a Home Secretary is not part of who controls the system who is?
3. I notice she was adding up her whereabouts AFTER the claim.
4. As Home Secretary will she let criminals repay what they have done if they get caught and then let them off?
5. If I claimed for a porn video then as a minimum I would expect a written warning and I could be sacked.
I am afraid you are very out of touch Nick. She is making herself look even more greedy and grasping by not having the decency to resign....
Also New Labour enquiries always clear themselves.
Complain about this comment
I notice that GB is now saying he may scrap the second home allowance. However I have no confidence that this will happen as I can't see it passing through Parliament. Scrapping the second home allowance would only be the start of reforming the gravy train that Westminster has become. What is needed is a complete overhaul of all MP's expenses, so they can no longer buy houses on the taxpayer and then choose which house to designate as a second home in order to furnish it and renovate at the taxpayers expense. The only second home any MP should be allowed is a rented home that belongs to the taxpayer. There are a known number of MPs so they know exactly how many homes would be needed. To make this scandal worse is the fact that she claims money for a second home when she has the use of a house in London that is free of the extra expense that she's incurring. A further reform that is much needed is the conflict of interests created by employing family members. That must stop. In effect we must take it at their word that their spouse is actually working. Who's to say that their spouse isn't actually spending all of their time looking after the kids and actually no time doing what the taxpayer is actually employing them to do? In effect that is who is employing them, not the MP as it comes out of expenses and not the MP's salary. I don't say kick Labour out at the next election, I say kick every single last one of them out and start again, not just with new MPs but with a complete new government, one that is actually answerable to the people in this country and not a law unto themselves.
Complain about this comment
All this has shown that this is part of the Westminster PLC logic injected into our ruling house by this administration. Whether the argument of rules being broken or not prevails in her favour or against her, the damage has been done. Not only to her for the perception of being slightly above the law against those whom she may legislate, but for politics in this country on the whole. When we hear cries from politicians of all divides, talk of people switching off to politics, they can look back at the many cases of those in office, doing what they choose, regardless of how it may appear. The whole nature of expenses must be revised, but why not look at Alan Duncan's proposal of paying MP's a flat salary, from which they have to cover all their own expenditure, as opposed to dipping into the public purse when it suits them. The Home sec, has made a complete mess of how she has conductd her business, and for that she should pay, but the real and long term damage done is by all those politicians of all colours, who fail to engage in debate with the public, so that they assuage public anger. Until we have a system which actually makes politicians totally accoutable, then we can expect more of the same.
Complain about this comment
I suppose it's too much to ask what was so offensive about my comment that was referred to the moderators. Was it the speculation that the Home Secretary's husband might (stress, MIGHT) have been watching porn while he was supposed to be working?
Or was it the observation that it's a bit rich for "honourable" members to slip such things through expenses and simply say "oh, sorry about that" when they get caught?
Complain about this comment
It takes quite a lot to get the British public united in anger. Mrs T and her Poll Tax was one and this MP's allowance/expenses is most definitely another.
Mr Brown should implement his promised review urgently and furthermore freeze all allowances/expenses pending full and proper forensic investigation.
Jacqui Smith epitomises all that is rotten in politics and should have the common decency to resign and pay back the several thousand pounds worth of fiddled taxpayers money, not just the 10 quid for the mucky films that Mr T enjoyed.
There is a ground swell of disquiet and Mr Brown should very carefully consider this before declaring the scandal to be a private matter!
Complain about this comment
extremesense 271
I must admit I made an assumption that because you answered a Thatcher post from Sagamix, that was your stance. I am sorry if that was incorrect.
I guess the reason I am not interested in Thatcher is because it was so long ago and I live in the present. Thatcher cannot be blamed for other peoples lack of morals, which ever party they come from.
This subject of expenses is one I feel very strongely about as I feel that ordinary people are struggling, and to see these people in Government using our tax money in this way makes my blood boil.
There is so much that could have been put right over the last 12 years of growth to help the people of this country, instead it has been thrown away. Yet those in Government carry on spending our money as though it does not matter how the rest of the population is suffering.
Most of your post I agree with to be frank.
Complain about this comment
Smith suffering from Outrage,Ridicule and SYMPATHY??? SYMPATHY? who from? This most arrogant and bullying of politicians in the headlines over expenses again ! delicious! and I cant believe anyone could have the slightest sympathy for a creature that is so arrogant she has been boasting that she will be cleared from one expenses debacle only to have this happen, though not I notice after poring over her diaries for weeks. How many times have I seen that belligerent expression and heard her sneers at anyone who disagreed with her point of view? Couldnt have happened to a nicer person...love it.
How sad though that our political system supports such fools and doesnt just bin them.
I save my outrage for the destruction our weak and liberal politicians(tories included)have wreaked on this country, particularly in the last 12 years.Selling us out to Europe without referendum,leaving crime and loutish behaviour unpunished, flooding every town with unchecked and uncontrolled immigration. When was the last rousing speech I heard from ANY party that stood against these things?
God how I laugh to see Frown strutting on the world stage like he makes a difference when his own country wallows in a recession that he has made many many times worse by his incompetence and his socialist decisions.Truly horrific
Sympathy? well now, that is for all of us, of whatever political leaning,who have no option, barring a miracle but to suffer month after month of these idiots until the blessed release of an election brings in the next wave of weak spines who will do very little to change anything...but surely cannot make any worse job of the countries finances than this mob.
At least I can book election day off and enjoy the spectacle of Labour lose seat after seat after seat as they get the thumping they thoroughly deserve at the polls.
Complain about this comment
"The gap between the elected and those who elect them has rarely been wider. It is in all our interests that that gap is closed."
Quite easy really.
Repeal all Big Brother legislation, such as ID Cards and the smoking ban. No further attempts to meddle in the private lives of the public. An immediate referendum on membership of the EU (which we have never been given)
Complain about this comment
"If you've done nothing wrong, then you've nothing to hide..."
Complain about this comment
The only reason parliament tried to block access to expenses was because the majority of mp,s have a finger in the pie. Unfortunatley it is our pie,they unashamably milk it and say it is within the "rules".Rules dont make it right.It is a fragrent if not fraudulent misuse of the public purse which reaches over all in the political spectrum .Mrs Smith was responsible for submitting her expenses.It seems her house hold (which one)had an "OPEN" on putting everything on expenses without any regard for compliance.The british public HAVE got wrestless with those who have one rule for us (within the rules),one rule for them.ie us.One of the times it backfired was when parliament effectiveley rescinded the magna carta for the english colonists, in America.We all know what happened after that!.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So? NOW ITS DAMAGE LIMITATION MODE??
SO GORDY YOU JUST CANT REFER TO THIS AS A PRIVATE MATTER??
JAQUI PACK YOUR BAGS GO GIRL GO!!
Complain about this comment
This is all going beyond a sick joke!
I feel it's time for 'direct action' to be taken.
Complain about this comment
Well of course, Nick, it's not Ms Smith's fault, it's the system's, it's the availability of sleaze-looking claims that's at fault. Ms Smith did everything innocently and perhaps 'virginal' (hence the porn expense by her husband).
So now, we may have a rush to isolate and manage the potential damage to Labour (by Labour) to a small insignificant size. 'Yes there's corruption, but we're on top of it now...move along please, nothing to see here.'
