First cheques, now jobs
First they wrote cheques; now they're beginning to pay with their jobs.
Andrew MacKay has resigned as David Cameron's parliamentary aide after admitting that the taxpayer is paying for both his homes. He was able to double-dip into the public purse because he's married to another Conservative MP, Julie Kirkbride. She claimed for one home; he claimed for another.
This means that all eyes are now on how Gordon Brown handles the case of the former minister Elliot Morley. No-one can claim that his allowances were within the rules.
He claimed £800 a month for 20 months for a mortgage he no longer had. The word last night from Labour sources was that he had made a mistake and that he had done the right thing by rectifying it. The tone today is markedly different.
There is now, I should note, a growing gulf between party leaders and their MPs. Tories are complaining to me about what one calls "summary mob justice" in which all are judged guilty so that the good are punished while the real bad guys escape lightly.
Voluntary repayments by the shadow cabinet of legitimate claims for furniture, repair works or gardening were repaid, I was told, as "the price of David Cameron's press release". The tariff for extravagance has been set high. What will be the tariff for flagrant breach of the rules?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~17~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
A brilliant wheeze while it was under wraps, rather embarrassing for them both now it's in the open. Creative Accounting seems to be an MP's second job these day.
We really need a General Election to clear out the stables; or is it pigsty?
Complain about this comment
When activity such as this is explained away with the line 'I made a mistake' I really think we need to know more about the details of this 'mistake'. It is easy to say it was a mistake, hard to understand how such a mistake can be made. And if the hierarchy accepts these 'mistakes' then we're back to square one where dodgy behaviour is sort of glossed over with an apology and a cheque. I think technically, if you commit an offence, saying sorry and offering to repay the money, while mitigating the punishment, does not absolve the activity. Remember: Community Payback!
Complain about this comment
After last night's edition of Newsnight with 'Taxpayer Telethon' we are now onto the 'Walk Of Shame' from the Weakest Link ??
Complain about this comment
'flagrant breach of the rules'
You just can't stop spinning for NuLiebour, can you?
Call it fraud or theft!
Complain about this comment
Nick,
You are wrong. All eyes are now on Ed Balls.
Complain about this comment
"What will be the tariff for flagrant breach of the rules?"
How about criminal prosecution for misappropriation of public funds?
Sounds appropriate for a) doing the aforementioned and b) bringing the House into disrepute.
After all these MPs do want their glam life style as if they were professional footballers, and ins't that pretty much how the F.A. would deal with similar transgressors of their rules?
Heavens, that's what it's coming to, isn't it? Footballers can claim the moral high-ground over elected members of the House of Commons!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In any new rules that are made it must be stated that fraudulent claims like the ones mentioned above should result in a by election.
He had done the right thing by rectifying it. ???? Jail time is the right thing it is fraud please report it as such repaying money is the only admission of guilt needed.
Some months ago the Government rightly or wrongly were suggesting that benefit claimants should be subject to lie detector tests,and that if they had nothing to hide they had nothing to fear.
Perhaps we could do the same with MP's expenses claims.
Complain about this comment
Why don't I share the whole country's outrage at this expenses affair? I just can't make myself care that much, because I still think our politicians are comparatively uncorrupt. And to further destroy my street cred, I'd like to say that to be asked to repay expenses claims that were explicitly put before, and approved by, the committee - as is the case with John Maples - runs counter to natural justice.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Don't allow these ever increasingly scandalous cases move the spotlight away from earlier ones. This thing is snowballing so quickly that we risk missing or forgetting about some of the the earlier stuff. I hope someone is keeping tabs on who done what, and planning to revist each and every one to find out 'what happened next'? There must be an excellent opportunity for an in-depth week-long series of Panorama specials disking out justice for the people!
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.
Any news on the gulf between Labour MPs and their leadership, Nick.
I would hate to accuse you again of selective reporting.
By the way, the tariff for extravagance seems to be repayment.
As MPs are desperate to say in every case that they haven't "broken the rules", despite the dreadful nature of some of their expense claims, what on earth is going to constitute a "flagrant breach".
Mr Morley claims it was "just a mistake" that he claimed on a property that didn't have a mortgage.
I would imagine that almost every taxpayer in the country would know exactly when they had paid off their particular mortgage because it is such a large part of their reducing disposable income.
It just doesn't wash.
Not a particularily tough tariff, in my view.
Complain about this comment
Are there any MPs who don't have their snouts in the trough to some degree?
I don't know...but what I do know is this Parliament is finished as an assembly that commands any respect whatsoever.
What is needed now is an immediate General Election. It will then be down to each constituency to determine whether its sitting MP has the moral qualities to be re-selected.
This process will help cleanse Parliament of the corruption that permeates it.
Complain about this comment
If you are feeling a growing gulf between MP's and their leaders then it is nothing in comparison with the gulf between the voters and the Westminster village. They can jump around having a tantrum for all they like but unless they sort out their own pile of dung now then they are not going to get re-ellected.
Following on, I wonder how long this anger from the voter takes to turn on government at a more local level ?
Complain about this comment
No mention of the Labour Lord's either Nick
Will Brown do what Cameron did to Conway?
After all DC has set the agenda so far, and Brown isn't even trying to play catch up
Will the Homes Secretary be obliged to repay her allowances?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick,
"Tories are complaining to me about what one calls "summary mob justice" in which all are judged guilty so that the good are punished while the real bad guys escape lightly. "
I think that some immediate and uncompromising assessment of the claims made is required. The "within the rules" or "legitimately claimed" lines simply aren't being acceptd by the electorate. they really do have to go that bit further now to try and regain some sort of credibility over this. "Summary mob justice" ? What are they expecting ? The public have had enough of reviews and promises of something happening later and forgotten about. We need action now ! This must be a real culture shock to all MPs, and those complaining really do need wake up to the full implications fo whats happening and get in the game quickly while they are still allowed to play !
One thing I think will change as a result is that the gravy train of the next 12 months, probably seen by many Labour MPs as their last great hurrah before losing their seats, has probably been well and truely stopped.
Complain about this comment
"This means that all eyes are now on how Gordon Brown handles the case of the former minister Elliot Morley. No-one can claim that his allowances were within the rules."
I think all eyes are now on Mr+Mrs Balls, actually, Nick.
I'm looking forward to seeing what their situation was, as they were also married and also both MPs.
Complain about this comment
If Cameron was PM during this expenses debacle it would have been handled far more professionally, fairly and resolutely.
Brown's dilly-dallying just draws the process out, muddies the waters and distracts parliament from doing real work. Shame on NuLab.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Would it not be appropriate now for a new kind of "self-denying ordinance" whereby this parliament is dissolved and a new one elected but sitting members cannot stand for the new parliament? This may be unfair to honest members but would removed the stench of sleaze and posible corruption that hangs in the minds of the electorate. The new parliament would devote itself to cleaning out the Augean stables. After the new parliament has sat for, say two years, the old members could stand again.
Complain about this comment
This recurring line of "presented to and approved by the Fees Office" warrants some consideration, doesn't it?
Presumably, the officers of the Fees Office are civil servants and therefore, ultimately, their part in all of this would be the responsiblity of the Head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O'Donnell, wouldn't it?
Perhaps, he needs to ensure a significant review of the functioning and management (rather than political leadership) of that section. Perhaps a fundamental service review.
Or, am I wrong about the responsibility?
Complain about this comment
If only the labour troughers had enough integrity to do this country a favour and resign too, funnily enough I wont hold my breath....
It still amazes me that the only thing this government can do with any degree of competency is fleece us taxpayers. I await the glorious election day when we can finally ram the message into Crash's empty skull how despised this government of zero talents truly is.
Complain about this comment
Looking on the bright side...this might just significantly increase voter participation in the forthcoming elections! (Euro/local and general elections) ;-)
Complain about this comment
See, this is what happens when one engages in hysterical and opportunistic puritanism.
Yes, the system needs huge reform, and quickly. But this sort of rather high-handed attitude ends up creating more problems than it solves.
Complain about this comment
What is absolutely amazing still is that the 1 man who held and still holds the position of overseeing this fiasco is still in his job.ie the speaker of the house.There is no doubt that reading between the lines and listening to the defenses put forward by the MP's that none of this was seen to be out of the ordinary. There is a system that they were encouraged to maximise, basically that is there defense. If this is the case then no wonder they are now behind the scenes getting upset as you state Nick.
Perhaps this is why the speaker who was obviously out of his depth from day 1 was tolerated by the house and is now being told to get out. Ie.Thier union rep has failed them.!!!
Complain about this comment
Hmm confirmation as if any were needed that Cameron is leading the agenda on this.
Sharpened your pencil for when details of Balls and Cooper are revealed Nick ?
Complain about this comment
What I would welcome is for the intensity of all of this to pass then decide what to do.
On the whole I would much rather keep an MP who has admitted making mistakes than getting rid of someone in these circumstances.
Complain about this comment
What about the other married couples in parliament?
Complain about this comment
is this (finally) an end to claiming for Moats then? ...
Complain about this comment
You are being far too nice, Nick and I would suggest not reflecting the public mood.
Who cares what Tories are complaining to you about or what "Labour sources" say.
But as you rightly point out, the whole squalid mess could turn even more sour as the days drag on and it is now a question of how the respective leaders deal with it.
McKay is a Tory disgrace sure but isn't New Labour's Morley potentially politically far more damaging?
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/rotten-claims-claim-first-scalps.html
Complain about this comment
Extremely reluctant to tar all with the same brush, and worried about the possible backlash. But two points: 1. clearly there are a number who were shamelessly on the take, and many more whose actions are morally and ethically dubious. 2. Can they please stop referring to these issues as "mistakes". For any human being less humble than an MP, their actions would certainly earn them the sack, and probably a jail sentence. You do not claim things on expenses "by mistake". It's something that can only be done knowingly. These actions are deliberate, and it's time a few more in Westminster said so. Cut the crap.
Complain about this comment
This could be solved once and for all by providing a purpose built accomodation facility.
No more mortgage, no more renovation bills, patio sets, light bulbs, tv license etc.
I dare say that the typical extravagant demands would be made in the specification of such a building by the MP's in question. Look at the MSP's on Holyrood.
Really these public servants should be subjected to the same scrutiny as evetone working in private industry....... Sarbanes-Oxley!?
Complain about this comment
This is proves Gordon Brown is a lame duck and has no power in the labour party. Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith should have been fired straight away. After the next general election the current Labour party will no longer exist.
Complain about this comment
Except they have lost their jobs have they ? They are still able to draw their salary and expenses as an MP along with their more than generous pension scheme.
I dont want them to pay back the money they stole from me, say sorry and resign from their ego trip as PPS to someone important or minister for funny walks.
I want them out of office, their behaviour is morally bankrupt and they have no moral right to lead our political elite. Take a walk gents, go out and apply your bankrupt morality in another sphere of endeavour you are not wanted here no more.
What we want are hard working MPs who serve their constituents honestly and well with the strength of character to only claim for what they absolutely have too.
Complain about this comment
The Parliamentary 'tribe' of 600 or so MPs has only itself to blame for this mess. They choose to operate as an exclusive club. They have failed to regulate themselves properly and now the club is paying the price. I can't get too worked up about the 'innocent' MPs being tarred with the same brush as the bad apples. The club has had ample opportunity to get its house in order and has been found wanting, time and again. They've looked after themselves during the good times; now they must fall together in the bad times.
Dissolve Parliament. Throw the challenge back to constituency parties to clean up their elected and prospective candidates; flush out the spongers. Encourage citizens to stand as independents in Martin Bell fashion. Call a General Election. And let's see Parliament working for the people again (and not for Party Whips, senior political tyrants and spin doctors), holding the Government to account and re-establishing democracy in this country.
If we don't do this soon, it'll only be a matter of time before history starts repeating itself; the Peasants' Revolt comes to mind.
But what is really irritating about this is that the UK economy is going to hell in a handbasket whilst our politicians turn in on themselves in one almighty skin-saving exercise. If the politicians were losing control of the economy in the run up to the expenses scandal, they've good and truly lost it now. Guess who'll be paying the price (again)?
Complain about this comment
All around westminister people are donning their hairshirts and apologising for mistakes madenot by themselves but by those nasty people in the fees office who forced them to take the money.I seem to have a vague memory of a political editor making a blanket statement that no MP had broken any rules so he will not be blogging about allowances/expenses.He must be the only person working in westminister who hasn't said the word sorry,I wonder if it was the fees office who told him no-one had broken any rules so his statement was not his fault.
Complain about this comment
Nick, having listened to the respective pronouncements of Party leaders and "miscreant" MPs over the past few days, I am pretty sure that it is the leaders, particularly David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who are in touch with public opinion on this matter. (Gordon limps along behind them, copying what they do and say about 24 hours too late.) The MPs seem to have fallen victim to a sort of self-obsessed dependency culture (e.g. Ann Widdecombe's plaintive question yesterday about who would pay to repair her boiler if it blew up: she should ask her constituents how they manage in such circumstances!)
I find it amusing that you now seem to be lining up with the grumbling MPs and showing sympathy for their case. I don't think your audience will be travelling there with you!
Complain about this comment
If these people were normal everyday members of the public they would be facing dismissal from their jobs on grounds of gross misconduct and probably a criminal investigation for fraud and in the case of at least one minister tax evasion.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
One finds it very difficult to understand how someone can claim for mortgage interest for 18 months on a loan which has been repaid. At the very least, it demonstrates a cavalier attitude to claims for expenses, which looks to have been prevalent. Similarly, the tax implications of flipping. I assume that Hazel Blears will be levied penalties by the Revenue for failure to disclose.
The coverage by the BBC does however not seem even-handed. The list of MP's not claiming expenses for labour included several making claims up to about £7,000. The conservative list was the "handful" making no claims at all. Similarly, the coverage of Hazel Blears, Elliott Morley and others has been less prominent than that given to the Gummer moles or the Hogg moat, which is not to justify the latter. The clear fact is that Cameron took quick decisive action, whilst Brown dithered, overstepped his rights as PM on Commons matters and wanted an enquiry. Clear evidence of time for a change.
By the way, I am looking forward to publication by some enterprising paper of the salaries and expenses of the BBC, funded at considerable cost be a compulsory licence fee. Perhaps the politicians could then get their own back.
Complain about this comment
Lets just call a General Election and have done with it. Let the public decide. Its probably fairer as the money they repay goes not back to the taxpayer but into the expenses coffer of the House of Commons.
Complain about this comment
Given the propensity for Mr. Speaker Martin to contact the police I would suggest he calls in the Theft Squad to deal with Mr. Morley.
I must confess to being largely amused by the expenses scandal but there are some blatant cases that go beyond a joke. The people at work are already sick of my joviality about moats, plugs and flipping houses. I have even forgiven Hazel Blears now she has paid the taxman as she is such a sweetie and you can't buy the enthusiasm she has for her politics.
But how on earth can you forget you have paid off a mortgage which costs you GBP 800 a month? This has echoes of the Labour Deputy Leadership contest in which people forgot about all sorts of very useful sums. I think Peter Hain lost his job over it which sets the expectation of the standard penalty in my view.
Working a rotten system is one thing, obtaining a pecuniary advantage is quite another.
Complain about this comment
I am very surprised at the number of "genuine mistakes" which MPs claim to have made over their expenses. If thi sis an example of their collective administrative abilities, then many should be sacked simply because they appear unable to perform simple tasks with probity. Should the Oxford Dictionary revise its obviously erroneous definition of
"mistake" as
"A pathetic excuse used when working a scam and being found out"?
Complain about this comment
With all this rhetoric about independent inquiries, and decisive action being taken, one can almost believe that they mean it ; until , you realise that in fact nothing is going to change, the rules will be suggested by an independent body, drawn from the great and good, the judiciary and the civil service,all of whom are propably also wallowing in the taxpayers' trough : and then, to add insult to the injury already done to the taxpayer, the very people who had their snouts in the trough are going to decide what they can and cannot have. Let's have a jury type body of taxpayers drawn by ballot annually to decide what our politicians are paid, and what they can claim as expences. This can be overseen by a judge or high ranking civil servant to give advice and guidance, but we, the people who employ these freeloaders must have the final say, not the politicians.
Complain about this comment
THANK YOU HEATHER BROOKE...THANKYOU AGAIN!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"There is now, I should note, a growing gulf between party leaders and their MPs. Tories are complaining to me about what one calls "summary mob justice" in which all are judged guilty so that the good are punished while the real bad guys escape lightly.
Voluntary repayments by the shadow cabinet of legitimate claims for furniture, repair works or gardening were repaid, I was told, as "the price of David Cameron's press release". The tariff for extravagance has been set high. What will be the tariff for flagrant breach of the rules?"
===========
A gulf usually has two sides otherwise it isn't a gulf.
You have described one side of the gulf.....and then your posting ends.
Are you going to update it and describe the other side of the gulf.
Complain about this comment
I am off to phone benefit fraud hotline to grass up 600 or so cheats who appear to be taking taxpayers money they aren't entitled to.
I think it may be a while before we here the sound of MPs from either side berating benfits cheats.
Complain about this comment
Why must we also provide subsidised bars and canteens for over cash strapped politicians?
Just where and when do they manage to spend their hard earned cash?
Westminster canteens sell good freshly cooked food at a fraction of the real prices that tourists have to pay in nearby restaurants and bars.
The best wine cellar in the world is inside the Houses of Parliament. No wonder that MPs loose touch with reality and the true cost of living when everything is provided at either subsidised prices or through their over generous expenses; either way, we, the electorate end up paying for them!
I understand that many MPs have the habit of submitting a bulk food claim of £4,800 at the end of their financial year, which equates to 48 weeks at £100 per week. Now here is the real rub, they only attend Parliament for a maximum of 128 days, which is 25.6 weeks, according to my calculator, the maximum that they should claim (assuming that they attend from Monday to Friday) is £2,560! Are the fees office to close to MPs to turn a blind eye (to match the honourable MPs brass necks) to let this blatant fraud carry on unchecked?
Complain about this comment
The ONLy thing that is not being talked about is a General Election. This parliament has lost the right to represent the people. It should be disolved and these MP's should seek a new mandate to represent us. Whatever happened to democracy
Complain about this comment
If the majority of people accidentally claimed £16000 in expenses from their employer to which they were not entitled, would it not be considered to be either theft or fraud? Why should an MP be any different? I don't believe that some MP's have just broken the rules, they have potentially broken the law, and should be investigated, and prosecuted in the event the evidence backs this supposition.
The fact that it has been paid back demonstrates an admission of guilt. And do we really want people running our country who don't notice an income equivalent to around 25% of their salary - how much money must have been wasted under their watch?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
There is no doubt that some have abused their expenses and that there should be a penalty to pay for real abuse of the system. However repaying the cash or the ultimate penalty of losing their job is biased towards the opposition parties, you only have to look at what many opposition MPs earn from their second, third and fourth jobs to realise that repaying thousands of pounds will mean a lot more to some than others.
Maybe we should introduce a form of means testing when it comes to second home allowances, only subsidising living expenses for those who dont have the means to pay for London accommodation.
Worse case if the rules are made too draconian is that the only people who stand for parliament will be those that can afford it.
Its no wonder Mr Cameron is trying to take the high ground on repayments and dismissals, he and many in his party can afford to in more ways than one.
Complain about this comment
Lets have a 5 mile walk of shame for all MP's, where the electorate are free to line up and pelt those wretched, underpaid, hardworking MP's with eggs, tomatoes and flour!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
My MP is one of those who has been fiddling their expenses. He cannot do his job anymore because the people in his constituency have no confidence in him. All MPs in his position must resign so we can have by-elections to elect new MPs.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sadly, it's inevitable that a few MPs who are not quite as bent as many of their colleagues will take some 'collateral damage'. Low as my opinion of the media is, I don't think that the BBC or the Telegraph can be blamed this time. The not quite as bent MPs should have spoken out when the had the chance, and although let's face it the scythe of reform will probably be ineffectually blunt, if they get caught up by it it's their own fault.
Complain about this comment
He's not really paying with his job at all. He's still an MP! He's still eligible to claim expenses "according to the rules". I don't think people want "resignation of aides" - that's irrelevant. They want resignations of MPs, bye-elections, and better still a General Election. Let's let the people decide what degree of public employment these people get!
Complain about this comment
Nick, remember when this all started and MPs told us these claims were within the rules. We all said "yeah because you make the rules! You'd have to work very hard to be *outside* of the rules!"
With regard to Elliot Morley MP, his conduct has been outside of the rules.
Claiming 800 quid a month for a year and a half is either extremely incompetent (think Jacqui Smith not bothering to check to make sure her form is porn-free times 100) or it is intentional (thinking it would never be picked up) and therefore criminal. Either way his constituents deserve far, far better. If he can't be bothered to check this form how can he be trusted to perform other matters?
There *must* be a by-election.
Complain about this comment
DC is playing his political cards with great skill at the moment.
By being decisive and taking action now, he is showing up GB's indecision and dithering.
GB had to play his Morley card this morning. He's still in a job.
DC then plays his Mackay card. He's still an MP but he has lost his job as an aide (whatever that is).
By forcing the resignation of Mackay and choosing one half of a husband and wife team, DC has put MP partnerships into the spotlight by getting them both to repay their expenses claim.
What a finesse.
By playing his Mackay and Kirkbride, GB is going to be compelled to play his Balls and Cooper card.
Balls and Cooper. Cooper and Balls.
Whichever way you look at it, it doesn't look good.
Once their expenses are proved to be above board, then we can start looking into the manipulated education of MPs children whereby children are attending schools far far away from their main homes.
Complain about this comment
The politicians still don't seem to understand their problem. Simply paying money back and saying "I'm sorry" only continues to irritate people.