Politician's treat their position as a 'cash-cow', certainly not one of principle and honesty. It's all about milking it for what you can squeeze out of it; the actual reason for the position, that of being a public servant for the people and the people's interest, was chucked out of the window a long time ago.
So yes, let's blame the system. Let's not blame the people that moderate the system, run it and milk it. We need checks and balances put in place and supervised by honest people, independent and unafraid of bringing criminal proceedings to bear on those that fiddle the system to their benefit.
Ms Smith should not be able to claim anything for her own personal home, no politician should be able to claim anything like that. Personal and public should be wholly separate, and all personal items should be paid for out of one's own personal pocket, and not public money. She and other's of her ilk (which perhaps represents all politicians) have committed a moral crime. She should resign or be sacked, along with all the other fiddlers on the tax-payer's roof!
Complain about this comment
Smith is from the same mould as Brown, its not their fault and they have nothing to apologise for, 13 months and counting!
Complain about this comment
"..and to top it all off,Government apologists saying it's all Thatchers fault."
I agree with them. I've heard on the excellent unbiased BBC News that. The current system of expenses was her idea. Therefore it is Thatchers fault. As it is Thatchers fault that our economy is too centralised in few areas our countries portfolio isn't wide enough and the economy is concentrated in small pockets of London. A few dirty bombs in these areas and we're finished. So its Thatchers fault that we are so vulnerable to terrorists.
What a mess our political System is. The only thing the opposition has is Derek O'Hanlon Who's Raison Detre is insulting Gordon Brown. If they get in with Derek or Dave(who has a similar technique) as leader what happens next?
Complain about this comment
Apparently, we are 'Draper Drones'. What should we call the Guido Fawkes people who orchestrated the Derek Hannon's operation? I don't think I've seen any equivalent from alleged Derek Draper drones.
Complain about this comment
People who claim expenses should make sure that they are legitimate before they are submitted for payment. Otherwise its theft.
The wider issue is the fact that late 20th century and early 21st century politicians just do not seem able to present themselves as role models.
Complain about this comment
There's a hole under your crutches
Dear Lie-zer, Dear Lie-zer
There's a hole under your crutches
Dear Lie-zer, Dear Lie-zer, a hole
Then pad it Dear Henry Dear Henry Dear Henry
Complain about this comment
335 ALEXANDERCURZON
I posted to you on another matter. I'll try one more time. If you look to the left of your keyboard, three rows up, there is a button with "Caps Lock" written on it. If you press this button, we will all be able to read your contribution without being DEAFENED. Thank-you.
Complain about this comment
"The home secretary has been poring over her home, constituency and office diary to plot where she had spent each night in the past year."
There's no need for her to do that. All she need do is consult the logs related to her close protection team.
You can bet your mortgage that had these logs shown that she'd spent more time at her sister's house, than her own, they'd be all over the media long ago...
Complain about this comment
To me, the worst thing about Ms Smith and so many other "senior" New Labour MPs is the mediocrity.
This is no accident, the manipulation of shortlists and selection procedures since the mid nineties was designed to ensure that yes-people got elected rather than people who thought for themselves. Party members in many constituencies felt marginalised.
As a member of the party, I saw the system at work, both for Westminster and Welsh Assembly elections. It was one of the reasons I left.
Complain about this comment
To parody the ditty about Caroline of Brunswick (1820ish):
Oh Leader Dear, we thee implore,
to go away and spin no more.
But if that effort be too great,
to go away at any rate.
Complain about this comment
It's not the Video films that worries me although she should be sacked for that alone... it is the fact that she claimed 88p for a bath plug now that IS taking the biscuit.
What is more faceless is that she is the Home Secretary and she doesn't know what she is signing for - that is a limb excuse, another reason she should be sacked!
It is pointless of this going to Lords and Sirs it's a bit like asking McNulty for his views on the matter. What is also disturbing is that only one person in the party has dared to speak out against her, therefor they can be tarnished with the same brush and this proves what a faceless lot they are... and arrogant with it.
We have a Prime Minister who tolerates such behavior by sayings shes a good Home Secretary - what a load of rubbish'...
.... this Leader and this party are faceless money grabbers.
Complain about this comment
340. At 9:22pm on 30 Mar 2009, dhwilkinson wrote:
Apparently, we are 'Draper Drones'. What should we call the Guido Fawkes people who orchestrated the Derek Hannon's operation? I don't think I've seen any equivalent from alleged Derek Draper drones.
===
You haven't seen this then?
http://www.gofourth.co.uk/hold-on-hannan
Complain about this comment
One thing that puzzles me regarding the home secretary and the porn films - is that all of these "events" normally get a "gate" ending, ie Watergate, Donnigate, nannygate, Camialgate etc
My offering is Mastergate
Any other ideas?????
Complain about this comment
max @ 310
Clear Thinking Progressive... wonderful how each new day brings a new oxymoron
yes, we're knee deep in oxymorons that's for sure!
got me wondering what the opposite of oxymoron is ... you know, as in Catholic Pope or Evil Reactionary? ... is there a nice oxymorony type word for that, do you know?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I am sure JS is a nice person, mother and likely to join the unemployed next year but this is irrelevant. She had to sign personnally to confirm the claim was "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" incurred for her duties as an MP. It doesn't matter what the films were about, she made a false claim and has been careless about her personnal administration. In addition she has clearly exploited the allowance system to the maximum if not beyond. We should expect exemplary standards from our elected representatives and we are not getting anything close to that.
Complain about this comment
#271 I agree with every word. Not only do we need liberating from the political "elite", we also need liberating from the powerful business interests they kowtow to. Not only the (IMHO) vile Rupert Murdoch, but also the companies who sponsor events at Labour party conferences, the hedge funds who help fund various Tory offices, including that of George Osborne - and anyone else who thinks they can buy and/or bully OUR elected representatives.
Complain about this comment
Eaton, its not the Aussie PM that grates...
what grates more than anything is that there is absolutely NOTHING that Golem's collection of "liars, cheats and thieves" (copyright Michael Winner, Question Time) would consider to be a resignation offence. Nothing. Not ripping off the public, not failing to do their job properly.... talk about smoking guns... theres a division of field artilliery smoking away around this government and STILL "I've done nothing wrong".... Absolutely staggering. How do I get to be a Labour MP? Is it really this easy?? Tell lies for a living, line your pockets as much as you can and never answer a straight question without using the words "tory cuts", "toffs" or "do nothing"? I can do that!!!
They are, truly, utterly bereft of any honour whatsoever.
You defend it if you want Eaton... If these are the kind of.... "reprasentatives" (god that sticks in my throat) that you in all honest seriousness want to represent YOU and your families interests... you're welcome to them. This lot are incapable of running a bath, let alone the country.
Complain about this comment
susan @ 322
Thatcher, though, is a bit of an old chestnut
well, I give you a bit of a tongue lashing at 282 and you don't even seem upset! ... feel deflated now ... hey and, btw, I'm not sure the Wicked Witch would appreciate all this likening to an old chestnut
Complain about this comment
#350 "got me wondering what the opposite of oxymoron is .."
Well, the word comes from the Greek: "sharpdull" - sharp as in intelligent or acidic. (Oxygen means acid generator). The technical word for the opposite is a tautology, as in ... no - I don't want to insult anyone tonight! :-)
Complain about this comment
sympathies for the working mum (aren't most mothers these days? mine is) may be all well and good
But lets not put too much of a tint on the woman who has a very nasty authoritarian streak - the one increasing government powers, forcing through ID cards, stubbornly trying to get 42 days etc - she doesn't have concern for us or our civil liberties so why on earth should we be showing her sympathy? I've never seen an example of her backing down from a thoroughly obnoxious position and putting the people first, so don't start trying to show her as a sympathetic person
This is someone with a household income of over 180k, and she is claiming her home internet/tv bundle, maybe it was a mistake - but maybe if she is that stupid she shouldn't have one of the most important jobs in the country - anybody could spot a tv/internet package in her family home is almost certainly for family use - not dedicated parliamentary use, she, or her husband, could've easily set up a second line like many people do
Gordon is between a rock and a hard place - he can't sack her because it's being called a mistake, and there are no moving bodies left in the party to replace her with - but he'll be left with a mocked, laughing stock of a Home Sec
What a shame...the logical thing would be to try that big scary electorate, Gordon - get a clean slate
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
If you get this far, can you ask your (HP)source is it ok to claim, from the tax payer, 0.88p for a plug?
Xxxx
Thousands in wages, yet can not afford a plug from her own purse!
2010
Complain about this comment
#329 susan-croft.
You should be interested in Thatcher, if you don't mind me saying. Her regime was responsible for the break-down in social cohesion, which, although not perfect, was a reliable sub-text in our country until she and those skulking in the shadows of her Government sort to destroy. Because by breaking those bonds, whether they were Trade Union affiliations or friendly societies or turning mutuals into privately owned companies they knew they would break the back of a community that was strong. I know you and others will jump up and shout "winter of discontent" and all that tripe, and I know that things were not as they should have been, but those conditions were brought about by frustration of organised labour to get the investment into business and industry, that was so needed.
Thatcher is to blame for many of to-day's ills. She set in motion, whether knowingly or not, and there is a possibility that the "iron lady" was just a puppet of powers that wanted change for their own ends, a chain of events and a change in national mood, which said bugger everyone else, as long as I get what I want, I don't care.
That has only just begun to turn around. Look at sicilian29's situation. He now says he sees the value of the investment in the NHS, along with David Cameron. Great, but it's no good just seeing it's value when you need it. If it wasn't for the great philosophical arguements during the 1980s in favour of NHS spending, the Torys would have broken it up in favour of specialised private health care that just a privilaged few could afford. But I guess, some might say, that those that have worked hard and got their just rewards, would be ok, and if you hadn't, well, that would be their just reward. No, you can't see the doctor if you can't pay.
Hopefully Cameron will be able to persuade his party that his terrible experiences have shown him that anyone can be struck by misfortune, it doesn't have anything to do with wealth, privilage, position, or hard work. I have to say that the record doesn't look good. There is a deep seated mistrust of the NHS with-in the Tory party, since before it's beginning. From Winston Churchill through to the present day. I can't see this changing, unless they are willing to proclaim an unequivical support for a free at the point of use, public health service. We all run the risk of failure and we all run the risk of ill health. The socialist approach is to say we should pool our resourses so anyone can use the facilities we all create. That is why inheritance tax should stay at a low threshold, I don't know what it should begin at, but I would say roughly £300,000, for want of a figure, and it should be reviewed every few years.
As for these expences, you always claim to feel strongly about the topic in discussion, at some point. When did you become so concerned? If it is the video hire, that can and has been addressed by the returning of the money. It is just possible that the reciept was mistakenly gathered up with others, I don't know. It is just possible that a civil servant put it through and then notified the press in order to create the embarrassment that has been caused. Who knows?
When we are considering expenses, why do we only think it happens in the public sector. Isn't it the case that senior executive of private companies claim all sorts of perks from their businesses, just because they can and no one is capable of stopping them. Everytime you go to the shops and by their goods, you are paying for it. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but why do we expect our politicians to live perfect lives when non of us do?
I'm going on a bit so I'll shut up for now. But just to say, let's keep a sense of perspective shall we?
Complain about this comment
Let's just keep this simple - if the PM wants to have an enquiry into Member's expenses as late as September - he can just SUSPEND any and ALL payments of expenses until that enquiry is over.
If nothing else - that should help our country's cash flow - and it would certainly take the source of pressure to sort this sooner away from us apparently helpless and powerless public and into the hands of those who do seem to have the power - the Members themselves. They certainly would not tolerate waiting until after the enquiry to claim their expenses for the waiting months.
And what has happened to that age-old adage from many employment requirements in the public sector - about doing nothing to bring the post or the authority into disrepute? Currently it seems that many Members of Parliament may be guilty of this - thought the current arguement is that it is because the policy and procedure is possibly faulty. Parliament should not permit Members to continue to follow any policy and procedure which is demonstrated to be faulty.
Come on Prime Minister - be open dealing and listen to the public - put MP's expense claims processing on hold now until after the results of your enquiry in September.
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick,
I think you have missed the point quite substantially this time round. To say that "Allowances are treated as just that - allowances not expenses - which compensate MPs for the fact that governments of all colours routinely ignore independent recommendations to increase MPs' pay."
This implies you believe that MPs are underpaid for what they do. I'd like to point out 2 things.
Firstly, In the case of Jaqui Smith her salary I believe is in the region of 140,000 pa which is substantially more than the vast majority of people in the country.
Second, MPs know what they are letting themselves in for when the become an MP and therefore the whole second home, expense thing is grossly unfair. Yes pay them milage to travel between constituency and commons. Pay for a hotel room overnight (not 5 start just basic is all that is needed) but the expenses thing needs to be overhauled and quickly before the public get really annoyed and start demonstrating.
Interestingly there were some good and bad things today, on the one hand we had Gordon Brown asking for a review on the expenses policy which is good then we also have MPs being awarded a pay rise when the vast majority of the public are having salaries frozen, asked to work 4 day weeks, take pay cuts or worse getting made redundant.
I think the BBC could do weel to compare theliving standard of MPs with that of normal people then see where the sympathy should lie.
Complain about this comment
it makes me think its nolonger worth voting as nomatter whom you vote for they become corrupted by the system, may be guy fawkes had the right idea.
i would pay towards that if all mp's are there when it blows.
Complain about this comment
What is taking place is fraud and corruption at every level.
Why are family members part of the staff? Where is the transparency?
Did we the electorate approve their family positions?
MP's are paid more than enough at £60,000 per year.
Why are there expenses added to this adequate salary?
The electorate do not pay taxes to keep MPs in luxury.
Those MPs behaving in a fashion similar to either the Smith or McNulty case should be immediately dismissed and be made to pay back everything that belongs to its citizens as it is our tax money. A term in jail should also be considered for the simple reason that they have defrauded and abused their position.
Also I don't buy that these MP's cannot be sacked even if it is the majority of the MP's under the pretence that they are the best. This is not so as ABSOLUTELY NO ONE IS INDESPENSABLE AND ABOVE THE LAW. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. Simple.
How else are we going to be able to start believing again in what MPs say?