How can you be sorry when you consciously make a choice to submit a claim?
I say we use these extra prisons for placing the MPs in. They are criminals who abused the public trust, defrauded the public and showed their utter contempt and disgust to the people who elected them by using public money to live in a way that no other person is allowed to.
We should follow the lead of David Davis, all MPs should resign and run in a by-election fighting their campaign on expenses claims alone.
The only way forward is for every MP to submit themselves to their constituents, let the people decide punishment, let the people decide justice. If I had a vote, I would vote for life sentences to all MPs who failed to meet criteria set down by the electorate. MPs and their relatives should all be branded, time for a new class structure, people on top, greedy MPs and their families at the bottom. Let them see what it's like to be at the bottom, that would be reform in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
Bad attempt at diminishing Cameron's leadership on the issue Mr Robinson, again, now with the "mob justice" and "price for press release".
The resignation and paybacks illustrate that so far Cameron has achieved more than issuing press releases or announcing reviews and committees. Ms Blears and the 41k guy seemed to start writing checks without and before any (public) encouragement by Brown.
Complain about this comment
Actually, I do have some sympathy with the complaint about "summary mob justice" so that even the good MPs are judged guilty. The trouble is that the dishonest MPs give the other 1% a bad name.
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.
Nick - are there not some questions to be asked of the Fees Office in approving the mortgage payments for Elliot Morley without proof?
Complain about this comment
When do we get to review Ed Balls' expenses please? Why have we heard nothing about this particular politician? Why, indeed, have we not heard his name mentioned amongst the journalist class? Is there something fishy going on here? Anybody know what's happening?
Complain about this comment
Lets be quite clear, "I made a mistake" doesn't say sorry, and doesn't excuse the fact that there has been fraud. Plain and simple. It is not about just changing the rules. The simple fact is, we elect people to exercise judgement on our behalf, and to do so with the utmost integrity and honesty because without that there can be no authority on matters of law, order and morals. So, many, perhaps most, in parliament have refused to take this on board, at least publicly, though I am pretty sure they were privately well aware of their actions. This is why, in my view, this parliament and this government has wholly lost it's mandate. Really, Her Majesty should dissolve parliament and call a General Election because this is in danger of becoming a constitutional crisis.
Complain about this comment
The real story here is not Elliot Morley, until we know more about the claim (i.e. start dates, end dates and just how on-going claims are renewed etc.), but Andrew MacKay and his MP wife - blatant playing of the rules or are they really expecting us to believe that they live apart?...
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.
Nick,
Don`t be one bit apologetic about the good ones. They had the chance to blow the whistle on their collegues if they had wanted to. Turning a blind eye is no defence. We have had a culture of greed in the Westminster village and it will take years for MPs to live this down. Even after 12 years of the conservatives being ousted from office, the general public still associate them with the party of sleeze. How long do you think the same people are going to remember this Labour government for far worst things which has happened, "under their watch."
I suspect there is far worse yet to come. It is more and more obvious as time goes bye as to why certian people at the heart of government wanted to kick all of this into the long grass until after the general election in 2010.
What seems to have escaped much scrutiny at the moment are the clowns who signed these expenses off in the fees office. Just what were they thinking of? The bosses there need sacking, just like the banking CEOs were.
Someone the other day, who used to be in government, suggested that parliament ought to be disolved as the only real way out of this mire.
I think they may have a point.
Complain about this comment
#23
"Would it not be appropriate now for a new kind of "self-denying ordinance" whereby this parliament is dissolved and a new one elected but sitting members cannot stand for the new parliament?"
That would be like a mother throwing the toddler out with the dirty bathwater after the child has a 'personal hygiene' accident, there are many honest MPs who would be (and are being) tarnished by this scandal for doing no wrong. What could be introduced, within this sitting or next (in other words, before Christmas) is a "Recall" system were an MP would have to face re-election by their local constituency if enough electors demand a by-election.
Complain about this comment
While the BBC political editor, (that's you Nick in case you don't know) was describing the expenses row a few days ago as 'small beer' and 'not a resignation issue' and the vast majority on this blog and in the UK were disagreeing, who was right Nick???
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Can we have a new list? - MPs who HAVEN'T milked the system and conned us out of money. This will a) be shorter and therefore quicker to process, and b) allow us to find out which MPs are worth voting for and are in politics to represent US, not themselves.
Complain about this comment
Lots of people are suggesting that MP's are housed together in a purpose built facility. Errr, Munich Olympics anyone? The security services would have kittens at the prospect of having to protect a large compound and a dream target for terrorists 24/7. Far better to have them spread out and living in the community.
I personally have no objection to MP's from outside London and the Home Counties getting a second home allowance, PROVIDING that the second home is in London only and flipping is banned. I also have no issue with MP's being able to claim for items of furniture such as cookers, fridges and furniture, subject to a limit of less than GBP500 per item, on a one off basis to set themselves up in London, costs above this level should be met by the MP's themselves. Small items such as cutlery and cushion should be paid for by the MP's themselves. The rest will just have to commute with the rest of the great unwashed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick
It would seem that you have been proved right. When these revelations first started being made, you responded with umbrage to the suggestion that half the Commons were expenses cheats.
It now seems that half the Commons are not expenses cheats.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Is it true that in 2007 under Camerons 'leadership' the Tories introduced a bill to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act?
If so, and knowing about the behaviour of his MPs, do you think he should resign? He is clearly not fit for purpose.Do you think the current government should be commended for passing legislation that has enabled the truth to come out?
Complain about this comment
A letter in the DT from an accountant suggested that Hazel Blears paying back what she doesn't owe (??) would not be good enough as it would go as a credit on her HMRC account, rather than a payment for a debit. She would need to submit a tax return to make amends and face the consequences of that.
Cameron appears to have captured the anger over this issue, and though it is a minor infringement as far as money is concerned, some of it is fraud and the most serious penalties should be applied. Cameron is making up where Blair failed, and trying to make things whiter than white. Brown on the other hand is in the bunker and not coming out till he absolutely has to!
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.
The (flying pigs and Swine Fever
While this is not a poem, maybe I wish it were
But I hear the phrase 'within the rules' wafting in the air.
Should that mean that to other rules they should adhere
Like 'No-one with a criminal record' should in the 'House' appear
We have seen a 'Swine Fever' pandemic as the guilty rush to pay
Their over the top expenses they reward themselves each day
Those who volunteer to return those funds, to which they are unsure
Are admitting fraud, or at least theft, for which they should face the law
A stringent ban preventing them from holding any future public office
Might just redress the balance, and pigs might fly...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick, has Andrew Mackay's resignation upped the ante so that if, or when, the details of Mr & Mrs Balls expenses come out that if they have something similar that both must resign?
The potential list of the Labour five who sought the injunction gets shorter and shorter. Surely when their names get announced and their expenses become clear they will be finished?
As an aside I wonder whether Sir Menzies Campbell will turn up on Question Time tonight as advertised following his repayment yesterday?
Second aside, if I may, traditionally long standing MP's that stand down normally get either a Knightood or in some cases a Peerage. I wonder how many honours have gone out of the window due to the Telegraph in the last seven days?
Complain about this comment
Elliot Morley has been suspended from the Labour Party "until further notice" following allegations he claimed £16,000 for a non-existent mortgage.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am waiting with bated breath to hear the good news about that charming couple Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls. Not a word from them in the DT expose. They have been struck dumb in public. Does this mean that the lovely couple so whole heartedly devoted to the PM are clean? Or does the DT have something really horrendous on a couple so close to Gordon Brown to make a fitting finale?
Complain about this comment
Call a General Election.
Complain about this comment
#54
"If the majority of people accidentally claimed 16000 in expenses from their employer to which they were not entitled, would it not be considered to be either theft or fraud?" [My emphasis]
By your own words, no!
On the other hand had they knowingly claimed for expenses from their employer to which they were not entitled that would indeed be attempted theft or fraud.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
How about an update now that Morley has been suspended from the Labour party
Is it squeaky b*m time?
Or are they trying to avoid the knock of Inspector Crapper of the Yard knocking on the doors of Westminster?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@56. sadbloke
What planet are you living on? The whole point of expenses is not remuneration, but to ensure that a person is not financially penalised by the unavoidable consequences of doing his/her job. This is in no way dependent on how much the person earns or whether that person is independently wealthy. This whole murky mess is a direct consequence of MPs "forgetting" or "mistaking" this very important principle.
You seem to be suggesting that Tory MPs should have to subsidise their parliamentary activities because they are independently wealthy, whereas Labour MPs should get additional remuneration from parliament because they are not. This is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.
Complain about this comment
Cameron is certainly showing real leadership in this - Brown is not
As others have pointed out, it would be interesting to hear about the details of other parliamentary married couples notably Mr & Mrs Balls.
Looking more wider - this whole affarr just highlights how we need to reduce the cost of politics and make it more efficient. Since 1997 the UK has tacked on the Scottish & Welsh assemblies but with no reduction in the number of Westminster MP's. What DO all these people do everyday ?. A number of ideas have been floated - cutting the number fo Westminster MP's by 100 is the one that I have read that most appeals for starters.
But we also need to look at exactly what our various layers of government do - evrything from district councils upwards. Also included in this should be Quangos which are just government by another method. The whole caboodle needs root and branch reform not only as a cost saving measure but also to improve speed and efficency in decision making.
Complain about this comment
I shall be writing to my MP asking him how he can justify a second homes allowance when he lives near me and as it happens....works near me.
I of course (like many of his constituents) have to pay huge commuting costs out of our taxed incomes...
To be fair on him I suppose...I notice that several Essex MPs who live much much nearer to Westminster than he does also claim for a second home.
Hopefully their constituents will be writing to ask the same question.
Complain about this comment
#59
"My MP is one of those who has been fiddling their expenses. He cannot do his job anymore because the people in his constituency have no confidence in him."
Wow, you must have a good local bush-telegraph, to canvas and then carry out a ballot of all the constituency...or is this a case of the 'royal' "we"?...
Complain about this comment
The "semi house trained polecat" the honourable Lord Tebbit and Tory Grandee says that the current thuggish Bullingdon Club led Tory Party is not worthy of the support of long term decent conservative voters. In view of todays revelations,is he right?
Complain about this comment
So if I were claiming benefits and to "forgot" to stop claiming when my circumstances changed would an apology and an offer to repay be good enough to avoid prosecution? What's the poster Labour introduced: "No ifs, no but, benefits fraud is a crime." Only, it seems, if you aren't connected to the government.
Also, these MPs keep saying they will (or even that they have) repaid this money. Is anybody actually checking to see if they have?
Complain about this comment
#9 pdavies65 wrote:
"Why don't I share the whole country's outrage at this expenses affair? I just can't make myself care that much, because I still think our politicians are comparatively uncorrupt. And to further destroy my street cred, I'd like to say that to be asked to repay expenses claims that were explicitly put before, and approved by, the committee - as is the case with John Maples - runs counter to natural justice."
Pdavies,
I also tend to believe that UK politicians are relatively uncorrupt. If by that we agree that not many get caught trying to extort or encourage payments from companies engaged in public tenders, using influence to harm others, or accepting money in return for "soft" legislation. (Although, to be honest, I was disturbed by the "Ecclestone affair" so early into Blair's premiership.)
What gets me is that Parliament wrote down rules with no clear guidelines. Then allowed such a flexible interpretation that, when I read the Green Book, I expected to find that Rule 1 said "The following rules are discretionary".
The irritation is that accepting anomalies appeared to be normal practice. (Regardless whether an MP came from Labour, Tory, LibDem or other parties.)
Far as I'm concerned, any club or company can set rules - as long as they respect the laws of the land and are executed in line with normal practices applied to ordinary members of the public.
As a minimum, I would expect HMRC tax inspectors to go through the evidence with a fine tooth comb and tax every paid expense that would not be "tax-exempt" if claimed by an ordinary individual citizen.
A pair of Tory MPs, who between them seem to have ONLY second homes?
I'm still keen to know how Balls has the nerve to claim he lives in a second home, with his kids, but sends those same children to London schools. Can't be right for the Minister for Children and Schools to "bend" catchment/main home rules - when others are prosecuted fr trying the same trick - can it?
The Speaker should go. He apparently was supposed to oversee this mess. And tried to obstruct the facts being made public. That's plain wrong.
If MPs can't even work out how to understand and manage a very simple set of rules, how do they expect the population at large to understand and respond to the thousands of complex (and sometimes rediculous) new laws and regulations that pour from Westminster and Brussels every year.
Complain about this comment
#64
"DC is playing his political cards with great skill at the moment.
By being decisive and taking action now, he is showing up GB's indecision and dithering."
Could it be that Cameron has nothing else to do with his time, such as running the country...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick, MP's complaining about "Summary Mob Justice" should be grateful that its Justice from their peers and not the public; else there be heads on spikes at the Tower. How on earth any supposedly intelligent MP married couple could think it right to claim two second homes allowances or another MP forget to stop claiming mortgage allowance is beyond the comprehension of us all (except other MP's so it seems) Why the wife is not being carpeted is also beyond me since she was as culpable as her husband. The "give back" total is going to be enough to bail out any Olympic budget shortfall and we have not got round to the anonymous backbenchers yet.
In my view part of the reason why this has happened is the career aspect of politics. We need to stop people thinking in terms of a long lucrative career in politics and more of an altruistic term of public service.
That means we should limit MPs to 1, or at most, 2 terms with a market rate, expenses free, salary. We also need a fixed parliamentary term. That way we get a good churn of MPs with none being in the job long enough to milk the system.
Complain about this comment
Surely these cases are Breach of Trust by Abuse of Position - a new law passed by the MPs themselves in 2006. This charge carries an immidiate custodial sentance. Saying sorry is not enough nor is paying back the money. Criminal proceedings should be carried out as an example. The rest of society would have to answer for their actions why not the MPs.
Complain about this comment
I think an important point has been missed:If the recent storm over MP's expenses had not come to light, would MP,s have continued to claim expenses as they have done for the past years.Furthermore,if a member of the public had claimed money from an expense account for a mortgage that had been paid, surely they would have been arrested by the Police and investigated for fraud/deception, paying back the money after you had been found out, does not detract from the intetnion, which was to take money for which he was not entitled to!
Complain about this comment
Interesting Brows statement
"Explaining his decision, Mr Brown said: "Where there is irregularity now it has got to be dealt with immediately. Where standards have been transgressed and the evidence has been shown to be there, action has got to be taken.
"Where disciplinary action is necessary, it will and will immediately be taken."
The cheif whip knew about the fraud LAST week, it has taken him and G.Brown 6 days to take immediate action.
I fact it looks like they waited to see if the telegraph would publish the details before acting.
I wonder what else they know about and are praying will not come out?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick, if any Tory MPs complain about having to pay back some money, tell them from me that David Cameron is displaying true leadership in this affair, and will be the next PM of this country. If they aren't willing to recognise the voters' anger on this issue, they should be de-selected by their constituency parties, and more honourable candidates selected. If they like, they can try defending themselves before the electorate as independents.
Brown and the rest of his party are toast, of course, but I would like them to remin in power till next June, as they will have to make an Autumn Budget statement, which will either show them facing the need for public sector cuts, or show them denying reality yet again. I don't want any excuse for the Labour apologists to create a stab-in-the-back myth (as they are prone to do). Labour have destroyed the economy, and we must have public recognition of that by the electorate, of we are to have any chance of long-term recovery (and it looks like being very long-term !).
Ditto the Speaker - if they eject him now, they will just put another Labour placeman in for the next Parliament or two. Wait till after the GE, and let the Tories restore the normal pattern - in fact, it would be good if they were to nominate a respected Labour MP such as Frank Field or Kate Hooey !
Complain about this comment
#72
"we elect people to exercise judgement on our behalf, and to do so with the utmost integrity and honesty because without that there can be no authority on matters of law, order and morals."
We don't (yet) elect computers that can't make mistakes, there has been enough 'bad law' (The 'Dangerous Dogs Act' for example) to prove that MPs are only human...
Complain about this comment
2 words - Balls & Cooper - I can't wait..........
Complain about this comment
Nick,
There is a serious danger as this scandal drags on that the full enormity of some of these "wrongdoings" will be obscured. The greedy extent of some claims by MPs may cause public outrage, which as we are seeing is resulting in some money being paid back in an attempt to save political skins and prevent de-selection by local committees, but it is becoming ever clearer that some of the "honourable" members have gone further and actually broken the law of the land - either by tax evasion or deliberate fraud. Saying "sorry" in these cases is simply not good enough. I want to see criminal prosecutions of those who have broken the law. Until this happens, and there appears to be good prime facie evidence in more than one case, I will not be persuaded that anything in British politics has changed. The concept that no-one is above the law is a sound one, and I can think of few better opportunities in my lifetime to demonstrate this. Once we have seen a few politicians forced to supply their DNA for the database so cheerfully supported by MPs it may concentrate some minds amongst their fellows about the reality of law and order in Britain today. What is good enough for ordinary mortals is more than good enough for the craven scoundrels at Westminster. The Speaker was quick enough to support police action in cases of whistleblowing, let's now see if he is quite so happy to support it against his precious members. There has never been a better time for the police, HMRC and CPS to prove that they are truly independent of political control, and are actually upholding the law which, after all, the members of parliament have seen fit to approve.
Complain about this comment
Ed Balls and the missus are not merely "both MPs": they are both in the cabinet. I believe that their "expenses" in the last financial year were in the region of £350,000 EACH.
I just have this funny feeling that the Torygraph daily drip-feed has a big target in mind.
We live in interesting times.
It is interesting to note that, having escaped prosecution throughout his career as a self-serving crook, Al Capone was eventually incarcerated for tax evasion.
Interesting times, indeed.
Complain about this comment
Obviously, as they have all clearly demonstrated that the are shady characters we need to arrest and question and take a DNA sample of each for the National Database - and see what matches we can find!
Of course, most may be innocent but 12 years should suffice.
Complain about this comment
Just a thought, i feel sorry for the next goverment made up of 600+ totally new MP's after all the way the country feels about this if their was an election this week i dont think any of the current MP's will keep their seats.
And over the next vew months "It can only get worse(r)"!
Complain about this comment
#75
"It is a bit poor that our (very expensive) publicly funded news organisation is so far behind the curve on all this..."
Hardly, according to some the newspaper in question has committed a criminal act by buying this leaked information, if this is so I can just hear the complaints about a publicly funded news organisation breaking the law just to beat their commercial competitors to a 'story'.
Complain about this comment
#77
"They had the chance to blow the whistle on their collegues if they had wanted to."
Assuming they knew, of course...
Complain about this comment
Imagine you're new to the HOC and a bit of an innocent abroad. You're allocated a corner of an office with a backbench lifer - let's call him "Fletch" for convenience-sake.
At the end of the month you're preparing your first expenses claim (in the same way you did when you had a proper job in the real world) and just before you send it in, Fletch offers to check it for you to "make sure you haven't made any silly mistakes".
Now Fletch, obviously having your interests entirely at heart, feels that certain of your claims look a little light and suggests that you have another go, this time claiming stuff that you must have spent money on, but annoyingly just can't lay your hands on receipts for.
And by month 6, your expenses claims bear almost no relation to reality, but at least they don't look out of place alongside Fletch' or anyone else's in the HOC for that matter.
How many of us in the same position would have done the same?
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.
Dear Nick (Et all),
Nothing will happen over Cooper-Balls!
GB will back peddle like mad before anything happens to his golden inner circle, Hazel is still there why not Balls.
The longer Eddie and Evetty are there the more damage is being made to GB's 'moral compass'!
NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!
Xxxx
June next month.
Complain about this comment
Elliot Morley has been suspended - good. The same should happen to Margaret Moran, Hazel Blears, James Hope - and anyone who overclaimed on their expenses.
They should have the whip withdrawn, and their local party should be instructed to start the reslection process. After all, there's no chance of any of them getting re-elected, so let's get a decent candidate in place as soon as possible.
Draconian - yes, but a fair price to pay from dragging the Labour Party through the dirt.
Complain about this comment
Post 81. Just in case no one else has listed them please see the attached re the "good list"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8048215.stm
If someone has posted it before please accept my apologies. Just the moderation queue seems to be getting longer and longer.
Complain about this comment
Apologies and repayment followed by contrition isn't enough nor is the claim that some are less culpable than others. They are all guilty by association and those that did not benefit are guilty because they failed to expose the scandalous manipulation of expenses by their colleagues of which they would, in most instances, have been aware. The commons is, after all, a very close, not to say, incestuous, club.
Following this exposure it might be fruitful, and certainly no less interesting, to examine the claims and receipts submitted for expenses by our senior civil servants including those heading NGO's and QUANGO's. It's a fair bet that some very interesting and not dissimilar stories would emerge.
Complain about this comment
They are falling like a House of Cards. Some might say that, but I could't possibly comment.
Complain about this comment
Let's just clear something up. They haven't resigned. They've "left the party".
They are still MPS and still claiming expenses.
The financial effect on them is NIL. Make them call a by-election!
Complain about this comment
'By forcing the resignation of Mackay and choosing one half of a husband and wife team, DC has put MP partnerships into the spotlight by getting them both to repay their expenses claim.
What a finesse.'
But Andrew Mackay won't be kicked out of Parliament, will he? And he won't lose his pension, will he? And he won't end up before the beak, will he?
David Cameron is getting off scot free if you think his actions show him as some sort of great statesman. Don't forget he was trousering £21 grand a year to pay his mortgage and he's hardly a pauper is he? All this only became an issue for him once we, the great unwashed, found out about it!
Complain about this comment
#82
A lot of what you say makes sense, a lot of sense, except for which MPs would be eligible for the second home allowance. If MPs worked a 9 to 5 working day then they could commute but how is an MP expected to get home if the house doesn't rise until 23:00hrs and the last train has left at 22:30, driving 70 to 100 (route) miles - in the case of my MP - isn't a realistic option, also such regular use of PT or the most direct route home have their own security issues and what about late night sittings etc?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Snouts. Trough. 'Nuff said!
Complain about this comment
This, can only be a good thing for democracy, I've decided.
Yes, it's brought the parliamentary system to it's knees, it's devastated the foundation of trust between MP and voter. It's given sceptics the proof they've waited for that some MP's are in it for the money - the avaricious, inexcusable urge to pamper themselves at soneone elses expense. No different in many respects to the benefit scroungers who litter sink estates up and down the country.
But what will parliament look like after all this? 600+ MP's who are afraid, VERY AFRAID, of the fallout should they be found behaving badly. Isn't this the kind of parliament we deserve? In Europe, governments fear the people, because as history will tell you - when the people get angry - governments, aristocracies and even despots become targets and not many of any of them lived through it.
Complain about this comment
The big question is...... are there any honest MPs at all??
The whole system is open to abuse,as long as it stays as it is this will be a never ending story.
Do the great british( voting) public trust this lot??
NO
If you or I behaved this way we would be sat in a police cell within a day.
Complain about this comment
This is the tip of a very large iceberg. Two scapegoats are not enough.
Whilst we have a parliament in this sort of chaos governing the country is an impossible task until someone actually bites the bullet and calls a general election.
The taxpayers of this country are being asked to sacrifice the future of their children to pay back enormous amounts of tax well into the future so they are now entitled to have their say.
I have just turned off after watching as much as I could stomach of the fiasco of a Labour cabinet asking the country to vote for them in European elections. An even bigger fiasco.
There is no end to these revelations in sight as we have hundreds of undisclosed expenses still to come.
What can the people do? They can refuse to vote for any MEP who does not publish his or her expenses before the EU elections. To refuse to vote does no good but we are entitled to see who is benefitting most from the European gravy train. Some of their expenses will make those of our own parliament pale into insignificance.
Complain about this comment
In order to keep as current as possible with developments in this ongoing saga (who needs to watch soaps with this going on!) I have borrowed a friend's spare TV and keep both News 24 and Sky News on - yes, I know I should get a life.
The one question I have yet to hear any journalist ask directly of either Gordon Brown or David Cameron is whether they agree that prosecution under the law should take place if any of these "inadvertant mistakes" should prove to be more serious.
You only have to read the recent blogs to be aware that this is a point that many posters are making.
Complain about this comment
The uncovering of MPs fraud explains why the government are so obsessed with benefit fraud.
Last year I was falsely accused of working whilst claiming Incapacity Benefit. I was interrogated at my home by an officer from the Department, having first providing evidence of my identity. It was humuliating and very upsetting, and added stress to my illness.
What work was I accused of? Scooping icecream in a kiosk - wow such lofty sums of money! If I had been guilty of such a crime, no doubt pleading I'd forgotten to inform the Department, as well as paying any overpaid amount back, would have been sufficient. I don't think so!
In light of their own criminal, and at least unethical, behaviour,all becomes clear. They are judging Jo public by their own standards.
Complain about this comment
#86
"A letter in the DT from an accountant suggested that Hazel Blears paying back what she doesn't owe (??) would not be good enough as it would go as a credit on her HMRC account, rather than a payment for a debit. She would need to submit a tax return to make amends and face the consequences of that."
Let me get this straight, she doesn't owe HMRC money yet she is making a loan to the HMRC (in effect paying her next tax bill early)?
This accountants point was what I wonder, that people in the corporate world should do similar, nah that can't be it - they are far more likely to be trying to avoid paying their tax bill than try to pay it in advance...
Complain about this comment
'Tories are complaining to me about what one calls "summary mob justice" in which all are judged guilty so that the good are punished while the real bad guys escape lightly.'
=====
If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. And good riddance.
'Wholly and necessarily' required to undertake duties as a Member of Parliament'.
If you can't read and understand, you're in the wrong job.
Complain about this comment
Now suspend Blears for admited tax evasion and lying to the Fees Office/Taxman.
Complain about this comment
Come on Gordon "Get it"
Complain about this comment
"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
This parliament has to be dissolved. I cannot see how it can go on!
Complain about this comment
Re; 98. Ian_the_chopper
"I think the phrase that comes to mind re Mackay is dulc et decorum et pro patria mori."
You may be right Ian (except for the missing "e" in Dulce )
Morley has been "suspended"
He was in the firing line and was shamed,before we heard what Balls/Cooper claimed
Complain about this comment
I bet Fred the Shred is laughing himself to sleep every night
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It's a good thing that MPs are being called to account for violating the rules. But, let's not forget that they also made the rules. Who will hold them responsible for that? And, when will MPs admit wrongdoing that hasn't been leaked, hold up their hands to it, and do the decent thing? While David Cameron is showing some leadership and Gordon Brown appears to have lost what little initiative he had left, both parties are trying to court the voters by seeing who can get to the moral high ground first.
Dr Bruce Hoag
Organizational Psychologist
Complain about this comment
#103
"The "semi house trained polecat" the honourable Lord Tebbit and Tory Grandee says that the current thuggish Bullingdon Club led Tory Party is not worthy of the support of long term decent conservative voters. In view of todays revelations,is he right?"
If that was the case he would be resigning his own membership, I haven't seen or heard any reference to him either joining another party or joining the cross benches in the Lords...
Oh and on the subject of the Lords, is 'Round Two' going to be an exposé of the expenses of our honourable lords and Barrennesses etc.
Complain about this comment
Re Boilerplated at 106
"Could it be that Cameron has nothing else to do with his time, such as running the country..."
Unlike Gordon Brown & Labour who have very very busy for the last twelve years "running the country" INTO THE GROUND
Complain about this comment
Anyone prepared to speculate how many cheats and professional scroungers on the Tory benches will turn up to vote against a few pennies extra on the minimum wage within the next few days?
Complain about this comment
Your honour, I move that the case be dismissed. My client has already admitted shoplifting the Aston Martin out of the showroom and using it for 2 years but when the police stopped my client he offered to return it to the showroom immediately. Clearly my client realised the error of his ways so there should be no case to answer. I would like to cite similar examples from 2009 where the legislature.....
Good grief am I dreaming?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What's the difference between Elliot Morley and Hazel Blears?
About a foot, a cabinet position and about £30k!
Bada boom - I'm here all week!
Complain about this comment
"Labour MP Elliot Morley has been suspended from the party after he admitted claiming £16,000 expenses for a mortgage he had already paid off.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown made the announcement as he launched Labour's European election campaign."
What a wonderful start to an election campaign; having to tell the press at the launch of the campaign that you've suspended one of your own MPs for tax fraud. And even Brown himself has admitted similar "mistakes".
I'm surprised there aren't riots taking place.
I assume everyone's just waiting for June 4th when they can show their disgust at the euro/local elections.
My guess is that on June 5th the situation will be so bad for labour that they'll be forced into an immediate general election, and that failing to call one will then lead to some kind of massive demonstration/riot.
It's somewhat sad though that the public are more disgusted by a few grand here and there in dodgy claims than 2 trillion pounds of wasted public money by the government in general; that says a lot about our education system and our tax-funded media.
Complain about this comment
Harking back to one of the first to be outed.....
I work in Housing and have just received this week's copy of Inside Housing, our trade magazine. Front page news is that Baroness Uddin might face eviction for classing her housing association property as her second home. She claimed that a flat in Kent was her main home. Tenancy agreements state that tenants much occupy the property as their only and principal home. Spitalfields Housing Association has therefore launched an investigation into her housing arrangements.
However, if the tenancy is a joint tenancy with her husband, she could claim that it was his main residence only, which could comply with the rules.
No prizes for guessing that this is the reasoning she will use!
Her claim for the past year was £29,675. She has been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 each year for overnight subsistence since 2001.
Social housing, of course, is intended for those who cannot afford to buy (or rent) on the open market.
Complain about this comment
To the brigade of people saying that "we would all have done the same" there is a simple reply.
Maybe so but if we had, we would have been just as wrong and should expect to be in as much trouble.
Besides, the vast majority of us were not in that position so what we might or might not have done is a tiny side-point to what these MPs DID do.
Complain about this comment
#104
"What's the poster Labour introduced: "No ifs, no but, benefits fraud is a crime." Only, it seems, if you aren't connected to the government."
Isn't fraud only fraud if it was done knowingly.
Complain about this comment
Post 113 the commons needs a new speaker as soon as possible.
Agree with your suggestions. However why does the speaker have to be a Tory or Labour MP. I personally would quite like the idea of 5 years of Vince Cable as speaker.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Those who have taken more than 1 years salary in unwarranted claims should lose their pension. They've taken enough from us, let them have no more. Then can continue in post since they would (one assume) do the work of that job until someone else gets elected into that post.
If any have taken a penny fraudulently or having broken their oath of veracity, then criminal proceedings can take place and if found guilty, jailed and fired with prejudice: that means no severance pay, no more political office (EVER) and no more pension. AND their DNA and criminal record kept permanently on record. And still owe the money taken.
If I owe HMRC money, they'll take if from my pay packet before I see a penny. If MP's don't have the pay to pay all of it, do the same there.
Complain about this comment
#85 bravesouter
Yes. It was a Tory by the name of McLean who sat on the Allowances Committee. I think he was a Tory Whip. He tabled a motion that MPs expenses should be exempt from disclosure under FOI. The motion was put to the vote, but was lost as the majority government MPs voted against.
Complain about this comment
Although I do not like the overt abuse of the financial arrangements that are being wilfully manipulated by some, or maybe many, MPs the real issue, however, is the absence of normal decency and ethical standards in the government and among some parliamentarians, coupled to a misplaced rather egocentric approach which leaves many decent people feeling politically disenfranchised. The salami slicing approach of the press into this indiscretion or that moat cleaning bill encourages this unsuccessful and abject government to obscure its wretched failure to do its job properly.
The consequences of that could be very distasteful if some turn in protest or despair to certain smaller parties. The government has plainly set about meticulously tearing down much of the fabric of civil society by their misguided social engineering programmes that wreck education, communities, hard work, etc. The Prime Minister appears to be a charlatan and an intellectual thug and is not being held to account. I do not like the idea of our most senior elected representatives being untrustworthy, but Brown did not tell the truth about a non-election and has spun his way round the electorate for years. Spin is subtle lying, but lying nevertheless.
The Speaker of the House of Commons is unfit for that office indeed I am still not sure how he was allowed to be elected as it was not the turn of the Labour Party to hold the office. This honorable role is steeped in history and we should now respect history by removing Mr Martin.
It should be remembered that no fewer than seven left office through beheadings. This is no time to be squeamish!!
Complain about this comment
35. At 12:59pm on 14 May 2009, Cam_73 wrote:
This could be solved once and for all by providing a purpose built accomodation facility.
---------------------------------
Yes!...THEY'RE CALLED PRISONS!
Complain about this comment
The reason people are paying with their jobs is because they have broken their contract with their electors.
Tell people one thing - like, whiter than white, tough on crime tough on the causes of crime or twenty four hours to save the NHS - and then not only consistently fail to deliver over twelve years but plunder the public purse as best as you possibly can; this is a recipe for a broken contract with the electorate.
What in the world made Gordon Brown think he could get away with this?
Parliament needs to be dissolved and an election called.
Gordon Brown and his smear machine inside the highest levels of government have been found out and their tactics of massaging the message and fudging the numbers have been rumbled.
The Bank of England is openly contradicting the chancellor's budget forecast only three weeks after the budget.
Do people not understand how broken is this newlabour government.
Fortunately for the electorate this is probably the last newlabour government we shall ever have as there is not the slightest chance of resuurrection either financially or politically after the next election.
How ever again will labour lay claim to a moral crusade? They will be laughed off the podium. How will they ever agian claim to be the protectotrs of the public purse? They have been found out to be profligate, wasting and boastful.
These are the reasos for the complete collapse of public onfidence and trust in politics and the government; Gordon Brown and his government have treated the electorate with contempt and they are reaping what they have sown.
Dissolve this rotten parliament - it's the only answer.
Complain about this comment
if you work in a shop or bank and borrow either cash or goods you will face loss of job and prosecution thus as it should be but this bunch in the house feel they can fix expenses whilst earning better than average wages.
neu-labour can poodle about with the facts as much as they like but theft is theft and these MP's caught out should face the same as any one else, and perminent banishment from public offices weather its MP, local government or council.
all expenses for government and local councils need independent checking with the results openly fielded before any hope of confidence in these organisations.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure why my previous post got banned, so I won't have a dig at the moderators again, who are probably doing a fine job.
Those MPs who have been found out need to resign and stand for re-election.
The Speaker needs to resign, period.
The Prime Minister, who claims to be repsonsible for all this, needs to resign and call an election.
Only then will we get a parliament that mets our minimum requirements.
Complain about this comment
New rules.
Let me get this straight... you take a bung to rig the law and you get suspended for 6 months... and then what? Welcome back to the House Partay! (on ex's no doubt).
Yes there is an inappropriately 'forgetful' Conservative couple, a distraught Labout ex-Cabinet Minister (certainly mentioned) as well, but two Lords a rigging don't even get fired on the spot????! Or the odd comment gets made on that odd discrepancy?
Mind you, on the Steve Wright Show it has just been mentioned someone bought Kevin Spacey a Lordship, so the exchange of cash in this arena is certainly thriving.
Complain about this comment
Can anyone tell me how my post 98 was off topic?
All I did was post the link to the current lead story on the BBC news website.
This blog is about MP's paying with their jobs and the story in the link is about Elliott Morley being suspended.
I can't imagine how any blog could be more on topic!
Complain about this comment
Gordon is supposedly setting up an "independent" body to examine all MPs claims in detail. I wonder just how independent it will actually be.
Why not hand the investigation over to the Tax Payers Alliance?
Complain about this comment
I do love that the Tory supporters are trumpeting Cameron's leadership on the issue and inferring that somehow this makes him more suitable to govern.
The fact is the whole lot is an absolute disgrace, whether Cameron is "doing the right thing" now is utterly irrelevant, because he knew full well this has been going on for years, they all did. There is barely a person in there fit to form a government, the idea that we should call a general election and simply put Cameron in number 10 and somehow that will make this stinking cesspool ok is absolutely laughable.
The idea that this is somehow better for one party or another is utterly fatuous, they've all been caught with their hands in the till, and we've still got the second jobs stuff to come.
When it comes to MP's I paraphrase Franz Beckenbauer (talking about a wretched performance by Germany's football team), apart from Vince Cable you could put that lot in a bag and hit it with a stick and whoever got hit would deserve it.
Complain about this comment
What I do not understand, is the lack of interest by the Police?
If I make a careless remark adjudged to be racist by some sensitive soul, then the police come knocking to have a word.
Evidence of fraud and misappropriation of public funds is just ignored by the law enforcement agencies.
We know the Police can enter parliament and search because Speaker Martin allowed it previously
Does not all this bring the law into disrepute and why should the rest of us observe it?
I do hope people will use the Local elections as a referendum on our three main party politics. None of above?
Complain about this comment
Will Speaker Martin be held accountable for the money (taxpayers) that he spent through the courts, trying to suppress the details of MPs expenses?
For those of you who feel that Nick is not being even handed in this particular blog, watch ITV news, where the questions asked at lunchtime were more across the parties.
Complain about this comment
I do not see any of them as being innocent here. Even if they were not personally troughing, they must have know who was, but said nothing. If they did not realise what was going on, are they really fit to be governing, or wanting to govern, the country?
Complain about this comment
Indeed the Pigsty needs a good clean out.
You couldn't make it up.
Recent revelations about Elliot Morleys expense claims for a mortgage he never had is nothing more than fraud.
If a member of the public did this with any benefits- the book would be thrown at them- even if they did offer to pay it back.
It seems that the common excuse in use by all parties is 'it was a mistake'- well there seems to be too many mistakes, made by too many people, across differing parties.
I notice Mr Tony Blair hasn't cropped up.... yet.
Complain about this comment
the police are now giving interviews about this on the processes etc, in dealing with "outside the rules" claims.
it does not fill me with confidence at all
take the case of the labour donor who gave the party hundreds of thousands of pounds under different names, against the "strict" rules.
months later the cps decided (and announced last week) there was no charges to answer.
is this the same fudge we will see with MPs?
when will the commons fees office be dealt with about allowing all these claims?
who is in charge there?
when was the current "system" set up and by whom?
moving on from westminster, in the future, will people be more keen to see exactly what the european parliament are up to as regards expenses for those that sit there?
Complain about this comment
When will somebody mention TREASON or TRAITOR
We all seem to be aware of the possiblity of THEFT or FRAUD accusations
Does anybody have a clue why those found guilty are not called 'traitors' and will probably escape the wrath of the nation with the help of their lawyer co-horts.
Bring back the stocks...let them face public ridicule for trying to make fools out of the electorate.
Complain about this comment
As I have said before. It is easier for Cameron as he has the prospect of political advancement to offer and there is little chance of serious boat rocking from those whom he has chosen to sacrifice. Brown has nothing to offer his party but needs to keep some sort of unity. If he finds it impossible to keep his party together the country will be saddled with uncertainty and that will be more disasterous than the country going in an ill advised direction.
All I care about is how the country is run. Every service should be constantly improved however good they are. That is the job of MPs and why most of them went into politics. The Westminster Village destroyed their ideals.
Getting too excited about MPs fiddling their expenses should be left to those who complain when they have been undercharged in a restaurant. I did that just yesterday so I can they that the worst of them should stand down at the next election.
The people I don't feel sorry for are Katie Price and Peter Andre. Their 'celebrity split' is not getting nearly as much publicity as they hoped. For that I thank MPs. Though perhaps it was the desire to imitate the celebrity lifestyle that caused the MPs to err.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Would appear that the Labour whip Nick Brown has admitted that he has known about this for a week
So did he bring this up with our great leader previously?
Did they all just think they could tough it out?
Now that DC has set the agenda, can we expect more?
Complain about this comment
Isn't there a future opportunity here for constituency parties to require all their MP's expense claims to be submitted through them as a condition for adoption. Would this not then put the constituency party under considerable pressure to publish these claims periodically. It is, after all, these local activists who will have to trawl Britain's doorsteps putting the wreckage back together if and when this all blows over. With a huge majority they might risk sticking up two fingers at the local electorate but most of them do not have this luxury.
108 - good point about the career politicians. I miss the days when Labour MPs sounded like people you met in the pub and seemed to have a collective morality about them. Too many nowadays are machine politicians who have never had a proper job, who feign upwardly mobile accents and mannerisms and sound like patronising Home Counties schoolteachers
Meanwhile it seems a good day to bury bad news about suspended Lords and third division BBC newsreaders pulling down 92.5K a year
Complain about this comment
The Daily Mail (in their article on Phil Hope) state that MPs can claim a grant of £40k if they lose their seat at the election...
"Mr Hope is seen as a near-certainty to lose his seat at the election.
Even though he would qualify for a £40,000-plus grant paid to defeated MPs, he would miss out on his junior minister's salary of £94,228 plus more than £150,000 in expenses."
Please dear God tell me they don't get a £40k golden goodbye.
Complain about this comment
The reason the anger is so great is because most people thought all MP's were corrupt, but convinced themselves that they weren't because it was simply - unthinkable.
The anger comes from the fact that people can now see that their hidden fear is in fact true.
It's like when your child does something bad, you tell yourself it cannot be, until you are faced with the cold hard facts and realisation that they did - and it's not how you brought them up and taught them to behave.
I on the other hand do not feel angry at all - I said since I was 10 years old that MP's were corrupt and working for their own interests and not ours.
Therefore, like Nero the pessimist, I am not disappointed at this scandal, but in fact glad that my gut feeling was right all along.
I still meet people who are in denial, repeating phrases like "it was within the rules" and "well it's not all of the MP's only a small number" - both of which completely miss the moral point in question here - even if they were true.
They HAVE NO DEFENCE - you can see it in every interview they do - unconvincing liars is all MP's are - and in fact ever were.
What makes me laugh is that they are so used to lying (to their constituents, their families, the press, themselves) that they can no longer recognise the truth.
In a way I feel sorry for them......but only for about 30 seconds, because then I remember that they could have stopped this years ago - if they had any sort of self control.
The more that loose their jobs the better - maybe we should have a mass redundancy of MP's and replace them all with cheaper and more reliable foreign alternatives - and quickly before they sell off the Post Office.
The crooks.
Complain about this comment
What about the two that started this off, namely Smith and McNulty.
Why has Brown not suspended them both.
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.
I am quite lucky, my mp, Dr Richard Taylor is one of the cleanest mps in westminster. Can't wait for ed and co remember last year ?????
Complain about this comment
#19 strictlypickled
I'm all up for 'summary mob justice' - care to join me?
We've all been subjected to 'mob justice' for the last 30 years, handed out by the mob of MP's who occupy Westminster.
Voting got us nowhere because all sides are as bad as each other, and this little episode has demonstrated that clearly - maybe summary mob justice is the new Democracy.
Complain about this comment
#150
I was merely pointing out that the PM does have other duties, I would have said the same who ever was in power. This (w)hole expenses issue is actually beyond party politics, it's very clear that snouts have been busy on all sides of the house, trying to make this into a party political issue is actually in danger of weakening the cross party consensus that is needed to sort this mess out.
Complain about this comment
I think the only thing that we can hope for from this debacle, is that any new government will get the signals loud and clear that the electorate will no longer tolerate this abuse of the system.
We as the electorate may need to accept that the MP's need a transparent appropriately renumerated position.
I still feel there are far too many MP's and that the problem could be largely solved by reducing the number of MP's by a third.