How else are we going to really clear bad weed if an example is not set?
How else are we going to be able to be leaders of democracy if not by example? If we do not do this, could we really be in a position to influence or even pretend to advise other much lesser democratic estates?
Sack them! Don't be scared. The public, the citizens of this nation will truly back the Government if we can see that a complete end to corruption will be at an end.
The problem will never be dealt with by tapping MPs on their shoulders giving them a pay rise in particular while the majority of the electorate pay is frozen!
Do not compensate the MPs arrogance and contempt for the electorate!
Sack them! It is FRAUD.
Otherwise Zimbawe has arrived....
Sack them!
Complain about this comment
So under the Freedom of information act all expenses are to be published....dont hold your breath do you think the honourable members are going to make it that easy......
...."Members will this week be shown copies of thousands of receipts and other documents due to be published under the Freedom of Information Act.
They will be invited to redact the documents, blacking out information they do not want to disclose."...........
oh well we will just have to rely on investigative journalists to find out the truth.....
Complain about this comment
358#
The winter of discontent... "Things werent as they should have been..." ???!!!
Are you having a laugh??? Were you there?
Complain about this comment
Golem Brown isn't governing now, he's electioneering.
Complain about this comment
358#
"Keep some perspective"... yeah, you're right, we should - but only so long as its a Pro-New Labour perspective... You make me laugh you do. Thats three big guffaws already this evening.
Perspective, The Winter Of Discontent and seeing the Daily Star delivering a basket full of adult DVD's to the "second" home of the Home Secretary. Havent laughed so much in ages.
This Labour administration is dead in the water.
The Tories obviously enjoy being in opposition - they've missed more open goals in 72 hours than Andy Cole did in the whole of his international football career in an England shirt.
And dont get me started on toenails....
Complain about this comment
The people who I feel sorry for are
THE POOR BLOODY BRITISH PEOPLE.
The best they can do for politicians are Jackie Smith & Mc Nutty. Voted in with 25% of the vote.
The best they can expect of the people who are supposed to hold them to account is this, your output (Read back through it here and see if you have troubled anyone?)
There is nothing beyond the pale anymore because all of government has moved there, so it is the norm and the media see it as such. So there is no one to say
THIS IS WRONG
YOU SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS
IF YOU HAD ANY MORALES YOU WOULD RESIGN
POOR PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING
PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES
PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR FAMILIES
PEOPLE WILL TAKE THEIR OWN LIVES.
Meanwhile back in the wetminister
Can I get away with claiming expenses for the 80p plug?
for the 80p plug?
In 10 years Nick look back when all of this is history.
Your toes will curl.
Complain about this comment
367#
Dont feel too sorry for 'em Portcullis.
They elected this bunch in. And those that didnt, those that couldnt be bothered, those who stayed at home through apathy are equally culpable.
You get the politicians you deserve as the old saying goes. Shows how far we've sunk eh, if this is what gets elected?
Complain about this comment
358. At 10:28pm on 30 Mar 2009, wasowenright wrote:
#329 susan-croft.
...When we are considering expenses, why do we only think it happens in the public sector. Isn't it the case that senior executive of private companies claim all sorts of perks from their businesses, just because they can and no one is capable of stopping them. Everytime you go to the shops and by their goods, you are paying for it. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but why do we expect our politicians to live perfect lives when non of us do?
===
I have a choice of whether to go into their shops and buy their goods and therefore subsidise their expenses.
I don't have a choice about whether to pay my taxes or not,and therefore fund MPs expenses.
Totally different scenario, sorry!
Complain about this comment
The link to MPs allowances has been removed because of the carriage return I presume, but they don't like pdf links either.
First type this:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
I suggest copy and paste - the page is almost impossible to find even by searching the Parliament website.
Very interesting reading. For example, why does the member for Wokingham claim so much more for "overnight stays" than the member for Bolsover? Perhaps it's due to the extraterrestrial commuting to the planet Zog? In many (but not all) cases distance from London has very little bearing on the size of the claim - nor does political affiliation.
Complain about this comment
I asked a simple question: Does Smith's sister pays tax on the fee she takes from the home secretary for renting or letting a room to her .what is wrong with the question ? or is it embarasing for your masters ??
Complain about this comment
I've been reading these blogs for a few months now and rarely comment but this has really got to me. Compare and contrast:
MP's (I won't single out Jacqui Smith although she should no better)and their expenses and allowances AND any person on Income support or Job Seekers.
I'd like to see any MP of any party "live" on £60.50 a week or £47.95 a week if under 25. And boy what scrutiny the latter have to take in order to get their benefit, shame MP's expense claims aren't similarly scrutinised.
If this is the best we can get from our elected representatives then is it any surprise our youth are not engaged in politics and disaffected by society in general - the problem is that whilst our sitting MP's are embroiled in this mess the BNP is evermore reaching out to the disaffected young and if anyone is going to get them to vote whenever Gordon deems to let us have a vote it will be them.
Complain about this comment
358#
But you are saying two wrongs make a right. Youre saying that because everyone else either is doing it or has done it that a party that came to power saying "we will be whiter than white" can do it as well and its ok, it doesnt matter, its all alright, you can pick our pockets as much as you like.
If these are the kind of people you genuinely, hand on heart want to represent you're interests then.... No, I'm not going to sink to your level. You're welcome to them.
Complain about this comment
Nick, I agree with your analysis.
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall during her ear bashing - as if enough bashing hadn't gone on already.
I suspect change will come reasonably soon, but not before a whole host of Labour MPs (and probably some from the other parties too) are ratted out - it's a bad time for "politics".
On the matter of Eric Pickles - yes he botched his defence (if there is one) on last week's QT, but let's not forget his constituency (Brentwood and Ongar) is *not* classed as outer London in the Green Book of rules - yet as he says he's only 40 miles. Outer London is inexcusable, but where will the line be drawn?
The next few weeks will be interesting, I can't see this going away.
Complain about this comment
Didn't this same Jacqui deny your police their pay rise?
Complain about this comment
368 fubar
"You get the politicians you deserve as the old saying goes. Shows how far we've sunk eh, if this is what gets elected?"
---
Do we? true, many people don't vote, but there are millions out there who don't get their say when they vote - we don't have a representative system
the parties have millions to spend, have access to national broadcasting and are backed by a solid minority in constituencies that are usually too large to organise local movements within
I guess in a way the 'people' are the stupid ones for voting for them - but what about the rest of us, are we all as one?
Complain about this comment
Huh - referred again - I suppose they didn't like the pdf link even in two bits.
Or was it the reference to overnight stay expenses when commuting from the planet Zog?
Well here's a link to the link. The expenses document is the top link of THIS PAGE. Look people up and judge for yourselves.
Complain about this comment
376. At 00:17am on 31 Mar 2009, tarquin wrote:
368 fubar
"You get the politicians you deserve as the old saying goes. Shows how far we've sunk eh, if this is what gets elected?"
---
Do we? true, many people don't vote, but there are millions out there who don't get their say when they vote - we don't have a representative system
the parties have millions to spend, have access to national broadcasting and are backed by a solid minority in constituencies that are usually too large to organise local movements within
I guess in a way the 'people' are the stupid ones for voting for them - but what about the rest of us, are we all as one?
===
It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in!