Complain about this comment
I would like to point out that the defense of "not all MP's participated in this scamming of public money" is not a valid one.
Crowd or mob mentality is not an excuse in law - so why is it being used by the lawmakers.
The MP's who didn't fiddle the system are just as guilty for not putting a stop to this. The ONLY excuse would be if they were outnumbered by the MP's who wanted to continue.
....however this would mean the majority of MP's were playing the system to the maximum and ignoring any moral obligation they had to the public.
Council staff up and down the country will be screaming as I understand it's very difficult to get back even genuine expenses from your local authority - certainly moat maintenance would be out of the question.
I think the idea of a state provided accomodation in London was raised a few years ago (the old GLC building is empty and perfect for it) - but for some reason the idea was squashed.
....just goes to show that they would have played this scam for as long as they could have got away with it....
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick,
Is it true that legal papers have been served on Michael Martin?
Can we get some information?
Complain about this comment
#40 ianathome
"e.g. Ann Widdecombe's plaintive question yesterday about who would pay to repair her boiler if it blew up: she should ask her constituents how they manage in such circumstances!"
...and that just about sums it up.
Ann Widdecombe's comments prove that MP's have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE A REAL PERSON IN THE UK.
Did she not learn on her 'social experiment' where she went around criticising the unemployed?
Who's the scrounger now Widdecombe?
Complain about this comment
#169 re: off-topic.
I had a post removed for being "offensive". When I complained about it, and asked for an apology as it was in no way offensive, they told me it was "off-topic".
It wasn't off-topic, and they still haven't bothered to apologise.
For "off-topic", read "off-message". And we all know whose message we're talking about.
Just as taxpayers are rightly outraged at the waste of money by MPs, I think they will be equally outraged that in order to watch television, they are required to fund a government propaganda team headed up by Robinson.
Complain about this comment
#85 and 182
[re MPs expenses claims and the FoIA]
I'm more interested in why the motion was put forward, the rational behind it, it's one think just to no want the information available but it's another to not want the information available because (for example) receipts have personal/confidential information on them. It's also possible that the motion (referred to in #182} passed after a amendment had been tabled and passed. What I'm getting at is, the motion and vote might not be as clear cut as you imply.
Complain about this comment
Is it a criminal offence for an MP, for example Tony Blair, to shred his expense details?
Why are the Police so keen to arrest the public for petty crime, and so recalcitrant to investigating fraud in our parliament, the highest court of the land?
And why is Nick always so far removed from public opinion?
Complain about this comment
David Cameron who I dont support has proven more effective in this crisis than brown, browns only answer for everything is a committee and he is now paralysed from the neck up like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
It is no wonder labour ratings are only 4 points ahead of the lib dems; I expect the lib dems to overtake them at this rate to become the second party.
Now it is a game about who has taken us for a ride the least.
SO FAR ?
To those defending labour look at the BBC own expenses table sort by amounts claimed, I was horrified but not surprised labour are the biggest scroungers of the lot of them.
Not to mention 2 peers facing suspension, 1 labour peer facing a investigation over a empty flat, 5 cabinet members investigated and the telegraphs exposure labour is indeed rotten to the core.
followed by the tories who are at least are trying hard to put some of thier house back in order.
I honestly dont know how brown can carry on he does not have the moral right or ability anymore to lead this country - desolve parliment at the summer break give all parties a few months to get thier houses in order before a general election.
Complain about this comment
If I said #182 in my last comment I mean #162
Complain about this comment
Lose their job? Diddums. Not good enough. If I committed fraud on this scale I'd go to jail.
The thieves should be banged up in pokey. There they might meet some of the benefits scroungers who they showed no mercy to, even though they stole far less.
Complain about this comment
#45 stanilic
"I have even forgiven Hazel Blears now she has paid the taxman as she is such a sweetie and you can't buy the enthusiasm she has for her politics."
Is this the same Hazel Blears who was in the Evening standard in 2007 being quoted as saying "I think it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to spend £3000 on a handbag - as long as it's quality and it makes her feel good"
....not really in touch with her constituents in Salford with their average gross weekly earnings of £448 (taken about the same time in 2007)
The devil in a dress - is still the devil.
Complain about this comment
The message that parliament is sending out to the public, via this, the Abrahams affair, Draper/McBride/Whelan and access to ministers, peers charging for questions, etc... is that its ok to break the law, because the CPS never seem to have enough evidence (c.f. Blair and his shredder) to prosecute.
The only problem is, these guidelines do not apply to proles like you and me.
I cannot fathom how anyone is still considering voting Labour, yet their share never seems to drop below 20% in the polls. Perhaps we truly get the politicians we deserve - bone idle, irresponsible, and in some cases, criminal.
Complain about this comment
"braveSouter wrote:
Nick,
Is it true that in 2007 under Camerons 'leadership' the Tories introduced a bill to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act?
If so, and knowing about the behaviour of his MPs, do you think he should resign? He is clearly not fit for purpose.Do you think the current government should be commended for passing legislation that has enabled the truth to come out? "
I am not sure if the Tories introduced a bill to excempt the MPs from the Freedom of Information act. However the wikipedia (yes I know it is not reliable) would suggest otherwise:
"In January 2009 Harman proposed a rule change to exempt MPs' expenses from the freedom of information act. Her parliamentary order, aimed to remove "most expenditure information held by either House of Parliament from the scope of the [Freedom of Information] Act". It meant that under the law, journalists and members of the public would no longer be entitled to learn details of their MP's expenses. Labour MPs were to be forced to vote for this measure by use of a three line whip. Her proposal was eventually withdrawn following the Conservative party saying they would vote against, and an online campaign by mySociety."
The Tories may have introduced their own bill (and if so it may not have actually covered expenses, their proposed bill may have only applied to personal correspondance with constituents - which probably SHOULD be protected) but they threatened to vote against a "whipped" vote introduced by Harriet Harman on the subject of expenses.
Complain about this comment
If this saga continues along the present lines and escalates to the point where MPs are prosecuted for fraud, surely that would constitute sufficient grounds for Parliament to be dissolved and a general election called?
Complain about this comment
Re: 106
What makes you think Brown is running the country? You could certainly have fooled me and - I would hazard a guess - most other people.
Complain about this comment
Just been reported by John Pinaer that cracks are appearing on the Tory benches.
Michael Ancram was named as "questioning" Cameron's leadership while others are questioning the role of this Tory "scrutiny" panel when ther's an independent panel, the one that Morley is being referred too, that is already there to do that job.
More interesting days to follow for all parties I guess.
The sooner they try to work together and not point score as Ann Widdecomb wisely warns against, the better for all concerned.
This Cameron, Macho "I'm reacting more quickly/strongly than you/I thought of it first blah blah, therefore I'm a leader not you" is just playing to the sort of view that predominates on this blog, but I suspect that most people will not think one side of the House is "better/worse" than the other.
Lets all just be thankful for FOI.
At least we got to know.
Complain about this comment
If the police don't do their duty on behalf of the people of this country, we will only conclude that they are of the same breed as the MPs feasting in the trough of plenty. Oink! Oink!
Complain about this comment
#174
"I do not see any of them as being innocent here. Even if they were not personally troughing, they must have know who was, but said nothing. If they did not realise what was going on, are they really fit to be governing, or wanting to govern, the country?"
That's a bit like saying that you would be as guilty as any co-worker who was found to be fiddling their expenses claims, just because you share the same trade, same work place (or even the same pub) it doesn't follow that you know who they have filled in their confidential claims forms!...
Complain about this comment
The Police should have by now been called in to Investigate ALL mis-use of Tax-Payers MONEY, and that at lease by NOW we should HAVE SEE BOTH Morley and MacKay, with perhap also along with his WIFE, ALL Subjects pending to Criminal Charges for FRAUD in Public Office and Charged accordingly.
Nothing short of this will now do.
Complain about this comment
"Boilerplated wrote:
#72
We don't (yet) elect computers that can't make mistakes, there has been enough 'bad law' (The 'Dangerous Dogs Act' for example) to prove that MPs are only human..."
A mistake would be claiming for a mortgage for one or two months after it had finished, Morley was still claiming for his mortgage one to two YEARS after it finished.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The Government are busy trying to rapidly change tack and change the focus of our attention ... to what ... to tell us all about 'communities' and 'acts of joined up kindness'! Why is this?
Because they haven't been doing this themselves? To deflect attention from their own actions and examples of Poweromics*? Do leopards change their spots? ... I've never seen it myself.
Gordon mentioned today about change (yet again), and about getting out there and 'listening' to the people ... wow - a relevation (didn't he say that when he became PM - and an unelected PM too!) ... what about 'learning' from people (and their own mistakes)!
What about giving us 21st Century democracy, so we know we'll really be listened to and we will be properly represented (not for a day - but for life)! Proportional representation would arguably be a start ... but the two main parties both use Poweromics have continually blocked this because they both benefit greatly from the current system**.
Chameleon's don't change their DNA when changing colour - so would a change from red to blue really make a big difference? or would it just change the flavor of Poweromics we get?
They are all clearly worried about protest votes going to groups like the BNP in the forthcoming local/european elections ...
.. should we then, if for no other reason, be re-directing protest votes more towards groups such as the Liberal Democrats ... as they are one of the few parties who have consistently pushed for us to have a better and more democratic system?
David Clift, a Future 500 Leader
* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed
** We only get a say/vote once every five years in a general election, and even then only a small minority of votes actually make a difference as to which of the two main parties gets in Government ... the only votes that effectively 'count' are fringe votes in marginal constituencies (2-3% of the total) - and that's why the two main parties keep changing the voting boundaries too! 21st Century democracy? ... and yet we often hear politicians quote our 'democracy' as an example for others to follow!
Complain about this comment
Nick, Please report it as it is. "..now they are paying with their jobs"
That would imply that they have been kicked out of Parliament. They haven't. They are still MPs. Still getting 64K per annum and still entitled to claim expenses - whatever still remains that is.
In fact by removing the party whip Andrew Mackay is no longer bound by David Cameron's restriction on claims. So he may even have done him a favour.
Complain about this comment
85. At 2:05pm on 14 May 2009, braveSouter wrote:
Nick,
Is it true that in 2007 under Camerons 'leadership' the Tories introduced a bill to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act?
If so, and knowing about the behaviour of his MPs, do you think he should resign? He is clearly not fit for purpose.Do you think the current government should be commended for passing legislation that has enabled the truth to come out?
===
Do you mean this Bill, the one that was SUPPORTED by LABOUR?
"On 18 December 2006, Conservative MP David Maclean, introduced a Private Member's Bill to remove Parliament from the scope of the FOI Act and create a new exemption for MPs' correspondence with public authorities.
The Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill was justified as a measure to protect MPs' correspondence on behalf of individual constituents. This was misleading. Correspondence about a constituent's personal circumstances was already exempt under the Act. The real effect of the Bill'would have been to (a) prevent the disclosure of detailed information about MPs' expenses claims and Parliament's spending and (b) allow MPs to lobby public authorities in secret, in the knowledge that what they write could not be disclosed under the Act.
The Bill received backing from the Parliamentary Labour Party's committee, which urged Labour backbenchers to support it."
http://www.cfoi.org.uk/macleanbill.html
===
More relevant is this from January this year:
"Ministers have shelved plans to exempt MPs' expenses details from the Freedom of Information Act, after the Tories and Lib Dems said they would fight it.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the government had thought it had cross-party agreement but would now "continue to consult on the matter".
Campaigners said it was a victory for "people power" after a web protest.
The Conservatives accused ministers of a "U-turn" while the Lib Dems said it was a "humiliating climbdown".
MPs were due to vote on Thursday on plans to exempt their expenses from the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.
Free vote
Labour MPs were to be ordered to vote through the changes, while the Tories and Lib Dems said they would instruct their MPs to vote against them."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7842402.stm
Do you think Brown should resign? He is clearly not fit for purpose.Do you think the current government should be castigated for attempting to pass legislation that would have stopped the truth from coming out?
Complain about this comment
Vince Cable for Speaker - petition on No 10 site ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
M.P.s' when in Parliament spend alot of their time fileing into and out of lobbies, but it NOW appears that the ONLY Lobby fit for some M.P.s' is the one leading into the Dock in: Court Number 1, at the Old Baily.
Complain about this comment
#177
"When will somebody mention TREASON or TRAITOR
We all seem to be aware of the possiblity of THEFT or FRAUD accusations
Does anybody have a clue..."
...what the terms mean in law, I suspect not, such is the bile that the words are being tossed about in this and other places - none of this is anywhere near "Treason", few of the wrong claims would stand the test of "Fraud" and many probably wouldn't stand a test of "Theft". The problem is, many of these claims (with a few notable exceptions) were within the rules even if they are MORALLY wrong.
Complain about this comment
184.
In case you ask, demoted for fiddling expenses.
Complain about this comment
Just heard that the best revelations at the most senior levels are yet to come. Matrimonial harmony is about to die in a very unexpected household. Hilarious. Who'd have thought you could do that without anaesthetic?
Complain about this comment
In business, a 'double-bubble' is a neat trick to pull off.
So maybe there is a future for some of these MP's who have achieved a 'double-bubble' via the expenses scam, when they re-enter the world that most folk inhabit.
Provided, of course, that they keep their past life closely under wraps.
Complain about this comment
I'm not quite sure why several people on here have been asking about the Balls/Cooper partnership. The details on the BBC website shows that they each claimed about half of the (maximum?) housing costs open to individuals (such as Clegg). So unless there is something in the detail, it looks as if some will be disappointed by the fact that they claimed one housing allowance between them, as you would expect.
Complain about this comment
Nick, please please
I have count 20 entires for the Balls Copper duo ,
Do you think that you can pursue that issues as that what the REAL question on this bolg that needs an answer
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Let's hope that HMRC also investgates these cases to ensure that all tax has been properly accounted for where expenses were reclaimed that were not wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred to perform the duties of employment as an MP.
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Nick,
does Brown still have his weekly audience with the Queen. I think that it should be televised, I want to know exactly how he is to explain the current situation which is actually her parliament, we are subects of the Queen, it is her parliament, it must be dissolved. This is the contemptible parliament, it is time to end this misery, give us an election. God Save the Queen.
Complain about this comment
Morning nick I have just been listening to the justice ministers reply to his claims on the box Well well well Iv'e done noughthing wrong WHAT justice? how on earth is a plasma system to be used in the enhancement of ministeral work to the country i maybe a little old in the tooth but i am not daft.this is just the tip of the iceburg, i expect we will be accused of playing the race card over this one ?£60 thou over three years payed come on nick,some people are paying till there 65 to pay off that sort of money and getting their homes taken off them.in times of hardship, Well hard ship isn't in the vocablary of an mp is it I do wonder what the right honerble tony blair claimed for as e has made off with some very nice houses thank you joe public.if this is not the time to dissolve parlament i don't no what is. Have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
Serious questions need to be asked about the conduct of the Fees Office. Did they really give the ludicrous 'advice' that some MPs are attributing to them? If so, did they have a vested interested in helping MPs to maximise their claims? Far from policing, the Fees Office seem to have colluded with some MPs to play the system. One wonders why?
A searching, independent enquiry is needed to get to the bottom of this.
Complain about this comment
#225. T A Griffin (TAG) wrote:
"
We are subjects of the Queen, it is her parliament, it must be dissolved. This is the contemptible parliament, it is time to end this misery, give us an election. God Save the Queen.
"
I trust you are joking! What on earth makes you think that Her Maj. The Q is not part of the establishment. The very same establishment that gave us the problems that we have! Your sentiments concerning parliament are in tune (apparently if we believe the press and TV) with those in the country. But what use is an election when all the people can do is switch between two equally tainted groups of (mainly) men who have been pursuing the same policies for the last thirty years. Where are the Levellers (and I don't mean the band!) when you need them!
Complain about this comment
Morley claims that the £800 per month was an error due to his sloppy accounting. How much money is he pulling in that he didn't notice such an amount? And now we have Justice Minister (now there's a contradiction) Shahid Malik, whose first home is rented at £100 per week from a slum landlord and he claimed the highest of anyone, £66,827 over 3years.
Seems to me it's time to bring in the police and Inland Revenue and let them sort it out, with the consequences the rest of us peasants would have to face. Just having a couple of scapegoats to take the flak and pacify the masses is not sufficient. This is fraud on a grand scale and if the Speaker Michael Martin had done his job properly it wouldn't have happened but he was too busy being part of it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Vince Cable for Speaker? I don't think so........his nose was in the trough as well.
At least choose someone who can control the MP's and is also honest.
Complain about this comment
And what about the procedures in the Fees Office?
I would expect the Fees Office to obtain proof of the relevant mortgage against which the mortgage interest was being claimed. I would also expect them to ascertain only interest, and not capital, was being reclaimed.
Neither of these checks appear to have been carried out.
So the Fees Office are not doing a diligant job either.
Is anyone in the Westminster set up performing competently?
Time to have a thorough clear out.
I'm currently out of work and would gladly replace one of those numpties in the Fees Office. I couldn't do a worse job than they are currently doing.
Complain about this comment
I the case of Andrew Mackay, I notice it is the man who is taking all the flak, surely his wife is as guilty as he is. This is typical of this country today, whenever they are in trouble, women suddenly become the "little woman" again, led on by their evil husbands.
I also think it's about time we had a look at other public institutions, such as the BBC. In a MP's defence of his fellow MPs, played on the radio, I heard the presenter state her salary was £92,000 pa. Her only comment was that she didn't us the phones at the BBC for personal use. It's about time Humphrys et al realised that they work for the tax payer, and the perhaps the subjuct of their cost to the tax payer could soon become the focus of our attention.
Complain about this comment
it doesn't matter too much now whether these people are prosecuted and sent to prison. What matters most is that it's out in the open. Moving forward nobody will be able to get away with this behaviour. It's a triumph for the freedom of information and something to celebrate really.
Complain about this comment
#225 T A Griffin (TAG)
I find it very hard to understand how you can criticise MP's expenses, and then show your loyalty to the Queen in the same paragraph.
We all know MP's are wrong - but the Royals are the original state scroungers - the biggest and the best.
It seem you have double standards when it comes to who should benefit from public money.
Remember the prince Harry / William helicopter ride? - wasn't that an abuse of public money? - What is the difference between that and the MP's expenses?
Complain about this comment
At 09:50am on 15 May 2009, Nancy16 wrote:
"At least choose someone who can control the MP's and is also honest."
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I see that there are a few posts here calling for yet another independent enquiry to add to the already extremely long list of inquiries taking place and due to take place shortly. Considering that their effectiveness is often decided before they start in terms of their specific remit and how deep the investigation process is allowed to go, do they actually represent value for money?
Indeed, are the enquiries run exclusively and staffed by public sector workers, or are outside contractors brought in to milk the system, and sponge off taxpayers? I wonder if the dosh raked in makes the MPs expenses fiasco look like a drop in the ocean?
I am disillusioned with the whole system now.
Complain about this comment
The expenses fiasco in the UK has been successful in exposing 'Poweromics' in 'Politics' and now, thanks to the Telegraph, more people can see this and are not going to stand for it.
More people are now prepared to stand-up and be counted ... and to say they'll have none of it ... as they did on the BBC's Question Time last night!
As a number of people point out, it's not just the system that's wrong, it's their morals/values that are wrong ... and some of them still don't get this!
How will they ever build back trust? I'm afraid not just by changing the system ...
A number of commentators are not sure how they'll be able to do this ... and have said it will not occur until they rid Parliament of all those who have been found 'wanting' ... not just for 'their actions', but for their lack of honesty/moral values ... and they'll also need to pay the money back too!
But a number of people have said they felt 'Powerless' ... and the main parties are trying to scare us about moving away from them (e.g. to the BNP/UKIP) and/or not voting at all. Creating 'fear' is being used now and this is a common strategy used by those who apply Poweromics* (e.g. 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', 'War on Terror', 'Dangerous Climate Change' ...) to try to steer what people think and to stop them from objecting to what those in 'power' want to do (e.g. Iraq War, ID cards, Road/petrol tax increases) ...
Poweromics* is becoming more visible and more objectionable to everyone !
So perhaps we should not shy away, and go to vote, but for parties prepared to listen/learn a little more and are prepared to give people a proper 21st century democracy ... and let's see how they try to scare us away from that !
David Clift, a Future 500 Leader
* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed.
Complain about this comment
You won't even see on this bbc website or their news bullitins that Cooper and Balls flipped their second home 3 times and claimed £600 for food each month.
But no surprise there.
Every thing comes to he who waits.
Complain about this comment
#217 Boilerplated
We must remember that the law is there to protect the privileged few, and not to protect the masses.
This has been the case forever, it's only at times like this when people realise it.
Deepcut barracks, G20 violence by police, cash for questions, Damien Green and Liberty, nearly every rail disaster in the last 20 years.....
All of the above are where the law has been used to protect the privilged few, whether they be the army generals, the rail bosses or simply the Government protecting itself from opposition.
We could rid ourselves of the law today and let judges do what they're paid to do - JUDGE, based on the facts and circumstance. That way you will have a legal system which is bound by MORALS and can react to public feeling.
It's amazing that the police said last night there is 'no appetitite for investigating the expenses claims' - however I see every morning numerous police officers stopping members of the public for the most petty of minor offences (usually driving or cycling related).
How is you common criminal supposed to have respect for society and be guided by his or her morals when the very people who run the country can't even do that themselves.
I know ultimately we're all hypocrites in some way or another - but it's the degree to which this has gone - and the insistence to deny they have actually done anything wrong which is the real difference between politicians and 'normal hypocrites'.
There has been a lot of scaremongering about the BNP benefitting from this scandal, however, yet again they have mis-read public opinion. I suspect many minor parties will gain but they will be the 'mainstream minors' like UKIP and the Greens who will benefit most of all. Even if the BNP win a European seat then maybe it will show the out of touch MP's the true depth of public opinion - we would rather vote for facists and racists than morally bereft leaders.
(by the way, I wouldn't encourage ANYONE to vote BNP, but consider the other minor parties and any independents that are available to you)
Complain about this comment
#235
I fully understand your comment. However, in the representative democracy in which we all live then there are certain processes which must be followed. I totally agree with your comment, especially with regard to Harry, who was in Afghanistan seen calling up an air strike and wearing an American style cap saying 'we do bad things to bad people' shame on him. A family member of mine served and fought in Iraq based on a lie, he followed orders but could not accept the basis on which he was in Iraq. He signed to serve his Queen and Country, not an MP.
I do not like the system we have at the moment, I want an elected President and a Republic, and I agree about the free loaders. For example, Zara Phillips acting as an Ambassador for RBS and receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds. But the same applies to Sir Jackie Stewart, also who was an Ambassador for RBS, or so many others who I have no respect for. As for the 'Princesses' well please, let them eat cake, taste the coffee. By the way, where is Harry? Can't tell you, national security and all that.
God Save the Queen. Call an election, I want an investigation as to how these MPs even get so far as to be selected as a being suitable to represent their constituency in the mother of all parliaments.
Complain about this comment
Nick, could you let us know if you still think this is just small beer?
Complain about this comment
#234
"It's a triumph for the freedom of information and something to celebrate really."
Is it, sorry but it could become the poison challis, remember who gave us the FoIA, remember who has it within their powers (after the next election, especially if one party has a large majority) to take it away again - this bit of marketing tat by the Telegraph could actually put back FoI 40 years!...
Complain about this comment
I rarely watch any TV these days, but last night I decided to watch the BBC's Question Time, a programme I have'nt seen for years.
It was interesting to see the politicians close ranks ('all professions are conspiracies against the laity') in the face of a generally hostile audience.
I felt that these professional politicians were, as I expected, pretty skilful at manipulating the generally politically unsophisticated audience and skirting around the very tricky questions on their 'expenses'.
For this observer, the MP's on the panel were extremely lucky that when a consensus appeared to be forming that their basic salary should be increased, in lieu of 'expenses', nobody had the wit to point out that this would mean that MP's already gross pensions would become even more inflated.
I'm sure that Beeb man Dimbleby and the panel politicians had a good chuckle about that afterwards (the Beeb's pension scheme is pretty damn good too).
The McDonalds businessman on panel appeared pitifully ignorant of how 'it works' in politics and seemed to almost be from another world, a relatively straightforward world, where expenses bear heavy scrutiny, not only from the business itself, but also HMRC. Although he did make a very important point about what somebody 'stretching' expenses told him about that individual.
Anyway, as far as the English public are concrened, we are still the animals are still looking in.
PS. I won't be watching Question Time again for a few more years.
Complain about this comment
#235
"Remember the prince Harry / William helicopter ride? - wasn't that an abuse of public money? - What is the difference between that and the MP's expenses?"
No, except among those who do not understand that a/. a similar (night-time, if I remember correctly) flight would have been made anyway as part of his training and b/. that it would have cost money (for security etc.) for the royal to have been driven to/from the location anyway.
Yes it was a 'perk', it was 'showing off', but in what the 'incident' actually cost it wasn't an abuse, in fact all-told it probably saved public money. The problem with these MP's expenses is that it's extra money that would have otherwise not been spent from the public purse.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Of course, this is all very jolly - no harm in seeing the establishment taken down a peg or two.. and there's no doubt that the whole system needs a big shake up, and some bad apples need flushing out.
Problem to my mind is twofold though.
1. Isn't there a danger that a lot of decent hardworking MPs are going to get pushed outin the current witch hunt because they did make a genuine error in their expenses - or were legitimately told by the Fees Office that something was legit. You might say, 'serves them right' - but think how you'd feel if it happened to you. Loss of your job and humiliation, based on a genuine (and provable) error.
2. Where does all this end? What is the Daily Telegraphs ultimate aim in all of this? They are holding the records which they can drip out as they see fit in an atmosphere of hysteria, with the MP in question granted very little chance of a fair hearing. Presumably they want a Tory government - but by overplaying their hand they (and we) could end up with something far worse than that.
Complain about this comment
Nick, I don't know if you've had a chance to look at what's on the Telegraph website today regarding Balls & Cooper, but there's an interesting story there too. Seems that no-one at the BBC has noticed it yet, thought you might like to know.
Complain about this comment
MarkofSOSH @ 247
On the BBC's Question Time programme last night, the Telegraph (patently no longer 'Torygraph') man did say that they had about a million documents to plough through.
So, we will have to be patient and wait a bit longer before we, the English public, can work out for ourselves just how many of the 646 MP's have been 'unreasonable' with their expenses.
I suspect that eventually only a very small percentage will have been shown to have been 'purer than pure' (sic) with their claims.
Which is great news for those respectable smaller parties e.g. Greens, English Democrats et al and individuals looking to break the 'cartel' operated by the 'big' three.
Complain about this comment
There's an increasing number of cases in which the Telegraph stories are turning out to be untrue - and published even when the paper knows they are untrue. Oh, and the journalists are all milking their own expenses while they smear the MPs for doing so. If anyone deserves our contempt more than MPs, it's journalists!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
All the large corporations I have worked for have had robust, easily understood expense policies. These have been reinforced by the HMRC rule that reimbursed expenses should have been incurred, wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the course of employment.
Expense claims are always signed off by the immediate line manager and a second check is made by the central administration team to make sure the claim is in line with corporate policy and that relevant supporting vouchers are in place.
The procedures are there to protect the employee, the corporation and its shareholders and to ensure HMRC rules are complied with.
There are very few cases of "milking" the system as it is accepted that if you knowingly do so you will probably lose your job. Plus the efficient controls in place make it virtually impossible to "milk" the system, even if you wanted to. Mistakes, when they do occur, are rare and usually are insignificant but genuine errors.
So what do we have in Westminster? Well, we seem to have an expense policy that is vague, line managers who are clueless as to what their subordinates are claiming, a control function (Fees Office) which colludes with the employee so that the employee can virtually write their own expenses cheque and a culture where it is acceptable to repeatedly make mistakes of the most monumental proportions. And still everyone gets to keep their paid employment.
Something is very badly wrong with our Government, and I don't believe it is right for commentators to waive this away with the claim that some other countries' governments are worse than ours in this respect.
Any practical suggestions as to how we can sort this lot out? I have some but they would be moderated out.
Complain about this comment
#240
"We could rid ourselves of the law today and let judges do what they're paid to do - JUDGE, based on the facts and circumstance."
Oh right, so a law (guidance) that can be read by all should be replaced by the personal opinion of a judge - isn't that what used to happen 400 years ago, when someone could be locked up or even executed just because a Judge thinks someone is guilty - and that's only one step away from the lynch-mob, "I say that Mr A.N.Other is guilty of a heinous crime so he IS guilty, off with his head!"...
Yes, the law can be an utter ass at times but at least it's the same for all, the same law that is protecting some MPs is the same law that would protect you, me or anyone else should one make either a legitimate mistake or act within the rules/laws that later become discredited.
Complain about this comment
Why was this blog closed for comment yesterday 5pm
Was it because of the no of comments about Cooper Balls ?
So now we know that their London home is their second home.
Where do their kids go to school.........er, London
As Cabinet Ministers, where do they do the bulk of their work.....er, London
So, if their London home is their second home, did they pay capital gains tax on the first of those homes when they sold it in 2007
Er,.......No.
I think we're in for another Hazel Blears cheque waving moment, aren't we ?
By the way, in my comment no 60 yesterday, which was moderated out, I guessed that they might both have been claiming food allowance. Looks like I was right.
Complain about this comment
#346
"the Balls+Cooper issue."
Can't be much of an issue, the Torygra... sorry, the Telegraph not having printed anything in 7 days...
Complain about this comment
I usually enjoy watching Question Time but last nights programme got very boring. The same enraged question being asked again and again by mr and mrs uninformed Joe average. MPs dont' get paid very much for what they do (just look at senior positions in the public sector, city jobs, legal profession, etc) and everyone I know trys to get the most of out expense arrangements - who wouldn't?
What we should be concentrating on is the appalling value for money the taxpayer has got from all the additional spending on the public sector over the last 12 years. Money "invested" in the NHS has doubled since Labour came to power, yet the service hasn't made anything like an equivalent improvement given the amount invested. Nobody seems to be asking questions about that, yet everyone is jumping up and down over a few grand here and there for MPs.
Complain about this comment
#245 Boilerplated
You're on a loosing wicket if you're trying to defend the Royal family and suggest their tax subsidisation are any different to MP's abuse of expenses.
They are all part of the same system, a system that allows a selected few to live for free off the taxes of the masses.
The fact with Harry's helicopter escapade is the same as the MP's expenses. Do we realy care what the cost was? - or are we more angry that a member of the royal family was allowed to take a jolly in a military helicopter at the publics expense for no more reason than to show off to his mates.
It's the action and (lack of) thought that riles us - it shows the people what these privileged few REALY THINK OF US.
I wouldn't waste public money in any circumstances - that's because as a lifetime taxpayer I have had many reminders about the source of the money. Clearly the MP's and the Royals have not had this lifetime of taxation and therefore could never appreciate it's value - hence why they are happy to waste it without even considering it.
The monarchy is simply another machine that wastes our money. I am happy for us to keep Buck house and the other tourist attractions, but we need the royals about as much as we need MP's in this country. There is no distinction as they are both members of the same wasteful state.
You may be happy working 1 third of your life to support this state, but I and many like me are not. Why should we all be slogging our guts out so that a selected few can swan around the place without ever doing a days work - and yet be rewarded with the highest amounts of money for doing it?
Complain about this comment
#248
"look at what's on the Telegraph website today regarding Balls & Cooper
How about citing a URL, or is this interesting morsel not really that interesting...
Sorry but it's very obvious that none of this 'MPs expenses' stuff has anything what so ever to do with democracy and everything to do with witch-hunts and lynch-mobs. Everyone is guilty even though it was lawful (within the rules) simply because our snouts never got any of it - let the journalist who has never been creative with their expenses claims stand up...
Complain about this comment
#227
Now an ex justice minister - he had to go after his diatribe and denial on Sky today.
Complain about this comment
Amidst the welter of MPs telling us that they "get" the expenses situation, there is one who clearly hasn't got it yet.
Unfortunately Shahid Malik is my local MP.
I can assure you that, judging by the amount of self congratulatory mail we receive from him, he is also likely to be spending the full 10 thousand pounds communications allowance.
Complain about this comment
#239 corrupfred
If you are going to comment, at least do it truthfully. The three homes were not flipped, they were bought and sold. How can you flip a home if you no longer own it. They also paid the CGT due on the sale of each property. However, they did not claim for their swimming pool, their housekeeper and her car, the rehanging of their chandelier, the rolling of their paddock, the cleaning of their moat, the trimming of their wisteria or tidying up their helipad. They were entitled to claim £46k p.a. ASA, they in fact claimed £22k, less than half. The receipts for food were submitted en masse. The Fees Office paid the allowable amount and ignored the excess. You can report the figures whilst ignoring the context as the DT has done in many cases, most of them Labour it has to be said. I await the news that Spicer and other Tory Grandees are going to toe Cameron's line - I wont hold my breath. Compared to other MPs the Balls/Coopers have behaved in an exemplary fashion where their allowances are concerned. The Tories on here should make sure their own house is in order before throwing stones. I see there has been no mention of the Winterton's on here - now they are really up there in the troughing tables.
Complain about this comment
Although all MPs are being made out to be crooks I think we should put it into perspective by trying to sort them into some sort of set. I am assuming the following:-
MPs that need to have a base in London and their constituency need either provided with a base in London (MP's halls) or in the absence of provided accommodation need to be compensated.
The change in rules that allowed the payment of mortgage as opposed to rent was a probably a bad move but you can't blame MP's per-se for claiming a mortgage.
Moving from the good to the bad here we go:-
1: The Falsely accused
The MP with the moat has repeatedly claimed that he did not charge for the moat. This imply that he had a gardening/exterior maintenance bill for his property, went through it line by line and decided not to claim for the moat but did claim for other work. If true this guy has done the right thing.
Comment: This is the Speakers fault. He undertook to provide a set of receipts with items not claimed for redacted (along with personal details) instead he decided to ignore the court order and got MPs involved in redacting their own expenses. This gave them a chance to try and bury the bodies it also led to delay. The speaker said this redacted list of what was actually claimed would be out by Oct 2008 if it had the moat would be clearly claimed or not claimed for. This guy was let down by the speaker!
2: The modest claimers
Some MPs are still living in rented accommodation. Some could have a second house but commute instead. Some that chose this year to decorate (Ming) and have been unlucky, as for the parking space charge, there are plenty of people his age that don't walk modest distances. These are the good guys.
Comment: The Telegraph has given some a rough ride for the hell of it. With so many easy targets further on this is a bit of a poor show
3: The Careless
You charge all maintenance cost for your second home, you forget to cross off 100quid for fake Tudor beams or a pool heater.
Comment: With proper checking this should have been bought to their attention at the time and handled. This is about poor checking of claims
4: The Planners
Your job gives you up to 25k to spend on a mortgage so you buy a property accordingly. It's not pretty but neither is it criminal or even that grasping. So long as it is you second home then OK claim it that is after all what it was meant for.
Comment: Find who decided to allow mortgage payments claimable. This was always going to be a bad idea, especially in a rising hose market.
5: The White Liars
You look at your houses and then decide on second home based on cost of up-keep. You ignore where you spend most of your time and claim for the costly house.
Comment: The funded accommodation should be the London end. Funding a house in the constituency just makes it easy to parachute in some metro sexual political groupie into an unsuspecting seat. Local people need local representatives. The list based central selection has alienated people from MPs. I want my MP to come from my community/area , NOT some PR pretty boy. This is where we start getting into sacking territory, this lot deceived the house to maximise claims. Our home secretary Ms "brand em stamp em and ID em" may be in this group
6: The Flippers
There are a number issues here
First:- If you buy a telly for your second home and re-designate home then move the telly don't just keep buying tellys.
Second:- This is indicative of repeated white lies.
Third:- Playing the property market was not what the 25k was for.
Comment: If it can be proven then gaming the system involved some fibs then this lot may warrant plod a knocking.
7: The Crooks
When you find out that you have over-claimed on your mortgage did you own up and pay it back immediately or did you wait to see if anyone found out? If you did then it's plod for you. Did you really think you could claim for 100% of a flat and then sub-let it? I don't think so, it's plod for you too.
Sift them, sort them, name then and book them
Rob
Complain about this comment
253. At 11:26am on 15 May 2009, Boilerplated
With respect, where laws/rules are badly drawn up or loosely applied I would expect someone, especially someone in high public office, to use sound moral judgement in applying these rules to their personal circumstances, taking into account the underlying intention of the laws/rules.
That so many of our MP's have failed to display sound judgement and probity when claiming expenses is the real issue. The voting public are right to hound these greedy scoundrels.
Complain about this comment
The real issue in the MPs expenses saga is not the headlines-grabbing nature of some of the things purchased - it is the deceit and dishonesty brought about by not publicly acknowledging the fundamental question: which do we want?
1. Pay MPs a generous salary and say to them "you know that the job entails attending Westminster and your constituency plus travel between the two but here is a large salary (with no rights to expenses) and it is up to you how you spend it. Your constituents will tell you if you have managed things well." Presumably the salary should be graded by distance from Westminster to take account of the unequal burden of travel.
2. Pay MPs a much smaller salary and reimburse them, subject to an upper limit, for expenses that are unavoidably and actually incurred in carrying out those duties.
For many years MPs salaries have been held down either voluntarily or by edict from their leaders in order to show restraint and to give an example to the country. Without doubt low pay rises for MPs have influenced other pay settlements around the country. The population has taken note of the restraint on the basis that the MPs were within the second remuneration system - all the rhetoric and rules have pointed firmly towards this second category. Even HMRC seems to have been firmly under the impression that MPs were being reimbursed for their additional costs.
What has now emerged is that MPs have been dishonest and deceitful as they have always been operating under the first system whilst showing a public face of being under the second. For them the entire package has been "salary" and it has simply been wrapped in a slightly cumbersome administrative manner. On being given small formal salary increases they must have effectively been told to fill their boots with expense claims. Thus they have been able to paint a picture of restraint to the country whilst actually receiving significant pay rises through the back door.
They have now been found out and, not surprisingly, the country is unhappy. The country is particularly unhappy because we have had a decade during which New Labour have taken spin (aka dishonesty) to a level never previously known. We now have the straw which has broken the camel's back.
The first system is undoubtedly more simple but will result in problems and inequalities as MPs use their discretion in how they spend the funds. The second is perhaps ultimately fairer but requires a lot of bureaucracy and rules defining what can and cannot be accepted as a legitimate expense. However clear the set of rules there will always be opportunities to manipulate circumstances in order to be on the chosen side - these opportunities will eat into the fairness.
PS - I see from Mark Easton's report from yesterday that the spin just does not stop with the Government using pre-2005 data to "support" the merit of post-2005 policies and actions!!
Complain about this comment
#253 Boilerplated
1) A single judge wouldn't make the decision - it would be a panel of judges
2) Judiciary are trained to keep their personal opinions out of judgements
3) The law is manipulated by expert lawyers - expert lawyers cost thousands - so who can afford these people?
4) If the legal system works to protect us as much as the priviliged few then why do so many of the rich escape punishment where the common man would fall foul of the law.
Lord Brockett, Lord Archer, Footballers getting off driving offences - all examples of the law working against the poor. The lords may have gone to prison, but how many people out there go to prison and then return to their own job when they come out? Most prisoners NEVER GET ANOTHER JOB.
You're also missing on vital point - in the case of the MP's expenses - THEY SET THEIR OWN RULES - so how can you say this is fair?
You will also notice THEY SET THE LAW TOO - so following logically from their recent behaviour they are happy to do what they want as long as it's in their OWN SELF INTEREST.
Want more proof? I think it's safe to say 2 Lords have been found guilty of effectively selling legislation. What will their punishment be? I hear 6 months suspension is on the cards.
Oh yes - sounds like we have a perfectly fair and balanced legal system here then doesn't it???
Complain about this comment
#252
"There are very few cases of "milking" the system as it is accepted that if you knowingly do so you will probably lose your job."
Rubbish, how would anyone know if X was a legitimate claim when the only test is if X is allowed, for example how do you prove that a director or sales-rap took the long way home from a meeting because of traffic or because it meant he or she could call into Ikea rather than spend his own money on petrol picking up that new lamp-standard for the living room? Sorry but industry and those who work within are no white than many of these MPs are, were ever there is power or position expenses claims get abused - the amounts might be less but it's still abusing the system.
Complain about this comment
Firstly,no MP should claim they are "too busy" to pay attention to their expenses paperwork (Eliot Morley, Margaret Beckett.) They have secretaries and PAs to do this.
Secondly as they are saying on LBC right now, they can be divided intio two groups, a) the naive and b) those on the make
David Cameron has come out with true ability to make tough decisions and leadership qualities (his schooling undoubtedly fostered this).
The other bloke came out with nothing.
Brown you are the weakest link. Goodbye.
Complain about this comment
#254
"Why was this blog closed for comment yesterday 5pm"
I suspect that the mods went home! If it was due to your suggested reason why has it been reopened this morning (allowing further such comments to be made), rather blows your rational out of the water doesn't it? One could always make an official complaint I suppose and ask for the exact reason, rather than make accusations, but then some - like the Telegraph, it seems - are not interested in the facts, facts tend to get in the way of rants...
Complain about this comment
Margaret Beckett has shown total contempt for UK Taxpayers accusing the media of airing too much time on MP's expenses.
This clearly shows she does not understand the feeling of the electorate and the little trust we had for MP's has been destroyed.
In 2001 the government pushed through tax legislation IR35 to gain more tax from individual/self employed consultants in the UK.
This legislation is so open that even law courts have difficulty imposing it on court cases.
Dawn Primarolo was the guilty party for introducing this legislation.
It allows only 5% expense claims of the consultants income each year even if they have to buy expensive computer software and PC's etc if it goes over the 5% it comes out of the consultants back pocket.
This clearly shows what idiots that we have running this country when MP's earning similar figures to consultants can claim much much more.
Consultants = 5% of annual income on expenses.
MP's = Any amount of expenses.
I totally agree with the calls for a police investigation and that Parliament should be dissolved immediately and a general election called.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Whers's Hazel Blears & Jacki Smiths resignations?
Complain about this comment
So a Minister has quit while his 'conduct' is being investigated. Not his claims, note, his conduct because his claims were all within the rules, allegedly.
Talking about people in the Public Sector not providing value for money....one short blog a day Nick? Keeping your head down or something?
Complain about this comment
dukeJake @ 256
One lady in the Question Time audience last night did try to make the point that if MP's could be so cavalier with their own expenses then how could we expect them to make sensible decisions on spending taxpayers money on capital projects and services?
Unfortunately, she did not articulate that point very well and consequently the question did not gain any traction as the politicians on the panel really did not want to get into that, although to be fair, Campbell took a stab at it.
The point remains however, the English public probably feel that they are getting very poor value indeed for the taxpayer pound.
It's an old saying but it appears to be true 'politicians love spending other people's money'.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#257
"You're on a loosing wicket"
In your opinion, unfortunately for you the facts support my wicket and any wicket will be judged by the facts and not on the opinion of an umpire who is (so obviously) lacking any real knowledge of the rules - be they MOD flying [training] hours, MPs expenses or on-street-parking...