Complain about this comment
The one saving grace is that if, as seems likely, she keeps her £300K pa sinecure at Westmidden until the general election, she'll almost certainly lose it then given her pole position on the Portillo List where the "official" unionists need only a 3.37% swing to remove her snout from the trough.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
376#
Depends on which way you look at it I guess. Are there enough out there who would be stirred into action to stand as local independant candidates?
For areas where there appeas to be a "solid/safe" candidate from any of the main parties.. I guess thats a harder thing to break and would need a significant swing away from the "safe" candidate, which usually means some big s**t has gone down at a national level, doesnt it? :-)
I just think that if everybody who could vote, was entitled to vote, did vote, the picture may be somewhat different.
It also needs us to start being serious about politics as well. Start demanding more of our MP's. If, when the election comes around, you dont see your candidate at all, he cant be bothered to seek your vote. So, dont vote for him. Spoil the paper or vote for a local independant. If enough of us did it and some of these candidates had their majorities severely impacted, they might take some notice.
The other matter is that of electoral and constitutional reform... Maybe we should seriously be looking at STV or something similar. Mind you, the chances of getting it are, under the current incumbents somewhere between nought and zero.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#380 Fubar
First Rush, now U2. ;-)
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
Is it true that MP's do not pay Council Tax on their Second homes but can claim it as an expense?
Xxxx
Complain about this comment
Nick do you not think the following article from the BBC is a clear indication that Flash Gordon is a clueless - Do nothing PM?
Scrap second home allowance - PM.
Quote
Gordon Brown has suggested scrapping the controversial second home payment for MPs in a shake-up of allowances.
Mr Brown has told a committee looking at MPs' expenses the 23,083 pounds annual allowance could be replaced with a flat-rate payment for overnight stays.
He also urged the committee to begin its review as early as possible after a series of rows over allowance claims.
Unquote
He had the opportunity to do something about these seedy occurrences last July.
Nick do you remember your two blogs on the 3 of July last year, the ones were our illustrious reprasentatives had the opportunity to introduce some form of transparency and scrutiny into/over their expenses but rejected it:
Heroes to zeroes?
The expenses dilemma.
Where was Flash Gordon when this event took place? Of course he was in his bunker jotting down his visions, for Britain, on the back of fag packets!
Nick do you also remember that I, and other bloggers, asked you to publish a list of MPs that voted against a system of scrutiny over their expenses.
You obliged with the following:
MPs who rejected expenses reform.
To put this into perspective the following are the number of MPs, by party, who voted against the scrutiny of their allowances:
NuLabour - 146
Conservative - 21
Independent - 2
Nick if you read the list above the following four names appear on it!
Harry Cohen
Alan Keen
Tony McNulty
Jacqui Smith
Nick do you not agree that Flash Gordon clearly has no insight and has demonstrated that rather than lead events he is led by them, and that due to his inaction over this particular event it has come back to bite him on the preverbial!
Roll On 2010 - less than 15 months to go!
Complain about this comment
There is no excuse for abuse of Parliamentary expenses and allowances. These public servants are accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate. The whole country has been dragged down by these abuses. The self serving abusers must be brought to book. No mitigating circumstance can validate such gross misbehaviour.
An immediate police investigation should be launched because there is already provision in law to cater for such misbehaviour. Sections 2-4 of The Fraud Act 2006 specifically deals with false claims practiced by MPs.
No one is above the law and Mr. Cameron is right when he calls for an immediate investigation.
Complain about this comment
381 Fubar
exactly the same depressing conclusion I came to
maybe it really is time for a revolution
Complain about this comment
May I remind all of those that say what they do in the privacy of their own home is their business, is no longer so.
"In January 2009 Section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 will become law where it will be an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.
Furthermore, subsection 6b:
An “extreme image” is an image which — is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character."
Who brought in this piece of legislation, none other than Jacqui Smith.
Arrest Mr.Smith.
Complain about this comment
Do not compare MPs salaries with directors' of FTSE companies, bor the banking fiasco has shown how those salaries are excessive. Do not say that directors are risk takers, for the real risk takers are the owners - shareholders. Pay MPs 1.5 times the national average pay, and re-imburse actual hotel bills and travel to/from their constituency.
Provide offices and secretarial support at public expense from the Civil Service/Local Council so there can be no nepotism.
It is time to bring back a sense of public duty into politics.
Complain about this comment
I note from this mornings press that the fact that MP's expenses, by fair means or foul, may be publicly exposed.
What is a terrifying admission is that some MP's already report that such a thing would be a "Disaster"
Why should that be? Surely, if they have all been honest then they have nothing to fear?
"Disaster" is a very big word
Complain about this comment
The solution to the problem of MP's "sleaze", as well as a number of other issues surrounding the duty of MPs, is to have them chosen by their constituents rather than by the party machine
In this way they would need to demonstrate that their actions, in and out of the House, were in their constituents interests rather than their own or that of the party.
We might even start to get democracy back.
Local primaries for candidate selection are a good way of achieving this and will ensure that the party whip is less feared than local opinion.
Complain about this comment
"384. At 02:10am on 31 Mar 2009, tobytrip wrote:
Dear Nick,
Is it true that MP's do not pay Council Tax on their Second homes but can claim it as an expense?"
Yes its true and they also can claim upto 400 a month supermarket receipt for the cost of having to stock two fridges! IE more than the old age pension is given them for thir food bill!
Complain about this comment
Can anyone lend me £300k to buy the expenses list being touted about? I'd share them with you - PROMISE.
Alternatively we could sell them back to our MPs for, say, £400k and split the profit.
Complain about this comment
So G.Brown is in favour of an over night stay allowance?
You know the one in the EU that MEPs use, where at midnight every day of the week in the sign in office there is a queue of MEPs signing that days attendance sheet, wahting five minutes and signing the next days before rushing off to catch their budget flight home.
OH of course they can claim for a much more expensive flight, just to fly to brussels to sign in.
It is not unknown for MEP's to work all day at home, fly out to brussels, sign in for two days and fly back over night.
Its good to know Flash wants to bring this system in for MP's as well!
Complain about this comment
Labour have been snuffling at the trough for a decade, Brown knows his Labour dream is over and he is going to take the trough with him. His call for an urgent change in commons expenses of course won't be retrospective and won't affect too many Labour MP's. Watch for more 'scorched earth' policies over the coming months.
Complain about this comment
@ 355
The technical word for the opposite is a tautology
thank you SASHA! - so let's see if we can get a few more tautologies into play, instead of the dreaded oxymorons ...
passionate Italian
famous film star
serious heart attack
controversial home secretary
clear thinking progressive
evil reactionary
angry bloggers
Complain about this comment
As her husband is basically doing the job of an office manager, why are we paying him so much?
The Average UK salary for an office manager is £23254. So we are over paying by 17k.
Can the home secutary justify his salary and why he should be employed instead of a normal office manager savoing the tax payer 17k a year.
Complain about this comment
#392 wombateye
They don't pay for airport parking either, and I'm guessing their flight will probably be claimed for as a business expense.
Free travel, free parking, free accommodation, and free food. No wonder so many of them take their spouses with them!