The fact remains that many of the MPs claims were within the rules, we might not like the current rules and we probably should demand that the rules are changed, even that the rules are made outside of the Westminster bubble, but we can't start charging MPs (or Royals) with crimes that are not even crimes now never mind two, three or four years ago.
Complain about this comment
At the rate these crooks are giving money back we might be in for a tax cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#251 concor have one at 210 and complained at 246 which is there and no explaination
No explaination, more on the Balls+Cooper issue , now if they do put some time later , most probably no bloggers will read it, especially when there are 300+ bloggs.
Which also then reduced the impact and others to read and comment
Complain about this comment
There is only one way that I can see to sort out the mess and attempt to restore public confidence in our political system, and that is to have a general election.
This might not be held until July or August but, notwithstanding the complaints from people who might be on holiday, needs to be held. The people will be able to refelect their opinions on their individual MP and their activities. the rersult might not, on a case by case basis, be exatcly in line with current opinion polls, but at least we will have representatives that hold some kind of mandate from the elctorate.
It is quite clear that the current Speaker is in no position to clean up the mess, neither is the prime minister. Currently they are both part of the problem, and this mess is overshadowing meaningful discussion about the economy, the recession, and our overseas conflicts.
If Brown has any regard for the British people, he should put this into action now.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#263
"That so many of our MP's have failed to display sound judgement and probity when claiming expenses is the real issue. The voting public are right to hound these greedy scoundrels."
You might well be right, but the correct place for that is at the ballot box or in future changes of the rules/law, not trying to change the law retroactively, in such a way that one cuts ones own nose off to spite your face or to gather a lynch-mob and storm Parliament - that was the context to my comments - judge the event by the rules/laws that were/are in place at the time, judge current events by the current rules/laws, judge future events by any future rules/laws.
Complain about this comment
I am getting very tired of people (especially MP's) telling me that they are not well paid and the expenses are some form of compensation.
An MP elected today in a by-election, who needs no formal qualifications of any kind, and was not forced to fight for the job, would walk into parliament as a "trainee" and receive sixty five thousand pounds (yes, 65000) as a basic starting salary. Most people, many in responsible jobs, have to get by on far less, never mind expenses. Ask a junior doctor what his/her starting salary is after 6 years in medical school. There is not even any measure of how hard an MP has to work before being paid. No targets for them like the ones they love to impose on others in the public sector. They don't even have to turn up, and yet are secure in post for the length of the parliament, up to five years. To make matters worse, the expenses don't get taxed either (because MPs themselves voted for that exemption in 2006; they wouldn't offer such a perk to the "little people"). MPs are not badly paid and the fact that they claim they are only reinforces the view of how out of touch they are with real life. Of course there are good, hard-working MPs, but the system is rotten and needs complete overhaul, not a little tinkering around the edges.
The real problem is (and has always been) that parliament regulates itself. This is a historical anomaly and needs to be rectified in a modern "democracy". They are public servants and need to treated as such. The old club mentality has to go, and that means goodbye to the subsidised bars inside the palace of Westminster too. Now that the hours in parliament have been modernised, and we all have 24 hour opening hours anyway, there is no excuse for them. Go out into the real world outside and pay the same price we have to (oh, and no smoking in the pub either!) This is the perfect opportunity to bring about real change in the way parliament operates, and more importantly, the way in which politicians see themselves. We must drag them into the 21st century.
One other point: BBC news carried the story two days ago about Metropolitan Police officers who had been arrested for false expenses claims. I trust we will see the same vigour applied with certain MPs who appear to have acted in the same way. If not, why not?
Complain about this comment
# 275 Boilerplated
So, do the rules explicitly state that where a married couple are both MPs one spouse may claim as a second home the home which the other spouse has claimed as a first home, and vice versa?
I don't think so, but would be pleased if you can dig out the relevant reference.
The point is that many of these suspect claims may be within the strict wording of the rules, but rules cannot cover every single eventuality. The problem we have is that the voting public's interpretation of what is reasonable and sensible is different to how MPs interpret the rules.
The MPs interpretation of the rules is one of self serving greed, which I doubt is the underlying intention of "the rules", and this evidently is not acceptable to the voting public. These MPs have shot themselves in the foot here, I'm afraid. Can't believe they have been so stupid.
Complain about this comment
#269 that why I'm called IR35_Survivor.
check out my other posts on this issue,
you have to look at the motivation and the "obscene" language as qouted in the PCG judgical review at the time from those same MP's you qoute
just remember the built up to this, acussation of tax dodging etc etc.
And now its on them they do not like it at all
its the politics on envy as long as it excludes them.
And it was done to NOT to affend their mates in the city.
now they are blaming the recession on them too.
it all everyboby else fault except them.
baby P will always be remembered. it was there watch, thier call and they got it all wrong. blinded by their own self interest. But as usual it was the fathers fault. Thats is the fathers of other children. Those that brought you warning about the failures of social servies and the family courts, but what did it get them.
LEO BLAIR
Complain about this comment
#267 flamepatricia -
"David Cameron has come out with true ability to make tough decisions and leadership qualities (his schooling undoubtedly fostered this)."
I'm far too polite a young man to suggest that this is one of the more cretinous statements posted on here today but others reading this are undoubtedly thinking it.
"true ability to make tough decisions"
Call Me Dave's displayed all the leadership ability of the lucky one out of a pair of weasels. When one weasel's caught in a snare; the lucky one bolts for it. That's all Cameron's done.
"(his schooling undoubtedly fostered this)."
I beg to disagree - as This clearly shows - Cameron knows all about lording it over us all as a member of a self-appointed and perpetuated privileged elite - and nothing about hard work and 'tough decisions'
Just like every other MP (Weasel) really . . .
Complain about this comment
In industry if I apply for a job, pass the interview process and am offered the job, I know precisely the salary that I will be receiving.
MPs are the same, they stand for election, by hook or by crook convince the ill informed and disinterested electorate to vote for them and have the choice to take a seat in the commons. If they are unhappy with the salary then they should not stand for election.
In industry if I travel abroad for business, I am bound by very clear rules for what I can and cannot claim.
The expenses are not part of my salary.
If I break the rules, attempt to defraud my company, I will be guilty of gross misconduct and be sacked. I may also face criminal charges.
The current dishonourable members, nappy wearers and toilet seat breakers have broken the rules for expenses. In some cases they may have broken the law.
They should suffer the same punishment that those of us in the real world would suffer, they should be sacked. They do not deserve a seat in the commons or a seat in the Lords and where necessary should face criminal charges.
The only way to cut out the cancer that is paralysing the British democracy is to call a general election.
Let the electorate now decide who is worthy of the title Honourable Member.
Complain about this comment
#265
"1) A single judge wouldn't make the decision - it would be a panel of judges"
OK, the personal opinions of a panel of judges. How would anyone know what any judge thinks, how would anyone know what was legal and what isn't legal, and don't suggest the judges would record their judgements as that is the start to having a write legal system again.
Without written rules/laws how would any MP know what they could claim for and what would be illegal never mind just against the rules?! Compare it to Football, without unified rules how would the players know what off-side rule the match officials are using, how would the ref know that the linesmen are using the same rules as he, how would one linesman know what his opposite official was using - it would be a total shambles. We would be back to the feudal days of English law, were laws (or at least 'Judgements') are made depending on who the defendant is, not what the alleged offence is - yes I know that the outcome of many court cases are dependent on how much one can afford in legal fees but that's another issue, and would still be a problem is your suggested 'solution'.
Complain about this comment
MP Malik has claimed that endless media stories about expenses was in danger of "decimating" democracy.
Quite the reverse.
Democracy in England is being renewed and refreshed by this admittedly brutal process.
Although the big three parties may well deselect some sitting MP's before the next General Election and put up new candidates as a damage limitation exercise, I hope that the English public will fully recognise that these parties implicitly supported the current mechanisms for claiming 'expenses' and as such, must not escape censure at the polls.
There are perfectly respectable alternative parties and individuals who may well deserve your vote.
We English could and should end up with a much healthier political landscape as a result.
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.
#282 yukapataya -
"The MPs interpretation of the rules is one of self serving greed, which I doubt is the underlying intention of "the rules","
I wouldn't put money on that - given that it was the MPs who put these "self-serving" rules in place! I think you've hit on their intention rather accurately.
Complain about this comment
#275 Boilerplated
"The fact remains that many of the MPs claims were within the rules"
You must be an MP surely if you seriously don't get it - THEY SET THE RULES THEMSELVES.
There is a dilemna here for you - it is fraud to claim your first home is not your first home (which it is when you apply for a mortgage) - and it is fraud.
However this practice was deemed acceptable by the fees office and therefore the rules in place to govern expenses - how can that be when it is is clearly illegal (and trust me, I know for a fact if you tell your mortgage company your first home is one that isn't and they find out - they will prosecute under the terms of your mortgage)
Secondly I wasn't claiming that all the MP's should be taken to prison, I made 2 very clear distinctions.
1) The lack of morality the MP's and the royals have to think that 'we won't mind' if they waste and squander our money. This shows the distain and direspect they all have for us.
2) The instances in the past where members of the establishment have broken the law, been convicted - but yet have not been treated in the same way as anyone else would by their employer (i.e. never mind Lord Snooty, here's your old job back)
Finally, if there are criminal prosecutions then of course you can go back 2 ,3 or even 30 years. As we have seen recently criminals are being prosecuted for crimes they committed YEARS AGO - so why would we 'forgive and forget' when it comes to MP's?
I'm sure if this was the case the defence of most criminals would be 'oh that happened ages ago - can't you just forget about it'
The facts I fear are mine in this case. Expenses fraud constitues company embezzlement - are you saying this is no longer a crime? Does this not apply in the real world anymore? In which case I shouldn't be sitting here writing this but getting on with fiddling my expenses to get my moat cleaned out.
You CANNOT defend the IN-DEFENSIBLE.
Complain about this comment
#269
"Margaret Beckett has shown total contempt for UK Taxpayers accusing the media of airing too much time on MP's expenses."
I for one agree, how many people can name any parliamentary business that has been carried out in our names this week?...
"This clearly shows she does not understand the feeling of the electorate and the little trust we had for MP's has been destroyed."
Or that could clearly show that some people, attempting to make political capital out of this, are trying to speak for the rest of us...
"In 2001 the government pushed through tax legislation IR35 to gain more tax from individual/self employed consultants in the UK.
Oh right, so this is an attempt to make political capital, you didn't like MPs taking your own perks (some would say, abuse of the expenses system) away?...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It's quite simple, MPs knew exactly how to exploit the weakness of the system and have been caught out. The rush to pay it all back is sickening as it is giving them an easy get out of jail card.
A general election must be the only solution. Dissolve Parliament, draw a line under all the past mistakes (as annoying as i know that is) and start afresh with a new government.
If we don't do this we have possibly the worst 12 months ahead in our political history. We are a defunct country now and must the laughing stock of Europe. This is the sort of stuff one expects from Zimbabwe not Great Britain.
Thank you Gordon. Just go now please.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated #266
I'm sorry to pick on you - but you do talk a lot of nonsense, may I remind you what you said...
"Rubbish, how would anyone know if X was a legitimate claim when the only test is if X is allowed, for example how do you prove that a director or sales-rap took the long way home from a meeting because of traffic or because it meant he or she could call into Ikea rather than spend his own money on petrol picking up that new lamp-standard for the living room?"
It's called honesty and trust - the majority of people in this country recognise it and try their best to stick to it. The consequences of not being honest leaves you with an unpleasant feeling called GUILT.
Only certain humans are able to supress this guilt in the short term - and it helps if you are a substansial liar too (because you can then lie to yourself about how you're being dis-honest).
Your example is also a very bad one - if an employee did make such a trip then whilst it would be dis-honest, even if the company found out they wouldn't be too upset. It's not like you claimed thousands for repairs on a second home - which wasn't actually your second home now is it?
Your argument is based on the classic reasoning of "It's OK for me to take because everyone else is at it"
...which is merely a lie the guilty tell themselves to suppress their guilt and try to justify their actions.
This is further proven by the fact that not all MP's milked the system - showing that some of them have morals which guide them to the right path - REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE RULES SAY.
YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE IN-DEFENSIBLE
Complain about this comment
#258:
The mods don't usually seem to like people posting URLs, but if you go to the Telegraph website (should be easy enough to find through Google) and click on "MPs expenses" in the "Hot topics" line, you'll find an article called "Balls and Cooper 'flipped' homes three times".
Complain about this comment
ok - MP's have been sussed and taking a bashing; now lets see who has the guts to tackle the Speaker and attempt a proper reform of the House of Lords....riddled with corruption and Spanish practises the lot of them with a small number of valliant exceptions.
Reduce MP's by 30%, freeze their pensions, raise salaries of the rest of them, abolish the absurd system "expenses" aka untaxed and unaccountable earnings, abolish hereditary titles and entitlement and let's have an elected second chamber.
Should have happened years ago but no one has had the guts o push it through...now's the time and we the public would support you wholeheartedly.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As a fully employed person in this world (just like an MP), I am planning to approach the DSS and ask for benefits, fill in a claim form, and be deliberately misleading (in other words, lie). I then hope to obtain those benefits, week after week after week after month and not tell anyone, so that my bank balance swells to such an extent that I can afford that nice new BMW I've had my eye on. I want to do some house repairs too and maybe build a conservatory. The rest of the garden is big enough, but I could extend further and maybe fit a swimming pool in or widen the garage to get a second car, maybe a Mercedes in there.
Don't tell anyone, but I'll be claiming these benefits from the state - from the tax-payers purse. I hope no-one will mind, but I need this in order to do my job properly. I can't go to work miserable, and so I need to be happy in order to do my job. It's in everyones interests.
Of course, if I get caught doing this, I might be in a spot of bother. I think Fraud is against the law, but no-one will find out will they. If they do, I'll say sorry, and just say it was a mistake and everything will be OK. You can't go to prison for making a few silly mistakes can you?
Back to reality - just writing this makes me cringe - the fact that someone out there might actually believe I would do this. I mean, it's crazy isn't it? Can you believe that some people think that they're above the law and won't get caught. Of course, I have no intention of doing anything like this (please Mr. Policeman, I'm only illustrating a point), and anyone who thinks they can get away with it are obviously plain stupid, so I find it amazing that when leading MPs - so called honourable members - lie and cheat their way through life, stealing money from government / tax payers purses, blatently profiteering, then on being caught with their fingers in the till, say 'sorry' and expect us all to just go away happy.
Absolute RUBBISH! These people have not only abused the trust placed in them, they have broken the law. BROKEN THE LAW! Fraud is a serious offence in law. Theft by deception - Fraud. A custodial sentence must be considered following a full audit and criminal investigation.
Actions have consequences, and no-one is above the law, not even MPs.
Complain about this comment
#276
"At the rate these crooks are giving money back we might be in for a tax cut!"
If all the corporate world were to stop avoiding tax, searching out the loop-holes etc. (playing the rules), we would be in for tax cuts, in fact many people would be removed from any tax liability altogether...
Again, this whole MPs expenses issue seems to be more of a case of "I don't get those perks in my job, why should anyone get them (never mind I get other perks)"...
Complain about this comment
287. At 1:21pm on 15 May 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
MP Malik has claimed that endless media stories about expenses was in danger of "decimating" democracy.
Quite the reverse.
Bang on.
Speaking of pest control and gardening, it is worth checking out this in the Indy:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ann-widdecombe-who-else-was-going-to-cut-my-lawn-the-cat-1685192.html
The self-serving, blinkered actions and subsequent words of pretty much all from Labour had already consigned them the the compost heap of history in my eyes long ago. And already, even before this, such as Mr. Duncans HIGNFY effort has already raised a few flags on his party and leaders competencies.
But Ms. Widdecombe, another alumnus of that fine show, has now ensured that, come June 4 and the GE, three votes will be going anywhere but the Conservatives as well.
Maybe they' will soon be getting it.
Complain about this comment
When do we find out about the Houses of Balls (and Cooper)?
I do hope we get shot of Ed and his awful, vacuous and stupid wife.
Complain about this comment
Could I just point out to those bloggers who argue that it's just a few
rogue MPs who have feathered their nests and cleared their moats at
our expense that, even if this is true, the bulk of Parliament remained
ominously silent? Even if 'whiter than white' (Ahem!) they must have
known what was going on and were therefore complicit in this grubby
scandal through their silence.
Complain about this comment
275. Boilerplated
The rules straight from the green book are as follows:
Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage
of the resources being claimed.
Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was
necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could
properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member
carrying out his or her parliamentary duties.
Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give
the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial
benefit to themselves or anyone else.
Do you really still think that most MPs have been following these rules ?
The last rule here clearly covers the home flipping and couples claiming allowances on different second homes. (by any reasonable interpretation)
Its not the rules that are at fault its the methods of interpretation and enforcement.
Its what happens when any body of people get to regulate themselves in secret for decades. But its still theft.
Complain about this comment
#286 Boilerplated
You have proven my point exactly by bringing up football. Did you know that there are only about 10 rules in football, the rest is down to the 'judgement of the referee' and his interpretation of the situation.
This is exactly why this game has survived for so many years without having to change the rules. The exact problem that happened in law is happening in football. The endless writing of new laws and rules by FIFA and the FA to govern every situation, which in turn creates contradictions and requires the MOTD panel to argue about the contradictions in the laws every Saturday night.
Want me to make it simple for you - here you go, my rules for MP's expenses.
"Mp's may claim for ANY item or items which cost them personally but that are STRICTLY for the purposes of the job. Any items which an MP claims for may be scrutinised and the MP must be prepared to justify them or pay the amount back"
PROBLEM SOLVED.
Want to know where that little bit of genius came from?
THOSE WERE THE RULES LAID OUT TO ME IN A PREVIOUS JOB WHERE I HAD TO CLAIM EXPENSES.
I have replaced MP's for 'the employee' and away we go.
This is exactly why MP's didn't want the information released - BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WOULDN'T STAND UP TO SCRUTINY.
The fees office were obviously not scrutinising the spending - possibly because they are MP's too? (not sure - I presume so).
You obviously don't have much faith in Judges - you still think they hand out personal opinions - well having met a few I found it clear that they can differentiate between their personal feelings and what is morally right - that is their skill - they take in the facts and provide a balanced view (well at least they would if the law would let them)
You only have to look at the munber of white collar fraud cases where the defendants get very lenient sentences - or none at all to see how the law fails us.
Even in the case of MP's expenses you rightly point out that very few laws have been broken. It doesn't say much for our Democratic and legal system when the abuse of power and the serious breach of trust from the most trusted people in the land - carries no penalty.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Leaked documents show Mr Malik claimed the maximum second homes allowance for three years while paying a peppercorn rent to a rogue landlord for his main home.
The Muslim MP has collected a total of £66,827 for his London town house since 2005-06.
This includes a claim for a £730 massage chair because of a back problem.
At the same time, he rents a three-bedroom house in his constituency of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, for just £100 a week, from a local businessman who was once fined for letting an 'uninhabitable' house.
Mr Malik rents a constituency office from the same landlord, Tahir Zaman, claimed against separate parliamentary allowances.
Mr Zaman lives next door !
We know MPs and Ministers, especially are so underpaid they have to have subsidised rents. What is worrying, however, is the close involvement with a justice minister and a proven slum landlord. Surely their relationship should be investigated, or will there be the usual cries of "Prejudice, unfair, bla, bla"!
Complain about this comment
275. Boilerplated
Heres a great quote from the green book:
Fundamental principles
In July 1995, the House agreed to adopt the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament
which includes a number of general principles of personal conduct. These are based on concepts of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
The broad principles set out below are derived from the Code of Conduct and underpin the allowance regime. When making claims against parliamentary allowances, Members must adhere to these principles.
Still think that MPs are sticking to the rules?
Complain about this comment
#282
"do the rules explicitly state that where a married couple are both MPs one spouse may claim as a second home the home which the other spouse has claimed as a first home, and vice versa?"
That is the wrong question, in this country unless something is explicitly prohibited (in rules or law) it is legal,, hence you rarely see "You ARE allowed to walk on the grass" signs for example. Your question should have been: 'do the rules explicitly prohibited, that where a married couple...'
Complain about this comment
Where are you Nick ? First your blog gets turned off early and then you disappear! Doubt if you are in the Tower you aint hard enough on 'em to get that treatment. But lets have the Justice Minister ( ha ha ha ) saga
from you, preferably without the "ok by the rules" mantra.
Complain about this comment
#285
"In industry if I apply for a job, pass the interview process and am offered the job, I know precisely the salary that I will be receiving."
You would also know what, if any, expenses you would be entailed to claim, and I bet you would feel rather miffed if - after accepting the job, resigning from your previous employment - someone was to come along and tell you that because you don't have to do that line of work (you have chosen to do it) you are not going to be allowed to claim your out of pocket expenses that are generated solely because of the job?...
That is the scenario that many of the honest, hard working, MPs must be feeling like today.
Complain about this comment
#287 John_Constable.
Well put there sir - and I whole heartedly agree, this is in fact the BEST thing for democracy.
I find it amazing that many MP's are taking the 'attack the media' line of defence. We all know the media are no angels, but in general they are not judging, it's the public who are judging. All the media need to do is concentrate on supplying the facts in an un-biased manner as possible.
I have been quite impressed with the Telegraph in that I feared it would simply be an attack on the Government given it's historical allegiance - but they have been much more balanced and the result is that the public now feel armed with the facts (that many suspected - but could never prove) - which confirms some MP's are clearly working the system to meet their own ends - and not working for the people as they so often claim.
I envisage a world of politics after this where the majority in the house are party independent MP's who's only interest is the promotion of the beliefs of their constituents and not a load of forelock tuggers who simply folow the party line - regardless of their own position or the position of their consitutents.