Complain about this comment
I wish ALL of the political parties would simply vote to get rid of 'allowances' and introduce a standard expenses system to cover 'those allowable costs necessarily inurred in performing their duties'. This is not rocket science, all the rest of the working population have to do this and are closely controlled by Inland Revenue guidelines / rules as to what is allowable or not.
This system of allowances is just yet another case of 'one rule for them and another for the rest of us'!
In the case of expenses claims these should be checked and approved BEFORE payment thereby catching 'mistakes' such as the cost of Ms Smith's husband's porn movies and avoding the embarrassment as well as not paying amounts not allowable.
If their constituency home were considered to be their place of employment, then travel and accommodation costs incurred when working at Westminster would be expensed. SIMPLE!!! NB there would be an agreed definition of the standard of hotel deemed appropriate and a ceiling on the nightly amount payable as is normal for most employees. London and Home County MPs would not be able to claim this overnight costs where the travel time to Westimister was not deemed excessive. Where it could be shown that renting an apartment would be cheaper for the employer (us?) than the cost of hotels then this cost could be expensed instead NOT the cost of a mortgage payment on a second home NOR the running costs of the same. When MPs have the option of staying with a relative and, therefore, not have to pay for overnight accommodation, then they would be allowed to treat their relative to dinner subject, once again, to a reasonable limit.
No-one has to go to any effort to define these rules, the Inland Revenue already has them and they and all employers apply them routinely to all of us except for MPs apparently!
Am I being naive or is it really that simple?
It IS that simple but then again I can't see MPs voting to have more control over expenses costs AND, I dare say, most MPs have no idea of the standard processes used by rest of the employed population. They've probably never had a REAL job.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I am a relative newcomer to this blogging game I have noticed one thing about this thread. The rate at which people are posting is the highest I have yet seen AND the numbers of people joining in to express themselves and their opinions. It is a measure [albeit a small sample] of the genuine feelings out there. Our Prime Minister said he was a listening man - hum...........
Complain about this comment
was owen right @ 358 ??
yes, he was
Complain about this comment
#326 spdgodofcheese
It was Alan Duncan who moaned on TV that MP's were grossly underpaid at the moment. This man sat there in his expensively tailored suit, looking very well groomed, and told the interviewer that they were worked far too hard (poor dears) and the salary was nowhere near to what he thought they should be getting. No mention of the huge holiday entitlement, though. He was very selective in what he said when it came to things like that.
Complain about this comment
397. wombateye
My wife is an office manager in the public sector and she is on about 17K. I do not mind them employing friends and family provided they are not overpaid and underworked.
Once again we have a high level piece from an investigative journalist just presenting opinions. I see no cutting edge here Nick.
Complain about this comment
Good to see that MPs are putting their energy into determining the cause of the leak concerning their expenses rather than getting their own house in order. Such a move will of course be 'in the public interest' (as opposed to the interest of MPs alone). Once a trougher always a trougher.
Complain about this comment
The core of this problem seems to arise from the fact that MPs make the rules and when they are broken are responsible for investigating. This clearly is a conflict of interest. Salaries and expenses need to be taken out the hands of MPs and given to an independent organisation who can evaluate their worth and then oversee claims etc.
It also seems that there is little in the way of formal sanction when it is proved that the rules have been broken. Occasionally an MP gets censures or is asked to pay the money back but that seems a bit arbitrary.
There also needs to be a distinction between MPs and Ministers, there should be an official sanction for all MPs and Ministers should resign and if they don't be sacked. Oh, I forgot Blair did away with Ministers resigning.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I had decided some time ago to stay away from your blog, and have managed just that until now. You simply don't get it, do you?
Your comments are irritating in the extreme and are merely the views of Stephen Pound MP reheated. It is not the system per se that is the problem, it is the politicians that have created the system simply so that they can exploit it. Do you see it now?
As for Jacqui Smith, she has no grasp of what it means to be a member of HM government. The creation by her of illiberal laws that are to be enforced on the populace as a whole while her governing class are unaffected is beyond the pale. If the BBC had any guts, it would pay the alleged £300k for the expenses, publish them and then see which of the self serving MPs were willing to take them on. But no chance there.
Having made this post, I hope to be able to get back to my vow of silence, but I suspect you will provoke me further with your pro-government sympathies.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#358. At 10:28pm on 30 Mar 2009, wasowenright wrote
The trouble with those bloggers that constantly refer back to Mrs T as the root of all evil in this country is that I find myself feeling sorry for her! Can't believe it myself but come on - the break down of social cohesion, the me-me-me attitude!! It seems as though Britain was a utopian state until she came along and BANG she completely reversed everything that was good. Utter rubbish. Social cohesion was already on the decline and nothing has been done to improve it since. And greed - well that is a trait of man and has been evident throughout history.
Look, the "great" Lady T did not sign off those expenses. And, public money is different from private. I cannot get out of paying taxes but I can move my custom elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
Eatonrifle 320
It is difficult to know what Rudd from Australia and Brown would have in common, because the Australian banks were so well regulated that they needed no bail out, as ours did. It could well be that behind closed doors Rudd like many other world leaders blames Britain and America for this banking crisis.
Furthermore I did understand Rudd to have said that he was not in favour of another fiscal stimulus as it had not been proved whether the first one had worked or not. There seems to be no meeting of minds there, what world leaders say in public for politeness is totally different from what is said in private.
Complain about this comment
Re #385
Well done rollon_2010. Bang on the money and well researched!
Complain about this comment
Nick, time for a new blog. Just who were the journalists involved in the House of Commons scuffle last night?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7973346.stm
Complain about this comment
Considering all the time it takes to fill out all of these expense account claims, after the time it takes to have done all the purchasing, how much time is left to actually do their jobs? Or have I hit on the reason the country is in such a disgraceful mess? This is what happens when integrity has been declared unnecessary by talentless and inept money grubbers that are unfortunately running the country.
Complain about this comment
sagamix @396,
Some examples of political tautology:
- Dishonourable MP
- Dishonest Government Minister
- Lying Politician (see also 'Greedy Politician')
- Grasping Trade Union leader
- Psychologically Flawed Gordon Brown
- Stupid Labour voters
Complain about this comment
349. crsmumby wrote:
One thing that puzzles me regarding the home secretary and the porn films - is that all of these "events" normally get a "gate" ending, ie Watergate, Donnigate, nannygate, Camialgate etc
My offering is Mastergate
Ms Smith. Milking of allowances:
Cowgate.
Complain about this comment
@ 413
and Mad Max, of course!
Complain about this comment
BBC Reports: "Police have used CS spray and arrested a man after a fight between journalists in the Houses of Parliament."
C'mon Nick - tell us who they are.
Complain about this comment
re: .331 "dhimmi"
I quite agree, restore a little freedom to the land of the free (well it used to be 20 years ago).
As dhimmi says, it's really quite simple. Just undo all of the ridiculous restrictive stuff that has been imposed on the British public since NuLab (and Jacqui Smith) started exercising their power.
Complain about this comment
With the economic climate as it is, where the average bod is struggling to make ends meet, it smarts a bit that the bills I have to pay are not met by anyone else. If I had 2 homes, I would be expected to pay for them both myself.
All this talk about expenses and allowances is utter tosh!!
I have just read that last year's expenses / allowances made to members of the government was £93m.
£93m of which some was mine.
What right does anyone have to take my money to pay for travel, a new TV, overnight accomodation or PPV porn?
These people that we vote in to run our country should start thinking of the little people that voted for them rather than usingthemas cash cows!!!
Complain about this comment
Nick
Events in Pakistan were alarming after the Sri Lanka cricket team bus was attacked in Lahore, but they have surely taken a more sinister turn now. The all out attack by the Taleban on a Police training school is nothing short of a declaration of civil war. I use the word civil as the Taleban are not necessarily nationalistic or tribal but religious, and Pakistan itself is comprised of three distinct ethic groups.
The concern for the world is not just an expansion of the theatre of war from Afghanistan, but also the fact that Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons. The Home office with supposed "intelligence" from MI5 and or MI6 employed scare-mongering tactics about terror groups building and deploying a dirty chemical or nuclear bomb in London.
These people are not stupid (unlike most of Whitehall). Why would they go to the effort of building something from scratch, when it would be easier to pluck a ready made nuke off the shelf? At least the US Intelligence services are on the ball, but it would be ironic in hindsight that the US and UK government's insistence that Pakistan hold democratic elections has destabilised the country sufficiently to make this scenario possible.
Time for a meaningful and incisive blog, and that EXCLUDES THE G20!!!!
Complain about this comment
According to a press release given prominence on the BBC's news page Brown is going to be sounding off today about the banks needing to reconnect with honesty and responsibility.
Maybe he should start by putting his own house in order and reminding his MPs of the need to reconnect with honesty and responsibility. Also his words might slightly more credibility if he sacked McNulty and Smith and withdrew the whip from Harry Cohen.
Complain about this comment
Continuing this sad and sorry tale, there is now concern to catch the "leak" who is exposing MPs claiming huge sums of money. This is just one example of "Kill the messenger". The other example, is nearer home, the emails arriving in my computer are coming fast and furious. More moderations, and yet I've broken no House Rules. Isn't it a joke, or is it just Nanny BBC behaviour?
Complain about this comment
News bulletins on BBC radio and TV yesterday referred to the Home Secretary 'mistakenly' claiming for two porn films on expenses. Withough the quotation marks used on this site.
It was plain wrong of the BBC to insert the word 'mistakenly'. An unbiased newsbroadcaster deals in fact.
The fact is that the Home Secretary claimed for two porn films on expenses. Whether this was done mistakenly or not is not for the BBC to judge. The insertion of the exculpatory adverb suggests that the BBC news department is trying to diminish the Home Secretary's offense.
Complain about this comment
Did anyone see Sky News coverage of the Jacqui Smith affair? Much more critical......"Jacqui Smith obviously loves her electrical appliances" then a long list of them "paid for, of course, by us".
Seems to me that Sky News has captured the anger of the public whilst the BBC continues to treat this as some sort of 'embarressment' that the public shouldn't be making a fuss about and why don't we just whack up MPs pay to the same amount as they're now claiming on 'allowances' and have done with it (oh, of course, we'd have to gross it up to make up for the tax paid as well)
I don't know why the BBC don't just let Jacqui Smith write their reports on this subject for them and have done with it.
Complain about this comment
The old line of if you have nothing to hide you've nothing to fear is one of the favourites of this government. The report should be published now before it is sold. There should be no opportunity for MPs to address any greed or overclaims of the past, and this needs transparity so we, the electorate, have the opportunity to see who really has been taking us for a ride. That way when we have an election we are aware of the freeloaders and can choose with knowledge rather than the system we have of baby kissing and untruths about serving us!
Complain about this comment
The system continues to provide MP's with an overly generous and easy to use 'benefit' system that requires often no recepits and asks no hard questions. Even an otherwise 'good' person would be hard pressed not to walk into this honey trap. They are all further insulated by being unnacountable, refusing all audits and ensuring that the system is a closed book and secret. It's little wonder David Cameron doesn't want the matter explored further, it's probably the only thing all MP's universally agree on.
I feel sorry ever so slightly for her but to be fair Labour were suppossed to make politics better and they have had a decade to do it. Crying over your £300k + expenses claimed now won't garner any sympathy from anyone.
It's time this was totally updated for the current times we now all live in. Made transarent and accountably. Until that happens this will continue to go on at a cost of tens of millions a year to the taxpayer for a few hundred people who are supposed to be our humble servants. From where I am standing they seem much more like lords and masters who answer to no one. What's more depressing is that our alternatives are not exactly inspiring. Same old thing but blue or if you like yellow isn't it?
Complain about this comment
I cannot understand why people want to pay MPs more money if their expenses stop. Half of these MPs would not get a job anywhere else, look at McNulty, who would want to employ him if he was not in Government. They are already in the top 10% of earners and the ring fenced pension is worth a great deal.
Perhaps if MPs got less money, we might get people in Parliament who really want to be there, not this endless string of politicians on the make.
Complain about this comment
Ha ha ha I wonder if she'll be referred to now as the Porn Secretary.
Complain about this comment
I am afraid you are far too easy on Ms Smith. She holds one of the major offices of state with particular responsibility for individual liberties. For you to defend a position which has the minister pouring over her diaries to check whether she complies with the letter of the law, far less the spirit, while her husband watches porn in the back room, does you little credit. She demeans the office and if she had any decency she would resign from both the government and parliament. I am sure you are right to allude to the fact that MPs will be sympathetic to her getting as much she can out of the rotten system before she loses her seat. But Brown and Cameron should show a bit of leadership and in their separate ways work to get rid of this minister.
Complain about this comment
Everybody these days is "at it". Having spent most of my working life in commerce - in top companies AND the government - I see that people fiddle expenses to great amounts on one scale and to the smallest scale I have seen people "pinch" a staple machine, box of paper clips etc etc.
That does not make it right. It is dishonest however you look at it.
An MP and Minister should be an examplary character and totally and utterly honest and above board.
When those we are supposed to look up to and trust behave in such a way then the government they work for loses even more credibility.
Complain about this comment
Concerning the Conservative politican Eric Pickles, involved in the commotion in the House of Commons, those bloggers of my generation may remember Wilfred Pickles, of "Have a Go!" A popular BBC radio programme where he was known for the famous saying " Give ‘em the money Barney! ...
Complain about this comment
Never mind the porn films, what about that bath plug? Surely MPs should be taking the lead, by using more environmentally friendly showers? A shower is also quicker, leaving more time to check the expenses claim
Complain about this comment
wasowenright #358.
other Labour apologists and Blair/Brown recanters
Following on from #408. Dorset_wurzel
So Thatcher was responsible for the break-down in social cohesion and the climate of greed and irresponsible behavior... and potentially the collapse of the civilised world as we know it.
What will Labour's legacy be? Well they've trumped Thatcher by giving us the worst of Capitalism and the worst of Socialism, all wrapped up and beautifully presented by the best spin ever seen in politics. You lot must be so proud.
Complain about this comment
hi Nick, anything on those Hannan expenses yet?
Complain about this comment
This whole debacle could be fixed immediately.
1)Every MP's secretaries would be on the payrole of the civil service and paid at the same rate as an equivalent in the public sector.
2)An independant group of accountants from the HM Revenue and the Inland Revenue can develop a set of rules for allowances that comply with the Inland Revenue rules that all the rest of have to comply with.
The allowance form can then be filled in by the MP's secretaries,signed off by the MP and sent,with receipts to the accountants in the House of Commons for approval.(surprise-surprise that's exactly how it works in the private sector and you are court fiddling you go to jail.)
3)Much more emphasis should be put on trying to get MP's who actually live or have lived in the constituency they represent.This nonsense of slotting in new MP's because the seat is safe should cease.
4)There must be sufficient "grace and favour" homes in London that Ministers,who probably do need to spend much more time in London,can use while they are Ministers.They should be used for that purpose while the Ministers are in place.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
My mother had a stroke and is now disabled,but as a consequence of my father being stupid and puting money aside for his retierment she has to pay her own costs for any care she recieves.It would be simple enough to means test MPs to arbitrarily decide if they should be able to claim an allowance of sort as this is the rule they apply to others.
Complain about this comment
#285 wasowenright
I have no objection to people being paid well for doing a job well. The salaries paid to executive officers in local government are equally indefensible.
There should be a comparative pay structure against which MP's pay is assessed.
I wonder whether the staffing structure at constituency level should be taken out of MP's hands altogether and the funds should be distributed to the parties on the basis that each constituency should fund so many clerical and research staff paid at a nationally agreed rate directly by the parties. The parties should also be responsible for constituency premises so the MPs get no material gain from their second homes and cannot get their grubby fingers near the till.
The party would then be responsible for providing overnight accommodation in London or the constituency dependent on where the MP chooses to reside. The party should also be responsible for all travel expenses for their MPs so that the parties take responsibility for the behaviour of their MPs and the public can quite rightly hold them to account.
The next debate is how many MPs do we need in the first place and do Turkeys vote for Christmas?
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick
How is the gap between the elected and those who elect them going to be closed? I live in an inner London constituency and discover that my MP will get an increase of 9% rather than the 2.33% because allowances are being raised. So even through this we the electors are being treated with contempt.
Will criminals be let off if you think they have a family and are nice?
Complain about this comment
Rollon_2010 @ 385... Great post!
Nick, do you think you could persuade your colleagues at the BBC to stop running the "Expenses List Leaked" story, as if we're all supposed to be outraged that someone has taken a copy of all the MPs receipts and is planning to expose them! Good for them! This information should all have been in the public domain right from the start - as taxpayers we should have the right to know where every single penny of our taxes has been spent - the fact that MPs are desperate to keep it secret from us tells us a great deal about what they've been up to.
Ask any person on the street out in the real world and they'll tell you - the story isn't "How dare someone try to expose the corruption", but the fact that the parasites that occupy our Houses of Parliament are helping themselves to our money hand over fist in the first place! Stop spinning the story!
Complain about this comment
Why should we pay anyones expenses if we can not have receipts? The fact that this has been allowed to go on for so long says it all. MPs are there to SERVE US. I have little regard for members anymore as those who were interested in sorting the problem are the MPs and they have not shown a collective will to do so when the private members bill was brought up in parliment several times. This should never have been allowed to go on for so long. Just because the loophole is there does not mean you have to jump through it, it is a simple question of honesty and intergity. A lot of MPs and MEPs need to have a reality check.
My husband worked in London for 45yrs., and travelled on British Rail every day for over 90mins., he paid his own fare like everyone else, and returned every night(please note not evening) and worked on the phone til midnight, and set off again next morning. Goodness me, that is what he and a lot of other people did and still do, and there was no big expense account to subsidise our life style.
This is the real world, grow up Nick, what these people are, and have been doing is wrong, even if they say it it within the rules. No one forced them to take the job, they are just 'on the take'. They have devalued their position and they have been allowed to because the media are soft and cowed.
Complain about this comment
"crsmumby wrote:
One thing that puzzles me regarding the home secretary and the porn films - is that all of these "events" normally get a "gate" ending, ie Watergate, Donnigate, nannygate, Camialgate etc"
Watergate was called Watergate because it involved the Watergate hotel!
Complain about this comment
#292 Sagamix
Surely there should be a statute of limtations on blaming Thatcher - if she set up the system there has been 20 years to reform it and we cannot keep blaming the old trout for everything.
I seem to recall many of her ministers complaining at the time that she did not like them claiming expenses but it was alright for her because she was married to a millionaire. I doubt she ever intended the system to be used like this.
Complain about this comment
re: 422 bartybee
Very good point.
Who says that Jacqui Smith "mistakenly" claimed the expenses?
I wonder what else she has "mistakenly" claimed for in previous months / years.
I also saw the Sky News coverage, and found it better than the BBC's version. I always held the BBC is very high esteem, however I am beginning to see a little too much bias creeping in. Pity.
Complain about this comment
This sort of behavior is disgusting at the best of times especially when, on the same news day, there are stories about charities coming under pressure from non-homeless people for help because of the current climate!!
As you yourself have said Nick, the gulf between elected and those who elect them has never been wider.
I am definitely in the majority with those who can't wait for the election. Or better still what does it take for a vote of no confidence, because Labour have lost all credibility!!
Complain about this comment
Each time I return to the UK, I sense that the increasing hysteria generated over controversies of the day prevents a sensible debate and resolution.
MPs expenses are a case in point. Nick Robinson is right to say that the system needs overhaul. Currently, we have a pretty poor standard of MPs, who are forced to work the system to generate their income. They should be well-paid if we are to have good quality leaders. It is an unusual job in that we expect MPs to be present in both Westminster and their constituency, so in most cases they do need two homes and must travel accordingly. If an employer expects this of their employee then they should pay sufficient to allow them to do this very important job well.
On the basic salary - and given the flak which comes with it - an MP's job will not attract really good people, hence the mess we have. There should be fewer MPs, but of a much higher quality and on a serious salary. This will help to resolve a lof of problems - but I don't suppose it will ever happen.
Although I believe Jacqui Smith has been promoted beyond her capabilities, I can't help feeling sympathy for her, her husband and their two children. Why would anyone with ability do this job when it's as personal as this?
Complain about this comment
Is being an MP vocational? MPs, Nurses the're all the same (irony)
Complain about this comment
dead @ 432
Thatcher was responsible for the break-down in social cohesion and the climate of greed and irresponsible behavior ...
well, not entirely ... but on the whole, yes I agree
Complain about this comment
It is clear that our "Honorable" Members and the Commentariate simply do not get it. There is clearly a complete lack of understanding about the absolute and complete outrage ordinary members of the public feel about the way Government Ministers and MPs of all parties have been abusing the Commons expenses system. It is not about the movies watched by Mr Timney, it is the fact that the Home Secretary and her husband have been purchasing fire places, kitchen equipment, multi media equipment and consumables tax free at the expense of the tax payer. Us mere mortals have to borrow and save to purchase white goods and media equipment out of our taxed income. This is an absolute outrage. The Home Secretary holds one of the high offices of state - why on earth is she still there? She should have been sacked when the story first broke that she was declaring her sister's back bedroom as her main residence. Why is the Employment Secretary Tony McNulty still there? He should have been sacked as soon as the story broke that he was claiming a second home allowance for his parent's house.
These vermin are bringing our whole political system into disrepute - sacking them should just be the first step to putting the House into order!
Complain about this comment