The politicans will try to scare us from this world with a claim that the facists will rule the country - in reality independent MP's who represent their constituents will have little to do with facist ideals - just as the majority of their constituents won't.
Complain about this comment
#299 SHLA2UK
"I find it amazing that when leading MPs - so called honourable members - lie and cheat their way through life"
...this is the life of an MP - lies to voters, lies at work and lies to their family.
The endless life of lying takes it's toll - especially when there is a time to 'own up and admit your mistake' - normal people would take this opportunity to cleanse themselves of the lies - MP's actually believe they can lie their way out of it!
If you look at the statistics for MP's - before this expenses kerfuffle even started - they have more than the average for the population for ex-cons, bankrupts and tax dodgers.
...and yet they spend their lives convincing us they are the cream of the crop - ready to lead this country.
One man put it spot on last night on question time (which I'm watching now) "You think you're better than us".
Now isn't that the truth.
Complain about this comment
I saw Mr Malik's interview on TV before he resigned. He still doesn't get it. This is nothing to do with colour of the party, or the moat or his massaging chair. This is all to do with 'hard working families' working their backsides off to put food on the table whilst they are being taxed beyond their means by this government in order to pay for the things this man has claimed for.
I am not sure about his rental situation, however it appears to be slightly dubious at best and potentially damaging on another scale. What did this landlord ask of Mr Malik in return for his low rent? Under FOI surely this should be available.
Party politics is gone on this issue. What needs to happen is the constituencies need to have the special powers given to them to ask if they are comfortable with their MP still. At that stage deselection can happen, and then we have a general election 3 months later. It is the only way that we will ever have of regaining trust in our politicians if we are to trust the parties themselves to do the right thing.
Those who have flagrantly abused the system should also lose the whip and have to defend themselves. I hope that the police are looking into many of these. The guidelines are the rules and therefore acknowledged as binding. They should be viewed as legal for those who take office to be abided by. Those who have not should face the consequences and soon.
Complain about this comment
#301 JUNKMALE
Lovely story about the Widdecombe - It nicely highlights something which has been bugging me since the 'defences' were raised.
If all these MP's spend most of their time in London, how can they have a clue what their constituents think?
Maybe this is why politics is so London-centric, I know it's the capital, but from reading the MP's statements I am not surprised they are so out of touch with their constituents.
It's understandable for MP's who have to travel from the North - but what about the difference between Luotn and Brighton?
There are 2 MP's, one in Luton, the other in Brighton - one commutes in (from Brighton) the other has a 'second home' in London.
Who do you think understands the plight of the constituent more?
Who is best placed to discuss the dreadful transport network?
Who is best placed to represent their constituents on local matters?
I think the answers are clear for anyone - other than an MP.
Complain about this comment
Here is the Balls article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html
Complain about this comment
#311 Boilerplated -
"I bet you would feel rather miffed if - after accepting the job [and] resigning from your previous employment . . ."
Fine. Let's see some of these little piggies resigning their seats and campaigning for re-election on the basis that they're honest, working men and women fairly entitled to everything they're claiming.
Let's see how far they get with that . . .
Complain about this comment
Given that we are all indebted by the present government (2 or 3K per man women and child?) and trust is now at an all time low with regard to M.P.s how interesting to find out how much each of us is 'owed' when the collective amount off all expenses claimed by M.P.s is divided by the number of taxpayers. it would all be so simple if all M.P.s paid back every pound and penny to our collective account for re distribution to tax payers. I would rather like my bit now as things are a little tight.
Complain about this comment
We are all being forced down the route of the EU by our elected representatives. Their poitical colour make no difference because the end result is the same. That decision, despite being unpopular and against the wishes of the British electorate has been taken by the three main parties, yes even the Conservatives despite the best efforts of William Hague.
Yet, those parties are corrupt in varying degrees as we have seen thanks to the commendable efforts of the Daily Telegraph. We the electorate should forever be grateful to that journal.
That ragbag of miserable politicians including the likes of Smith the so called Home Secretary, Campbell (surely knighted in error) the once highly respected foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberals together with the wrongly designated "Tory Grandees" have shamed us all.
In their ignorance MP's, Minister and oposition shadow ministers and spokesmen they have failed to realise what we all know, the death of the British Parliamentary system of government.
In the same way that absolute monarchy died this system has died and needs to be replaced. At this moment we don't know what that much needed alternative is but it will and must emerge from the debris these idiots have left us with. Their greed and self gratification has come to an end.
Not only is it their self indulgance but the way that they have allowed parliament to turn into a cosy club of your turn my turn. There is simply too much protocol, they have lost their fight between different ideologies and beliefs. They were all happy with their Speaker a puppet of the current administration and now they turn on him as the cowards they are.
In returning to my opening point with regard to the EU, I will be voting BNP at the EU elections because not only does it show the three main parties my disgust with them but equally important I am sure that the BNP will cause mayor mayhem in the EU Parliament. In essence we can elect any old rubbish to cause as much trouble as possible in Europe and demonstrate are lack of respect for that body whcih appears equally corrupt at the esisting UK Parliament.
As regards the next British General Election to be held whenever the failed Brown is forced to go the the polls, I urge Martin Bell to build a new party of men and women, with exception of himself to fight each and every seat in the house to bring in new people, free of corruption and importanly free of the procedures of Parliament. They mush start again and fight for our democracy that has been misrepresented from the life in the gutter. If he fails to do so we may find that our future is in tha hands of an unelected dictator or even worse.
The rot started with Blair and it must stop at the next election.
Complain about this comment
#309 BoilerPlated
BINGO
You said it yourself.
"in this country unless something is explicitly prohibited (in rules or law) it is legal, hence you rarely see 'You ARE allowed to walk on the grass' signs for example"
That's one big rule book you're going to have to write then - about the size of a house probably where you explicitly prohibit every single thing that 'someone might think of in the future'
EXACTLY what the law does - which is EXACTLY why it doesn't work properly.
Policeman - "Why did you mug that old lady when I just let you off 5 minutes ago for shoplifting?"
Crook - "Because you told me to stop shoplifting, you said nothing about mugging"
Hence why each and every situation needs to be judged on it's merits - which is what is finally happening with MP's expenses.
Clare Short is a good example - I think in general people are happier with her mistaken claim and believe her explanation for the mistake than they are with others that have gone before her.
The people have 'judged' her on the fact and the circumstances. The rulebook did not differentiate between her act and Mr Dirty Moat (who's name I have erased from my memory as for me he no longer exists as a human being)
Complain about this comment
#311 Boilerplated.
You're sinking fast.....
"someone was to come along and tell you that because you don't have to do that line of work (you have chosen to do it) you are not going to be allowed to claim your out of pocket expenses"
no-one is stopping their 'out of pocket expenses' and no-one is proposing that they do. However LCD TV's, Helliports, Moats, Porn films, sparkly toilet seats and tennis court repairs are not 'out of pocket expenses' out here in the real world.
Surely you must be an MP - found yourself with some spare time have you? Did you resign or were you fired?
You are swimming against a Tsunami of public opinion - watch this and you'll see what I mean.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00kftf0/Question_Time_14_05_2009/
Complain about this comment
#256
I'm hoping that this moment of self reflection by MPs and the anger stirred up in the public at the way our cash is spent will enthuse the various parties to put something in their manifestos about making transparent:
Central government spending
Local Government Spending
The cost of pubic sector pensions
I'm sure there are more areas too.
Complain about this comment
It is right that the clearest and worst offences should result in sackings and resignations - but I don't see a clear and independent process being put in place to make a thorough investigation of the expenses/allowances scandal.
Mp's keep saying that the expenses rules themselves are at fault as a defence - this is partly true but this is being used by G Brown to deflect proper and full enquiry. My understanding is that MP's submit their expense claims on various re-interpretations of these rules so the inadequacy of the rules is not an excuse. Also, an MP's liability for tax usually includes professional davice which raises a fresh dimension.
Without such a process being put in place the matter will drag on until and beyond the general election - although perhaps this is the real strategy in parliament - that some MP's will only get 'relief' when they are deselected or lose a seat at the general election because of their fraud, theft or impropriety.
The other angle on this is that we do not see the MP's tax returns as self employed to HMRC (as prepared by accountants?) and many of these amy be inaccurate if not downright fraudulent on amounts, classification of benefits, benefits in kind etc - this is likley to take a year or so to unravel in the event of criminal prosecutions as the rest is outside the remit of FOI. The tax fraud aspect of this scandal is likley to be substantial.
Again, the need for a far reaching enquiry and investigation. How substantial is this scandal - I think that it is huge because our MP's are trusted to make decisions on e.g. going to war (and not even keep full written cabinet minutes) or make important decisions on EU participation and renege on a manifesto promise to hold a referendum - if the same or indeed any MP's cannot be trusted with basic expense/allowance claims where does this leave us.
Another point is that MP's are overall very well paid for what they do - they also get good pensions and the fact that many MP's are content to reside on the back benches for many decades, in some cases, more than shows that it is not such a bad ride for many of them. In fact it's a gravy train and we have yesterday's BBC report MP's such as Keith Vaz now 'warning us' that the UK has a slave trade - Well for goodness sake Mr Vaz - do something about it - you're in government/been in government for 12 years - this perfectly illustrates the inefficiency of our parliamentary and governmental systems. Why do we have a 'slave trade'? If we do I say it is the fault of government.
We need direct politics where every decision made by government fully reflects the opinion of the majority of the electorate - we keep hearing of politicians anguishing over making 'unpopular decisions' - presumably the likes of Keith Vaz make the silent decision to do next to nothing for their salary, expenses, allowances, favours, influence and perquisites - now I'd call that an unpopular decision.
MP's, political analysts, media 'experts' are making the mistake of talking down to the electorate on this and making ridiculous statements like 'it is undermining parliamentary democracy' etc. No such thing - the public outcry and demand for summary justice is I think the best thing to have emerged in UK politics since the 'suffragette movement'.
MP's need to be careful about having the 'rabble out there' attitude and/or trying to block due process of the common law to investigate crime - this all has the potential to blow up in parliamentary faces like they have never seen before. Parliament is a wonderful institution in many ways but has been abused long term and change in nigh - Parliament has some wonderful historic procedures and the Traitor's Gate is still there and available for those who dare to think that they are above the principles of Magna Carta.
I for one do not need to hear from MP's with their aloof high principled 'spin' defence patter as the current harrying of the parliamentary rotten is an essential part of our English/British democracy and in time will be seen as a good thing.
The whole thing is festering because the government is incompetent and unwilling to set up an immediate full and proper independent multi party board of enquiry with unlimited invesigative power. In fact, I think that the matter needs investigating by calling in an enquiry board members from the Commonwealth/ USA/ EU as the situation is so serious on sleaze, corruption and conspiracy.
Gordon Brown and the main political parties will try and deflect this scandal and just hope that it goes away - they will simply play for time - if they are allowed to do so.
We must not allow these people to get away this this and operate parliament as an opportunistic sleaze museum - we must insist on full investigation. However, time for a new people's Parliament? - I think that it is long over-due.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand how the whole expense claims matter was handled by the Parliamentary authorities. Did nobody discuss the apparent gulf between the size and types of claims? Did nobody bother to get clarity whether a "second home" was actually one you already owned in London or one which you needed in a constituency?
It's been said before, if Parliament can't manage its own accounts for a few hundred MPs, how can they expect us to believe they can run departments spending billions?
Incidentally, I noticed a job advert for a House of Commons "E-procurement Transaction Manager" salary GBP27-35K.
Presumably this is to streamline access to John Lewis on-line...
Complain about this comment
I cannot believe someone can make a 16k mistake! what rubbish every MP who has put a false claim in and tried to dodge the payment of taxes should be sacked, arrested and prosecuted. This MUST happen otherwise the G20 protests will be like a tea party compared to what will happen at every polling booth up and down the country. They must go, I run a company with 30 staff if anyone falsified expenses this would be gross misconduct and they would be sacked immediately. Why are these people still representing the public. Bring back flogging and I hope HMRC are all over these people like a bad rash!
Complain about this comment
317. At 2:51pm on 15 May 2009, Bandages_For_Konjic wrote:
#311 Boilerplated -
Let's see how far they get with that . . .
Indeed.
A few more 'explanations' and 'we could be hurting the country exposing its leaders foibles' 'scares' are still getting trotted out.
If you are an honest, hard-working MP, then in all this you have nothing to fear and all to gain (though being part of a 'party interest first' system ruled by whips rather than constituent wishes will rather hinder you).
Otherwise being ignorant, especially of the law... IS NO BLOOMING EXCUSE!
I intend to revisit 'The Fugitive', especially when the 'hero' is confronted at the dam outlet and makes his case.
These troughers are anything but innocent, so it is all the more delicious to savour the reply of implacable law: 'I DON'T CARE'. The next bit is fun in context, too.
Complain about this comment
Some crucial points are being missed in all this. There are some obvious abuses here but if you are told that these expenses are allowed by the House authorities having specifically enquired, surely the issue is that the rules and guidance are wrong and need to be changed. Can anyone honestly say that if their employer confirmed the elgibility of a particular expense and you then clainm it that you would expect to be told that you shouldn't have x years later AND pay it back AND be held up to ridicule for it? Ridiculous. This is little more than an excuse for some MP bashing led by the Daily Telegraph and, unfortunately, followed all too eagerly by the BBC and other media organisations.
Complain about this comment
319. Ukingdom
I and most others I speak to are voting BNP in the European Elections.
There is no alternative at THIS moment.
Complain about this comment
328
Voting Nashy, eh? Nail that coffin lid down!
Complain about this comment
This Parliament has draged this country in to the gutter.
It now has lost its authority to govern.
They need to renew their mandate or they will be shouted down on every discision they make.
We need a General Election and now.
Once MP's have faced their electorate then they can at least say they have a post expensesgate mandate.
Also why has the media missed this one about flipper Balls and his wife Cooper
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html
Complain about this comment
328. At 3:21pm on 15 May 2009, flamepatricia wrote:
319. Ukingdom
I and most others I speak to are voting BNP in the European Elections.
There is no alternative at THIS moment.
Come on be serious. People are moving towards the fringe anti-establishment parties. It will be UKIP that make the big gains.
Latest poll results show for European voting intention as follows
CON 28%(-9), LAB 19%(-3), LDEM 19%(nc), UKIP 19%(+12!), GRN 6%(+2), BNP 3%(-1).
Complain about this comment
Moderator - you finally pulled your finger out.
off topic?? I was talking about the criminal charges which should (or should not) be brought against those who have offended.
THIS BLOG IS TITLED "First cheques, now jobs"
I am discussing the consequences of the MP's expenses.
How can that be off-topic? - there is only one topic at the moment.
This is unjustified and supressing the freedom of speech. You are no better than the Government themselves.
Complain about this comment
According to David Davies MP, "..many colleagues have considered resigning.." and "..many feel they are regarded as thieves.."
Right on both counts Mr Davies, so, don't let bashfulness stop you and your colleagues from falling on your venal, corrupt swords!
The only shock in Davies' observation is that he didn't say "all" are considering resigning because the whole rotten 650 MPs should have resigned at the start of this week!
All 650 are equally guilty: They've either been caught with their grubby fingers in the pie or knew of it and did nothing about it! So far as I understand English Law if you aid and abet someone to commit an offence you are every bit as guilty. I certainly understand English Law enough to know that before retirement had I 'borrowed' or 'appropriated' monies from my employers that I was not entitled to I would have been out of a job at least and facing prosecution at worst.
Frankly these 650 MPs are so rotten why waste anymore Tax-Payers' money on chasing them through the courts (they'd probably get some fat-cat solicitor to claim Legal Aid for them): Just get RID OF THEM, from frontbench to independent. None are worth a moments consideration by the British Public.
PM Brown, Consevative Leader Cameron have all been shown to have 'inadvertently' got their Expense claims muddled!
Well, if you cannot run a bank book what the hell are they doing trying to run the Country?
Complain about this comment
#328 flamepatricia -
"I and most others I speak to are voting BNP in the European Elections."
This is despite your simpering admiration for Call Me Dave, expressed so nauseatingly in your #267 above.
Obviously The "Honourable" Member for Witney doesn't have the pulling power he thinks he has.
Who's going to tell him?
Complain about this comment
No 316, thank you. As expected, Balls and Cooper have their snouts firmly in the trough.
Complain about this comment
# 309 Boilerplated
Semantics, dear Boilerplated: rules can either state what is or is not allowed. It's just a different way of saying the same thing. I think you are being pedantic.
My example serves to illustrate that it is impossible to identify every scenario which may arise when you are setting the rules - just how many husband and wife MPs there are I have no idea, but probably not many out of the 650 or so MPs in the HOC.
In true government fashion you can be sure the next set of rules will close this loophole/clarify this area of confusion.
Anyone else noticed all these pigs flying around?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Here's a quote from wiki forgive me if direct quotes are not allowed
'Embezzlement is the act of dishonestly appropriating or secreting assets, usually financial in nature, by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted'
Better description of the action of certain MPs than a breach of the rules.
If anyone in the real world did this they would expect a bit of time at her madge's pleasure and yet you still follow aunties line of this being some form of mild accounting error.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated, are you in true life............The Speaker of the House of Commons?
Complain about this comment
328. flamepatricia
Here's the Horst Wessel Lied translated, Just replace 'Hitler' with 'BNP'. You can start learning it for the meetings.
Flag high! Ranks closed tight!
The stormtroopers march with bold, firm step.
Comrades shot by Reds and Reactionaries
March in spirit within our ranks.
Clear the streets for the brown battalions.
Clear the streets for the stormtroop men!
Millions already look hopefully up to the swastika.
The day is breaking for freedom and bread!
For the last time now the call is sounded!
Already we stand all ready to fight!
Soon the Hitler banners will flutter over the barricades.
Our bondage won't last much longer!
Flag high! Ranks closed tight!
The stormtroopers march with calm, firm step.
Comrades shot by Reds and Reactionaries
March in spirit within our ranks.
Complain about this comment
csense1 and #327.
Have you bothered to read the Telegraph articles?
Have you looked at the list provided by the BBC of those MPs with totally excessive or wholly unwarranted Expense Claims?
Have you any inkling of the supposed ethical and moral values that are placed in Elected Members of Parliament?
This is not about some little fiddle to cover-up excessive personal use of the photo-copy machine or extra cakes off the tea trolley!
This is about whole-sale FRAUD: The defrauding of the Public Purse by MPs involving vast sums of money. It is about misappropriation of Funds drawn on the Exchequer not once or twice but regularly, persistently and to a degree that is wholly unsupportable by any sensible yardstick of how People in Public Office should conduct their Financial affairs.
To put it another way: It is about lack of equipment for Troops in Afghanistan, Police Officers awaiting promotion (my daughter being one of them) because there are not funds to pay for it, the hard-pressed Probation Officers and Social Service officials not having funds to put petrol in their vehicles.
Most of all it is about the fundamental idea that INTEGRITY and DECENCY are still valued more than some greedy, wretched person's Second Home Allowance Claim!
Complain about this comment
#312 writingonthe wall wrote:
I envisage a world of politics after this where the majority in the house are party independent MP's who's only interest is the promotion of the beliefs of their constituents.
I've never believed in independents unless for exceptional situations in individual constituencies.
There is no single set of beliefs shared by all constituents (other than at a very general level). Nor is there a single set of economic interests. A Parliament of independents would collapse in chaos.
Political Parties are an imperfect short-cut to a series of historical associations, beliefs, values, competencies, and economic interests. Take these away, and the electorate has no means of knowing who to vote for. I would no more believe a so-called independent asking for my vote than I would a snake-oil salesman.
Complain about this comment
This is going to run and run.
Look at this claim from Ian Dale
"I was at a talk given by Ken Livingstone at Oxford University last night, and he said something which, if true, I found appalling. When asked about MPs expenses, he claimed that when he was an MP, the whips called a meeting and said that they had noticed that many MPs were not claiming their second home allowance even though they were entitled to it. If this was the case, they requested that the MPs claim it and give it to the Labour Party. They were apparently encouraged to claim it, and were told it was there as a supplement to their salary. MPs were apparently told it was "not a matter for the Inland Revenue".
This need to be looked into as well
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I've just seen a spreadsheet of all the MP's expenses in full.
I looked up my MP and I cannot understand how she has managed to rack up £16k in travel expenses getting to Parliment when she lives in London and just down the road from me.
I travel to work by bike, my annual expenses are about £200 for servicing the bike and parts, I manage to carry books, documents and I still wear a suit to work.
Does my MP live in a different world to me? Maybe she is flying to work in a jet plane and has to drive to Heathrow to catch the plane to City airport and then get a taxi back to Westminster.
The facts do not lie - regardless of rights or wrongs there is no need to spend such amounts on travel annually.
It's a complete disgrace.
I wish I could upload the data here so you could all see for yourselves....
Complain about this comment
#330 PortcullisGate wrote:
We need a General Election and now
A few weeks ago I would have agreed with you, but to have an election now would be a disaster.
The next Government need to make fundamental decisions on the economy, and that should be the focus of the election campaign. MPs expenses are important, but not the most important issue.
Some of the comments here (and I don't mean #330) are becoming hysterical.
Complain about this comment
I am not surprised that UKIP is gaining ground, in terms of the forthcoming EU elections.
There are some very serious issues at the heart of Europe, which the EU politicians have simply ignored.
For example, my blood ran rather cold when I read that EU Chief Auditor Marta Andreasen was cold-sholdered and subsequently suspended and then fired by her boss - one Neil Kinnock.
The EU accounts have never been signed off by the auditors and if you read the Wiki entry for Marta Andreasen, you will find a horrific tale (in accounting terms).
In business, it would be a crime to continue to invest money into a business that did not have audited accounts and frankly, what has been happening in the EU is also a crime - even if it is within the rules.
The EU 'expenses' scams truly make Westminsters look like small change.
Any Prime Minister with an ounce of integrity would suspend our payments to the EU immediately and not resume them until the EU accounts were fully audited and signed off.
Complain about this comment
Curious such people as Clare Short and David Davidson are in agreement. A lot of conscientious, honest and hard working M.P.s are being hounded by media fanned public hysteria in which the only winners will be people such as the B.N.P. There may be a problem with the system, and in a calmer and more considered environment, which would be the case if the same information had been made available on June 1st as it was intended, this might had happened.
Complain about this comment
Time to take the blinkers off, forget about the two main political party's, there are other party's to vote for the public have been brain washed by the media into thinking they must vote Labour or Tory, these party's have between them ruined the UK's economy.
If enough people vote for something other than their own selfish interests, things will change.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#290
"You must be an MP surely if you seriously don't get it"
Not at all, and yes I do get it, I have been as critical about MPs making their own rules as others (here and on other BBC blogs). That doesn't change the fact that we can't just start changing the rules/laws retrospectively after the event just to punish what you consider is a 'wrong', were would that rational stop.
If an MP has broken any current laws then I'm sure that, if there is sufficient evidence (after all we would not want summery justice by lynch-mob, were would that end, 'You HAVE been speeding YOU will go to prison because I SAY so'...), that he or she will be treated to the full force that the current laws allow.
"You CANNOT defend the IN-DEFENSIBLE."
No, but you can defend the current, legal due process, especially if the in-defensible is not actually illegal, which most of these 'dodgy' claim are not - how would you feel if a local authority was able to change the speed limit on a road and then fine/imprison you for speeding because you drove at the previous limit in the past, even though it was morally in-defensible to dive at such a speed outside a school?...
Complain about this comment
The main reasons why people are so het up about the MP's expenses issue, about enough, surely, has already been said, are as follows:
(a) 5% of the explanation lies in the fact that it helps fill the newspapers, and 24-hour news channels with trivial rubbish, and feeds salacious readers, viewers and listeners with a different kind of tripe at a time when their respective audiences are in serious decline (see Peter Wilby in Monday's Media Guardian for a wider explanation of the 'narrative' element)
(b) 95% of the explanation lies in the fact that, whichever way you cut it, the bankers have got away with it, lenders have been hammered and borrowers screwed
Those MP's who have broken the laws of the land should be brought before the courts, tried and if found guilty, punished as anyone else would be. As for the 'morality' argument so popular with £92,000-a-year-for-a-three-day-week television newsreaders, if an MP has committed no offence against the law of the land but is thought by others to have behaved in a less than wholly moral way, the responsibility for dealing with him/her is a matter for the voters in her/his constituency.
Complain about this comment
#327:
So you don't think MPs should have a conscience or any concept of right or wrong then? In your world, it's OK to do anything you like if you genuinely believe you'll get away with it?
Just because something was "within the rules" (not that I'm saying everything was) doesn't make it morally right. If MPs can't see that, they're not fit to govern.
Complain about this comment
340 - yes I have read them. They are full of impossible to justify expenses. That's not my point. Point is that if you as an employee ask what your entitled to, you check it, your employer says it's OK, then you claim, your employer says fine and pays you. Is there anyone that wouldn't take advantage of that? The rules and their enforcement were wrong - plain and simple. To turn it into an MP bashing exercise is just too easy and sloppy
Complain about this comment
Expenses are supposed to recompense people for the costs involved in doing their job. If they are not directly needed to perform the task then they should be taxed. That is how the inland revenue/hmrc works out the expense allowances for me and my staff. They are not some hidden part of the salary which by a miracle is tax free. They are ment to fairly compensate not supplement income. IN any other form of work HMRC would disallow this whole process. I dont know if Boiler plate works for the state. I assume he/she does because in any form of commerce in the private sector the costs are scrutinised by the tax man.
Complain about this comment
MP Shahid Malik steps down as a minister and Brown keeps his job open for if he is cleared.So far so good.But in this culture of no rewards for failure,is he getting the three months salary that he is due for leaving his job?no-one has mentioned this yet,with about £7,500 as a pay off he can buy his own plasma screens and massage chairs.
Complain about this comment
#295
"I'm sorry to pick on you - but you do talk a lot of nonsense"
I'm glade that you have given me the opportunity of reply to say that I have never read so much verminous bile as is your comments, in that respect the feeling expressed above is mutual and about all we can agree on...
"It's called honesty and trust"
Oh, you mean like how the MPs expenses system worked, that is exactly the point, how do we know that the company director (or who ever) is being 'honest', we don't...
Complain about this comment
All these excuses that they didn't break the rules, that they followed the rules, did what they were told was the way to do it.
Heard it all before at the Nuremburg Trials and also it was Eichmann's defence, "I was only following orders, rules."
I feel physically sick that this sort of behaviour goes on, in my naive youth I thought things would change.
Complain about this comment
327 csense wrote:
"Some crucial points are being missed in all this. There are some obvious abuses here but if you are told that these expenses are allowed by the House authorities having specifically enquired, surely the issue is that the rules and guidance are wrong and need to be changed...
...This is little more than an excuse for some MP bashing led by the Daily Telegraph and, unfortunately, followed all too eagerly by the BBC and other media organisations."
---------
I totally agree with you. It's a lynch mob, and a lot of MPs are being caught up in something that is not really of their making. However a few of them are certainly crooks, and also it should be recalled (and isn't being mentioned much for some reason) that parliament tried their best to hide their expenses from the public so they must have been generally aware that, at a time when pensioners are being imprisoned for not being able to pay their council tax, their own over-generous allowances were not going to go down too well. But what we are seeing now is the mob having fun bashing all politicians. There is not much common sense in evidence, but I suppose that all this might remind them what they are there for.
Complain about this comment
#296
"The mods don't usually seem to like people posting URLs"
If they comply with the House Rules there is no problem, I have posted many a URL in the past, if they don't comply with the House Rules then it's likely that many will not be able to access them. As it is, someone has posted the gist of the story, and again the Telegraph seems to be high on rhetoric and low on real facts - MPs can't 'flip houses' if they don't own them any more!
Complain about this comment
I too have now looked at the spreadsheet and notice that six of the 'top ten' in terms of expenses claimed, come from Scottish MP's.
Superficially, that might seem to be perfectly reasonable in that these Scottish MP's have the furthest to travel.
But hold on, there is a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, Scotland, a country with its own MP's and with its own fully functional separate (from England) legal system.
This is definately one political 'expense' us English can do without.
Complain about this comment
#342 johnharris66
A Parliament of independents would collapse in chaos
On what do you base this? You say constituents rarely have a common set of beliefs - and yet they do - MP's expenses is one to start with. I'm also not suggesting the independent could represent each and every persons ideals - just the majority in the constituency.
The alternative is the 'football supporting' public who vote either red or blue regardless of the person representing them. This has been going on in Pitt the Younger's days and has got no better. This is how Boris Johnson kept his seat in Henley - he could have stood up and stated his priority was 'improving moon tourism' and he still would have won.
The net result is that the party leaders (and specifically the one in Government) simply become dictators. Free votes are becoming fewer and fewer and considering GB has only faced his first defeat in the commons - clearly voting rebellion is kept under wraps by the whips.
My MP only does what her party tells her to - not what her constituents votre her in to do (i.e. the election pledges). We'll votee her out at the next election, but she will be replaced by someone else who simply follows the party line and we will have to wait another 5 years to get rid of them!
Ask the people who voted in Martin Bell 2 terms in a row - did they feel they weren't being represented properly in parliment? I think not.
Complain about this comment
NICK
Why do MPs feel we underpay them?
They have given 75% of their responsibility & power to another body, the EEC
Any other organisation which lost 75% of its workload would be forced to implement Employee Pay Cuts or Redundancies, or both.
MPs Pay and Pensions MUST be reduced every time they give away a power to the EEC.
Before MPs get any pay rise ever again, let them earn it by clawing back our National Sovereignty from Europe.
Complain about this comment
339 Blawsme Game
Suggest you get the newspapers to print for the many others voting BNP -
Complain about this comment
It seems fairly obvious that for a long time the claimable 'allowances' have been treated by many MPs as a perk rather than reimbursement for actual expenses - a way of topping up their salaries by the back door, without the need of voting themselves a pay rise.
A pay rise would be more honest - but of course politically very difficult when other public sector workers are having their wages capped.
It is quite true that MPs living outside London do need two homes if it is too far to commute on a daily basis. But the rules that allow 'flipping' or 'double-dipping' clearly need to be re-written.
I was slightly confused by Margaret Beckett's comments on Question Time. She said "If you live Grace-And-Favour residence, you have three sets of housing costs"
She also said "I completely understand that people can't understand". Oh well, that's all right then! There is a logical explanation - is just we voters are too stupid!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051222.stm
And why do MP's need for taxpayers to pay for their food? Presumably MP's would still be eating wherever they were?
MPs have rightfully been banging on about the bonus culture in the banking sector, and the need to avoid 'rewarding failure'. Most people would agree with this.
But where does this leave the debate on remuneration for politicians? Based on their own productivity and long-term results, a pay CUT would actually be more appropriate.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to see a team from the Benefits fraud office interview all MPs under caution and go through their books.
There may be some honourable members who have only claimed expenses "necessarily and exclusively" incurred in the pursuit of their role as an MP. However, people have to eat whether they are an MP or not, so any MP who has claimed for food they have bought, has claimed an expense that was not incurred "necessarily and exclusively" to perform their duties - unless they're entertaining foreign ambassadors at every meal, that is.
There are children in this country whose parents don't have enough mony to cloth and feed them properly. How can any MP live with their conscience after claiming their food costs off the taxpayer, when that money could have been used to give a better quality of life to children from poor families. I'm ashamed of MPs, the very people we expect to use taxpayer's money to help the more unfortunate in our society. They'd rather line their pockets than feed a hungry child. A sad, sad, story.
Complain about this comment
Doesn't this all run deeper than just Nu Labour and the Tories, the independents, or even the HOC?
I remember some grafiti from when I was a student (not mine I hasten to add, far too erudite to have come from me): "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in"
The problem surely rests with the whole process of government and the civil service which acts behind the scenes and which is far more powerful than the frontmen in the HOC. Our MPs are full of bluster, posture, wind and *water* but aren't they all really a waste of space?
It's the Civil Service that actually runs the country. Is it not the Civil Service generally that needs overhauling?
Complain about this comment
#303
"they [other MPs] must have known what was going on and were therefore complicit in this grubby scandal through their silence."
Are you saying that you know how your fellow co-workers have filled in their tax returns, so if they get done for tax evasion you should also be prosecuted?...
Complain about this comment
#350 Boilerplated
...but I don't drive past schools at speed - so the local council can do what they like retrospectively.
How can I be so sure? - because I am guided by my morals. I do not speed past schools as they often have children running about and I have the ability to THINK THROUGH THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF MY ACTIONS - which clearly is something fundamentally missing in your average MP.
It's also been pointed out to you that some MP's have broken both parlimentary rules and even criminal law by myself and others on this blog.
I understand you may fear a 1984 style world where suddenly your rights are removed and the innocent end up in jail but if you have been guided by your morals you will never get into that position.
verdicts are found by Jurours - they are 12 'ordinary men and women' - they will not find guilt in people who acted within standard moral guidelines.
If Mp's have acted morally - they would have nothing to fear from the courts either. The problem is they haven't - and they know they haven't, which is why they are so scared.
Again, i must make it clear that I am not proposing rectrospectively changing the rules - it's not neccessary.
If the MP's were all within the rules - why are some resigning and other paying back the money?
If I were so sure about being in the right - I would refuse to pay anything back on principle alone.
Complain about this comment
#304
"Its not the rules that are at fault its the methods of interpretation and enforcement."
Then the rules are not robust enough...
Complain about this comment
Broilerplated 258
I always thought that POETS day was Friday.
Still, this is the BBC........
Complain about this comment
358 - yes, agreed. But I wonder where this all leads us. Maybe total disclosure for all public employees? Should BBC journalists like Jeremy Paxman, who have so obviously revelled in this affair, make all their expenses public? All the hotel bills, drinks bills, travel costs, not to mention the huge salaries. And while we're about it let's have some honesty from the Telegraph - who did they get the info from? Was it stolen? How much did they pay for it? How much does Mr Brogan earn? What were his expenses claims over the last 4 years. If he is setting his newspaper up as a defender of honesty and integrity why not come clean on all this?
Complain about this comment
#356 Boilerplated
I think you have trust issues - I was taught that people who don't trust others are not trustworthy themselves which is why you seem to suspect everyone is on the take (or could be)
Ultimately the ONLY person who can commit frud at a private company is the compliance or finance director. This is exatly why these positions are carefully selected and I believe there is some personal liability (there certainly is for compliance officers)
I'm guessing you have either never worked in the private sector or you have worked with a set of openly dishonest people.
I like millions of others have worked in jobs where out of pocket expenses are refundable and the danger of social embarrassment and my own morals guide us to not commit dishonesty. If someone over-claims on their expenses they might get away with it first time, but not for long and they will either loose their job or have to pay it all back (I know - I've seen it happen)
When it does occur in the private sector (as you say - the director is dishonest) the penatlies are severe. Try asking the CEO of Enron, or WorldCom if it was worth it in the end - I believe meny of them will be going to jail (if they're not there already).
Imagine the outrage if the CEO of Enron said
"eerrrr you know what - I'm really sorry I made a mistake - but it was years ago so how about you forget about it"
The stench of double standards is reeking through the City of Westminster and you seem to feel it's all perfectly acceptable.
....well you're on your own there my son.
Complain about this comment
They just don't seem to 'get it', do they? Some of us are fortunate enough to get expenses from our firms for expenses incurred in when we carry out our job. That does not include the costs of getting from our home to our work (I'm talking from the London home to the PoW, not from the Highlands and Islands to London), our meals at home (£400 a month for food, per person. We spend £130 per week for a family of 4 out of my salary - so heaven knows what an MP eats at home!), I don't have subsidised food at work, so that's a pain too - sandwich lunch for me!
I'm not even going to get into the cinema systems, the moats or the home refurbishments. Have they ever heard of a white goods package? They seem to have got so used to charging everything, and having their wage as spending money, that no-one has bothered to query whether their expense claim was right - just that they were allowed it, so they'll have it, thank you very much. Meanwhile the rest of us worry about how we pay for the petrol!
Complain about this comment
#360 JohnConstable -
"But hold on, there is a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, Scotland, a country with its own MP's and with its own fully functional separate (from England) legal system.
This is definately one political 'expense' us English can do without.
You're quite right. Equally, the Scots could no doubt do without all the (Many more) English piggies - Morley, Malik, Moran etc. - on and on ad nauseam - troughing away at their hard-earned taxes.
Far better, as you say, to push for constitutional change - a Claim of Rights for England and independent Parliaments for England and Scotland instead of the venal, corrupt UK administration - and then let each nation pay for its own pigswill. I'd support that . . .
Of course, the burden on English taxpayers required to support their own avaricious herd would be far larger than that demanded of the Scots but we could call that the "Independence Dividend", couldn't we?
Stout fellow - I and many others of like mind are on you side . . .
Complain about this comment
#328 flamepatricia
You have said more than once that you will be supporting the BNP, but is this because of Expensesgate? Or is there some other reason?
According to a BBC report, the BNP says that Black and Asian Britons "do not exist". They say the term used should be "racial foreigners".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8011878.stm
In the earlier blog 'A bit of a week' you wrote:
(499) "Sometimes I get in the car and drive twenty miles out to be with other English people again!"
I wonder how you can tell if people are English or not just by driving past them? What do English people look like?
In view of your stated support for the BNP, I wonder how you define English?
Complain about this comment
writingsonthewall @ 361
Martin Bell himself would not be happy with your post because he only made one promise to the Taaton electorate - which was to serve one term, not two, as you mentioned.
Bell, of course, kept his promise, and if you care to check his Parliamentary record, it is outstanding - in my opinion, particularly when he almost alone tried to support Parliamentary Standards watchdog Elizabeth Filkin - as she came under pressure for - querying MP's expenses.
I personally would like to see an English Parliament comprised of a mix of smaller parties and independents - that would, in my opinion, more accurately reflect the nature of English people themselves than the 'rigged' cartel-like political system that the current three main parties have colluded to maintain.
Complain about this comment
#361
I grew so rich that I was sent
By pocket borough into Parliament
I always voted the party's way
And I claimed all the expenses I could each day
I claimed so much they rewarded me
By giving me the Justice Ministry
Complain about this comment
#367 Boilerplated
Every argument you put forward has a hole the size of the PSBR at the moment.
"Are you saying that you know how your fellow co-workers have filled in their tax returns, so if they get done for tax evasion you should also be prosecuted?"
Of course no one is saying that - but if I know my fellow workmate is fiddling expenses then it's my responsibility to inform the owner of the business. If I know that it's going on and I do nothing - and it's discovered that I knew at a later date - then I would expect disciplinary action - albeit not as severe as the offender, but I would expect nothing less.
You try to confuse the arguments by putting forward irrelevant suggestions. You still haven't answered my point regarding the rules of football - surely that's one concept you can understand.
Your tactics of confuse and decieve are very similar to the 'attack the media' or 'hunt the mole' stances taken by certain MP's trying to distract us from the REAL crime.
Maybe you are the speaker? Given up attacking MP's and going to the public directly?
Complain about this comment
#315
"Maybe this is why politics is so London-centric"
It's London centric because that's were the work place is, move parliament to Manchester and UK (national) politics would become Manchester centric and MPs would probably still be just as out of touch with their constituents - except for those MPs who constituents are in and around Manchester.
Sorry but the more I read the hyperbolic comments on this and other blogs the more I realise that it's not the MPs who "just don't get it", talk about kangaroo courts and lynch-mobs...
Complain about this comment
369. Boilerplated
You arent really looking at this objectively are you.
Ive listed the rules previously they could not be clearer me and I think everyone else.
You must be an MP.
Complain about this comment
#353 csense1 wrote:
"Is there anyone that wouldn't take advantage of that? The rules and their enforcement were wrong - plain and simple."
That argument may have flown were it not for the fact that there are a good many MPs who did not abuse the system. This is about the morality (and in some cases the honesty) of those MPs who did. Saying it is simply the fault of the system is like saying we mustn't blame a burglar if we leave our window open. Yes, the system needs a serious overhaul. No, that is no excuse for the greed, avarice and in some cases almost certain ciminality of those who took advantage of it.
Complain about this comment
371 csense.
Once again I agree. Particularly on the subject of the visibility of BBC expenses and salaries. We pay these, and if we want to watch TV we have no choice - If we have to pay this money to you by law BBC, then we should be able to know exactly how it's being spent, yes?
Not sure I agree about the Telegraph's source. I hold the media in pretty low regard, but I think it must be able to protect its sources. I appreciate that means that a paper or TV channel might simply have made it all up, but they'll often do that anyway if they need the copy.
Complain about this comment
#320
"That's one big rule book you're going to have to write then"
No, not really, all I need to do is list what is NOT ALLOWED (in the case of MPs rules, or is illegal in the case of the law), I don't actually have to mention anything that IS ALLOWED (or not illegal), if it's NOT mentioned them it's allowed or legal - is that a light bulb flickering or just more thunder and lightening I can see in the distance...
Complain about this comment
320 wrightingsonthewall,
It would be advisable not to erase the name of the Tory Grandee moat man from your memory, just in case you have forgotten,the name was Hogg.The family seem to have form. I was in the North East many years ago when his father, Quinton, a Tory trade minister turned up, a Tory Boy par excellence, with all the charisma of Harry Enfield at his worst, wearing a flat cap, and making a complete fool of himself during his visit. Even the Tories were embarassed, and that took some doing in those days. He finished up being a leading Lord of the Realm.
Complain about this comment
Can I propose a use for the spare plinth in Trafalgar Square? Not a guillotine - but all MPs should be made to stand up there and read out their expense claims in front of the public without a safety net.
Complain about this comment
At 113 on 14th, SECRETSKIVVER, wrote, Wait until after GE and let the Tories have a go. Frank Field and Kate Hoey come to mind.
Whilst I agree with the main thrust of your comment, is that fair? The current Speaker is Labour. The previous Speaker Betty Boothroyd (please come back) was Labour. I thought that protocol presented one about; that being so it is Tory or Lib Dems next, having missed a turn.
On the facts presented, Mackay should have resigned; but, and it is a big BUT, like many others, what is happening with the Balls Cooper duo? I do not buy the Telegraph is "planning a big one on them", this could go on for weeks and then quietly fade way. Neither Cameron or Brown waited for Telegraph presentations before dealing with MacKay and Morley.
If, again big IF there is nothing in the Balls Cooper allegations, let some-one say so, equally, if there is fraud, mistake or whatever, out with it. Two Tory members that I know, albeit backbenchers, have had no allegations, Carswell and Brazier. People in glass houses very rarely throw stones and Carswell has lobbed a boulder, wait for Monday or Tuesday for revelations.
Complain about this comment
#321
"You are swimming against a Tsunami of public opinion [invention to follow a URL for BBC Question time not quoted]"
Oh right, so 70 odd people in a studio, a handful of bloggers and another handful of VOX-POP interviews on the media make for a national opinion do they, next you;ll one telling us that one Swallow makes a summer...
Complain about this comment
"369. At 4:53pm on 15 May 2009, Boilerplated wrote:
#304
Then the rules are not robust enough..."
Maybe, Boilerplated, but I would also suggest that the people interpreting and benefiting inappropriately from the rules are not robust enough either....
Come on, Boilerplated, you must be The Speaker of the House of Commons in disguise. Own up!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS