Questions that MPs dread
Every receipt from every claim by every MP for four years made under a system which all parties now agree was not only open to abuse but all too often encouraged it.
The Commons has been bracing itself for this ever since they lost a battle in the courts to prevent publication under Freedom of Information legislation. What they were not ready for was a leak of every detail to a newspaper, probably in return for a large sum of money.
What ministers call "inadvertent mistakes" others will describe much less charitably. What they say was "within the rules" others will call plain greedy. This will damage not just them and the government but the reputation of politics as a whole.
Neverthless, what's been revealed so far looks unlilkely to force anyone from office and compared with allegations of fraud that politicians have faced in many other countries this would be regarded as small beer.
Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics. They'll tell you that they need to live in two places to do their job properly and that costs money which they're entitled to re-claim.
Tonight some are facing very awkward questions indeed and others - in all parties and at all levels - fear that they may be next.
I'm 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~28~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Bring it on ...
Why do we have to wait until July to see these facts? Is it that it will take Martin's gang that long to black out some of the more enlightening information? Once again the British people will likely be denied the right to know just how fast and loose their representatives play whilst serving themselves and lining their own pockets.
Complain about this comment
I paid it back when I was found out!
The fees office should have told me it was wrong!
It was within the rules!
I've done nothing wrong!
If these people try that in their next employment* they could well find themselves in court
*That is if they can find other employment after they are booted out at the election
Complain about this comment
CALL AN ELECTION. DO IT NOW. I WANT TO SAVE MY COUNTRY FROM THE ENEMY WITHIN- LABOURISM AND ITS VILE COHORTS IN EVIL THEIR FABIAN SOCIALISTS
Complain about this comment
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics".
Kinnock & Blair?
Complain about this comment
So the Justice Minister claims for money he didn't pay.
As far as i know thats fraud. A criminal offence.
Will Straw admit this ? Or will it be some of the usual 'i didn't know'
and 'anyway i've now repaid the money'.
Hmm, i see the fraudster is claiming the latter.
Complain about this comment
'Tonight some are facing very awkward questions indeed and others - in all parties and at all levels - fear that they may be next.'
Some resignations would be nice but I'm not holding my breath.
I, too, expect this to be a cross-party scam. It really is becoming something of a constitutional crisis. It would appear that half of our 'Honourable Members' are crooks.
Your Majesty. It's time to call time on the government of the day.
Complain about this comment
BBQ's not on the John Lewis List of allowable ACA expenses, I seem to recall a certain Home Secretary having claimed for one and insisting it was within the rules!
Complain about this comment
Do these tawdry politicians actually realise just how much they are loathed and despised out in the real world away from the insular freebie land of the Westminster Bubble ? They are no different to the benefit cheats they regularly attack in word and print. A disgrace the lot of them.
Complain about this comment
Can someone explain to me how Gordon Brown could claim any expenses for a flat in Westminster between 1997 and 2009 when he was living in a flat fully paid for by the tax payer above No 10/No 11 Downing Street.
I find it hard to believe that his brother paid for the Downing Street cleaner, given security and all that, or is it another McNultyism, I live in one place and claim for my parents/brother in another ?
Complain about this comment
Errrr - so Gordon Brown overclaims by 150 quid and the Commons office apologises for not spotting it? How does that work?! Gordon should be apologising for his incompetance in financial matters (not a huge surprise really tho, is it!)
Complain about this comment
Makes you wonder why the PM paid his senior exec brother at EDF £6.5K for cleaning and how did he find the time to do it, mind you it's makes you wonder how much his brother gave Gordon for not making the Power companies reduce there prices over the winter when the oil price was down???
Mind you Power corrupts and our leaders will show you how corrupt they can be when all the expenses come out.
We should get rid of all the party hacks who think they owe being a MP to the party that let them stand rather than the pepole who vote, lets see Joanna and some true people power supporters elected that with frighten them as much as Transparency....
Complain about this comment
If someone on Benefits was only half as 'creative' with 'the rules' they would be in prison or destitute by now..these people are despicable!!
Snouts in the troughs demeans pigs in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
The Government, the teachers unions, the teachers, the headmasters unions, the headmasters, the local education authority's
Thousands of people paid billions upon billions by the public to one end teach children.
So what is this despicable governments answer to its failings
It intends to bring the Armed forces in to restore discipline
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178508/Right-fall-line-orrible-little-pupils-Government-wants-military-run-state-schools.html
Mind you it takes a long time to ensure Scotland is bankrolled at Englands expense in both financial infrastructre and employment terms.
Complain about this comment
None of these people would last long in the real world, nor do they deserve to.
Roll on the General Election when those that royally deserve it will be consigned to the political midden. A sad end for the once great Labour Party.
It's unfair to talk about MPs in terms of pigs. Pigs are useful and intelligent animals. They don't fiddle their expenses, nor do they steal from the taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
I'd love to see just one MP stand up and declare support for a 'Halls of residence'and a rail pass idea. There wouldn't be any need to claim any expenses.
Of course not a single one will support it, they still think they can find a way to carry on fleecing the tax payer.
I can't see the British public accepting anything less now though. There's just been so much greed and lack of respect for the tax payer, it's truly sickening.
Complain about this comment
Am I the only one who is infuriated by the phrase "Within the rules". Surely we have the right to expect that MP's will behave with honesty and integrity. As an example, claiming for a second home may be within the rules but if the MP knows that he/she doesn't actually need that second home then it's a clear misuse of public funds? Knowing what a parlous state the country's finances are in it is surely down to public servants to save every penny possible?
Complain about this comment
Nick, you make very valid points. Shouldn't we now start to impose some really tight control of public spending. When I have to stay away on business I use a Travelodge. It's clean and inexpensive. Why don't we provide some good basic accommodation for MPs working from home and take complete control of their expenditure? I think that MP's should lead by example. The country is bust. We can't afford to pay for the care of our elderly - people who have often worked and paid taxes all their lives. A perfect example is what will be spent on re-decorating No10 when Mr Brown leaves at the next election. Inexcusable.
Complain about this comment
Well said ScallyWag42 (comment #14) I couldn't have put it more eloquently myself. I would have just added, though, ...."and scum always rises to the top".
Complain about this comment
"Neverthless, what's been revealed so far looks unlilkely to force anyone from office and compared with allegations of fraud that politicians have faced in many other countries this would be regarded as small beer"
I own and run a small business. If I, or any of my employees fiddled our expenses on the scale now being observed by our political class, arguing that our thieving was "small beer" would cut no ice with the HM Revenue & Customs. Employees would be sacked on the spot. I would be fined and/or face a custodial sentence.
Politicians just get away with it (with my money). Nick, it reads as if you condone this political gangsterism - and I'm paying you too. Something stinks here.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Nick, right off the pace again! I'd be out of a job if I was as good at it as you! " Don't get rich in politics " ? Cooper & Balls ain@t done bad; Home Secretary fraudster Jacqui Smith lives quite well ! Gordon and Alistair really know how to feel our pain ! yeeaahh ! Get some realism into your reporting even if the truth is too much for you to stomach !
Complain about this comment
"Nevertheless,whats been revealed so far looks unlikely to force anyone from office"
How true when we consider how Smith and McNulty have survived with their
jobs intact.
However,with further guff promised by the Daily Telegraph,this will make
party political campaigning much more interesting and spicy!How many M.Ps
will come out of this whiter than white? How many times shall we have to hear the bleat that "It was in the rules"?
This info gives us a new criteria for choosing where to put our cross come election day.Good.
Complain about this comment
Give them £250k - £500k per year and let them trough away. This is taking up the news agenda ... what about my pension, jobs risk, schools SATS, NHS funding ... you know, the boring bits!
Complain about this comment
I'd like to know how many claims there are for £249 )for plumbers, decorators etc) there are where no receipt is necessary.
I agree with a previous posters who compares these MPs with benefits cheats
The phrase "the lowest of the low" brings these MPs and benefits cheats together quite nicely, I think.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick. You are paid by the public, not the Labour Party. If you still wish to support Captain Gordon and the Titanics, you are free to do so, but in your own time please. The "small beer" comment is risible, and would probably would not have been made if the Opposition expenses had been revealed first. Instead of defending the indefensible, why not run the story that Ed Miliband, Alan Johnson and Baby Benn appear to be upright and honest?
Complain about this comment
Mr Brown submitted claims for incidental expenses such as calling in Rentokill to deal with an infestation of mice at the property, at a cost to the taxpayer of £352.
In 2006, he accidentally submitted the same bill, for £153 for plumbing work at the Fife home, twice, and was paid accordingly on each occasion. Yesterday, a spokesman told The Daily Telegraph: The bill which had been accepted by the fees office was inadvertently assigned to two quarters. When this inadvertent error was discovered, the amount was immediately repaid.
The Prime Minister is believed to have repaid the second bill yesterday after being approached by The Daily Telegraph.
Repaying the bill yesterday of course absolves The P.M. of all responsibility for his "error".
Complain about this comment
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, repaid £1,700 that he overclaimed for council tax soon after it transpired that all MPs expense receipts would be published.
Another case of attempting to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. It just doesn't wash!
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
MP's expenses 'probably in return for a large sum of money'? So you imply by you (HP)source, but I would like to think a member of HMG civil service has enough of these criminals and cheats.
Within in the rules, that's what the Nazis said didn't they?!
Xxxx
Complain about this comment
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics. They'll tell you that they need to live in two places to do their job properly and that costs money which they're entitled to re-claim."
Nick, Possibly that is the problem. A lot of them go into politics without many assets but acquire them on the journey. I remember how in 97 a lot of new Labour MP's came to Westminster and were worried about how they would survive financially. It would be interesting to track their progress up the asset ladder. Go and do some research Nick and come back to us with some interesting facts to back up the MP's claims of poverty. My perception is that it doesn't stack up.
Complain about this comment
DEPUTY PM John Prescott getting taxpayers to foot the £323 bill for repairing his toilet seat twice in two years. He also repeatedly claimed the maximum for food £4,800-a-year while banging in a 2006 claim for £6,772.27 for work on his designated second home. It included having mock Tudor beams stuck on the front of the eight-bed turreted pile in Hull.
The toilet thing is no surprise. I wonder why.
Complain about this comment
Why do MPs claim for bathroom plugs and wooden beams? Answer: Because they can. It's as simple as that. It's no good calling them greedy and self-serving when they are acting within the rules. If I could claim for fixtures and fittings in my house then I would - I'd be stupid not to.
We also need to guard against this 'trial by media'. It's bad enough that Joanna Lumley dictates immigration policy, now the Telegraph tries to get rules changed. It's not good. What next, Jordan setting educational policy?
To the people who want MPs wages screwed down too low, ask yourself this: If wages are low, who could afford to stand as an MP? Answer: Those who are rich enough not to concern themselves with money. This could lead to idle rich people becoming MPs and we don't want that to happen. The wage needs to be a decent one to attract a wide variety of people, rich and poor. I'd say £150,000 plus the ability to reclaim a very limited number of legitimate out-of-pocket expenses (petrol, excessive car miles, rent, etc). Make it like a normal company's expense policy (like mine!). Mirrors, plugs and pornography they can pay for themselves!
Complain about this comment
Do you think MPs will be apologising for spending all that money on legal fees to hide their thieving ways?
And does anyone doubt that the real reason for delaying publication is to see if they can hide any more of their corruption?
All MPs have either been dishonest or complicit by not whistleblowing.
'Dont get rich in politics'?
Just check their net worth before becoming MPs and after...
Complain about this comment
"Give them 250K - 500k per year and let them trough away" says Stargazer
comment #22.
No!Why should we? That wouldnt stop them finding new ways to fleece us,the
taxpayers.No wonder Michael Martin tried every way to stop these outrageous
claims being made public,using our money of course.What we have heard so far constitutes fraud,and the claim by Andy Burnham that his wife would divorce him if his expenses were not paid is risible!
Now Nick,a bit more serious tut-tutting please!It may seem "small beer"to
you,but the public regards it in a much more serious light.
Complain about this comment
To me, the whole issue of MP's expenses is that so many of them have sought to maximise the amount they claim, rather than keeping claims as low as possible so as to save taxpayers' money. This is shameful behaviour that demonstrates disdain for the people they purport to serve.
I fear that things are even worse among the MEPs in Brussels - we have no idea what they are up to, probably far worse.
Complain about this comment
BTW: Nick
Gordons: £6,500 for cleaining.
You say Brown claims to have actually had a formal contract detailing costs and hours in a cleaning agreement with his brother.
Thats seems very, very formal... Even more formal than the public would expect...
Have you seen this contract?
Complain about this comment
These people govern our country and should be beyond reproach but the expection of honesty and integrity from our 'leaders' is well and truly misplaced. Does it send a certain signal to the rest of the population ? It gives a clear indication that you can, and should try to get away with anything you can, and if you get found out you can claim it was a mistake and repay the money.Tell your children that this is ok.
The sums involved may be small but it indicates a state of mind, and does anyone think that if they could get their snouts into a bigger trough they wouldn't.
What we don't know is whether they snuffle at the 'golden' trough called the stockmarket. I wonder whether tips, signs, indications flow through to politicians from 'those in the know' . Considering some bank shares have tripled in value in the past six weeks vast amounts of money can be made if you 'know'. Has anyone considered the rushed halving in CGT brought in last year under the pretence of 'increasing small business tax' ? If there is a 'golden' trough, then those who 'accidently' claim, surely would feel it as their right to maximise their opportunity.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Nick - 'small beer' just doesn't rub with the other 55m people in the UK - when I worked for 47 years in commercial life - unlike so many of our dear MPs - including most of the Cabinet - if anyone even so much as claimed a newspaper whilst staying away on company business they could face the sack. And the Inland Revenue (HMRC) were even stricter on annual tax returns! A friend of mine was a self employed carpenter/joiner who included a box of brass screws within the expenses of his annual tax return. His tax inspector asked him to prove that the screws were not for 'personal use' - I joke not!
Our dear 'girls and boys' in Parliament - paid for by us hard working, tax paying and put upon folk should be made to suffer the same fate.
'An oversight' indeed - what complete twaddle! Anyone claiming expenses has to sign the claim form with the receipts attached. At that moment they are required legally and morally to ensure the claim is correct and honest and WITHIN THE SPIRIT not WITHIN THE RULES! That is the moment of truth - not when they subsequently get rumbled!
I dispair, I really do
Complain about this comment
Nick:
'compared with allegations of fraud that politicians have faced in many other countries this would be regarded as small beer.'
These are same politicians who jail people who 'accidently' over claim benefits and public sector expenses.
Complain about this comment
150,000!!
Leave that sort of salary to the House of Lords; the House of Commons' renumeration should be set at about double the average wage of their constituency - civil servants do all the work, anyway. MPs are just supposed to be the Vox Populis of their constituency in Westminster. Then add salary as their responsibilities increase - committees, departmental/shadow responsibilities - like teachers.
Single Halls of Residence, canteens and a pool of civil service researchers, rather than controlling their own staffing costs. It's the only way to regain public confidence.
Complain about this comment
I will accept that it is all "within the rules" when all of these excesses are repaid in full to the public purse
Remember that if you cleaned your house, the taxman wouldn't allow it on expenses to set against tax
Complain about this comment
You say that there have been no huge, resignation matters found.
I would argue that Peter Mandelson putting a bill for thousands of pounds for property maintenance days after stating that we was no longer going to be an MP must be close.
How on earth could he explain that the maintenance was needed so he could perform the duties of an MP if he was not going to be one?
He evidently had no intention of using the money for the benefit of his consituents,just his own.
Therefore, it is not within the rules, therefore must be seen as a resignation matter.
I suppose you could argue that him getting the money for maintenance meant that he could sell the house more easily. This meant that he could afford to stop being an MP. If I lived in his constituency, I think I would see him NOT being my MP as a benefit!!!!
I would also suggest that Alistair Darling changing the location of his 2nd home four times is more for his benefit than his constituents.
Did he, by any chance, claim large amounts for his 2nd home within months of changing its location???
Steve.
Complain about this comment
if i steal something "inadvertently" i am still guilty of stealing.....if i pay back a sum i stole when i have been found out does not make me less guilty (and how much would have been paid back if it wasnt for the freedom of information act!)...all this "within the rules " is a disgrace...why does gordon brown even have a second home allowance given he has lived in a grace and favour home for the past twelve years....If i as an employee tried any of these tricks the tax authorities would be down on me like a ton of bricks...and the fraud squad would be knocking on my door.
Complain about this comment
Straight from Mandy's email; bbc seems to pay handsomely for copy-paste (or [Ctrl]+C, [Ctrl]+V).
What those who seem to be willing to give politicians the benefit of the doubt seem to forget is that politicians should err on the side of caution rather than claim aggressively and then say they're sorry and will repay. People entering politics should be willing to enter a world of public scrutiny and they should make an effort to appear clearner than clean. Otherwise politics and politicians will loose all credibility.
"Not get rich in politics ...."
The median UK salary is just shy of 25,000 pounds. 50% of those in work earn less than this number. Compare that to politicians salary, their very generous pensions and their allowances which are net of tax. Maybe politicians don't become millionaires, but they are paid handsomely and I do not get the impression that many have been able to earn more money outside the public sector or consultancies paid by the public sector.
All the families jumping on the bandwagon confirm that politics is a well-paid activity, at least compared to their previous jobs.
A few bandwagon examples:
-Balls and Cooper
-Milliband and Milliband
-Alexander and Alexander
-Benn and Benn
-Blair and Ms Booth's stepmother
-Dunwoody and Dunwoody
-the speaker and his son MSP
-Kinnock, Kinnock's wife MEP, Kinnock's son British Council
-McNulty and his wife an educational watchdog chair
-Kelly and her hubby working for the local government
Complain about this comment
No ifs no buts...
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_064814
Excerpt from this excellent government resource:
"Benefit theft is a crime - NO IFS, NO BUTS
Published: Monday, 30 October 2006
A new hard-hitting campaign launched today warns benefit thieves that there is no excuse for benefit theft - commit it and you will be caught and punished.
The NO IFS, NO BUTS campaign warns benefit customers that excuses will be tolerated if they deliberately hide changes in their circumstances that might affect their benefits. Failure to do so could constitute fraud.
The campaign will feature television adverts and billboard posters highlighting the problem of taxpayers' money being stolen by benefit thieves. Last year benefit thieves received over 52,000 prosecutions, sanctions and cautions for a range of fraud offences.
John Hutton, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said:
"Benefit fraud is theft, and we are committed to catching benefit thieves and bringing the toughest penalties against those who commit this crime - no ifs, no buts.
"The public are fed up with benefit thieves stealing money intended for society's most vulnerable. There are no excuses for taking money that isn't yours.""
Complain about this comment
Did Brown declare the rental income on his sublet consitutency office in his tax return before this illegal practice was found out? Do we know?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Any chance of a good investigative journalist peeking at EDF's books to see how much Bruv Andrew Brown claimed from them for "a cleaning lady"
Complain about this comment
These people are on the gravy train and need sorting out. Brown and Labour are just out of touch with almost every class in the country
(With the possible exception the of the full time professional benefit taker sub-class). The other parties have probably got their snouts into the trough as well , again the whole lot of them need a good speaking to (perhaps another celebrity come politician type character) .
Also Robinson point about this being 'small beer' compared to other countries- which ones is he comparing the UK to ? A banana republic?
Complain about this comment
"Small Beer" Nick.................you never cease to amaze me.
If this is small beer, how about telling the culprits (Brown & co) to find a few home owners struggling to pay their mortgage and giving this expense money them to stave of the bailifs.
Nick, you live in Ivory tower land with your boss Gordon and his corrupt cronies.
You really don't get how people are struggling on the street do you.
The time has come for a no confidence vote from respected Labour MP's like Frank Field..........at least the guy has the guts to own up that things have gone badly wrong, and he was the guy who highlighted Browns pension robbing straight after his first budget.
Complain about this comment
Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell said, "We do respect public opinion and we do respect the need for change - and I think that change is coming, I hope it will come quicker and I hope the public will get the respect for MPs back which we do actually deserve at the end of the day."
(Mirthless laughter!)
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 would like to know which politicians are squeaky clean. These are the people we should seek to promote to high office, given that they acted honestly even though they assumed no-one would be able to find out what they were up to.
Complain about this comment
Clearly there are more revelations to come out in coming days and this will spread to all parties. I suspect that the real horror stories will be about people further down the Westminster food chain, I suspect that frontbenchers on all sides will have been more circumspect as they have more to lose, the backbenchers will probably have used the exepenses to inflate their incomes.
What strikes me is how the Commons' Fees Office has been little more than a rubber stamp operation! I work in the civil servie and I've had claims for £14 rail tickets to get to training courses reduced down on the slightest grounds. Mr Brown likes to drone on about "fairness" perhaps he should start by ensuring that MP's expenses are subject to the same scrutiny as the rest of the public sector.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I take it you wrote this in a hurry and was tired at the time. You completely miss the point. Whilst the amounts may be "small beer" the principle is the same. How any public servant can think it is right that their employer should pay for them to have a second home and pay for renovations etc is beyond me. We should be pressing for MPs to have to sit down with a panel of their constituents and defend these outrageous claims. Reasonable expenses - fine. New kitchens, bath plugs, patio heaters ..... NO. Lets highlight the good guys and get answers from the rest.
This episode is in keeping with Westminster. Why have a simple, cost effective solution (eg. civil service expenses) when you can have a ill-thought out and more costly approach. Why didn't the party of the hard working family sort it out? 12 years not enough?
Pooly paid MPs - don't make me laugh. £65K is hardly on the bread line and I do not see they wanting to get out. We do not need to pay them more for bankrupting the country.
Instead of this pallid, "balanced" view, lets have some incision. After all this crosses all party lines.
Complain about this comment
Nick
You made the following statement:
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics".
Errrrrr, have you asked Tony Blair, Patricia Hewitt, many of the last Tory administration etc? You might find that they're actually doing ok.
The sooner we cut out the 'poor politician who can only afford to serve us, yes us, by swindling us/sitting on the boards of several other companies at the same time' sob story the better.
They need to get their acts together, those that need to resign should be required to (by their leaders/party membership) and we should move forward!
Complain about this comment
Whilst the comment "small beer" may well be true when you look at the pure % of money fiddled against money available in the public purse it is still wrong!
MP's need their expenses paying, that's fair enough; but it should only be for expenses accrued during their duties. Nothing more, nothing less
Pretty much like the rest of us - but that's too much isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Whenever a shoplifter is caught they offer to pay, or else claim that they forgot to pay. The same excuses are being made here.
Complain about this comment
If those arrogant spongers in parliament had to face the true cost of living like us poor cows out here they might start to tell the truth about the state of the economy do something effective to improve things.
Complain about this comment
Taxman and wholly & exclusively come to mind. He who sets the rules should abide by them.
Er, Mr Taxman is this a no go area or one where you get your bonus for the next few years? How far do you go back? How long do records have to be kept?
Its time for Joe Public to get there own back. We need a bit more tax revenue to pay for the excess of this Labour con trick.
Complain about this comment
A bit of spin coming on here because I couldnt help but notice the lack of Tory names in the BBC report.
Yes I know that it only applies to Ministers for now, but are we saying that the Shadow Cabinet are all squeaky clean & have never put in a dodgy expense claim in their lives?
If Cameron tries to make this the case, a real Punch & Judy show will follow because there will be plenty of smoking guns just waiting to be found amongst the Millions of receipts.
As a private sector employee who has to account for every penny he spends on expenses & who cant even buy a pint of beer on tab, I find it offensive that Straw could of claimed 100 per cent of his Council Tax when he only paid 50 per cent.
If he had to put in proper receipts, how could this be possible?
To any normal person, this would appear to be fraud.
Perhaps the Taxman needs to be told?
Complain about this comment
I heard Harmann on the radio defending this as
a) its not as corrupt as other systems
b) it was within the rules
My response it that
a) so what - I'd have thought the 'mother of all parliaments' might aspire a teensy bit higher than that
b) some set of rules eh? So MP's don;t think they are paid enough and so pad their expenses - what a super example to set to the rest of the proles !
You are not paid enough ? do what the rest of us do - look for another job
And the worst bit is that Harmann said that the reason that the government tried to block publication under FOI is that they wanted to 'protect' some of the data - why ? because its embarrassing ?
However the government seems to have a different attitude to our data - quite happy for that to be available..
Mind you I suspect that come May a number of the worst offenders at padding expenses will be looking for another job ..
Complain about this comment
"Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman said no resignations were likely as all claims were within the rules."
The Court of Public Opinion no longer in session then, or did that just apply to Sir Fred`s pension debacle?
Details of all MPs expenses should be published now, rather than the cherry picking of the few. This would pull the rug from under the feet of The Telegraph and get everything out into the open.
Why wait until July when parliament is in recess? We need to know now what has been going on so MPs can be questioned before they disappear on their 13 week break. In the hope I suppose that will be forgotten about when they return.
Complain about this comment
If I heard Evan Davis correctly during the interview with Harman this morning the excuse that all this was "within the rules" does not stand up. Evan read out extracts from those rules that indicated a good deal of what has been claimed does not fall within them.
Also, one element of this farce that has been overlooked is the impact of the politicisation of the civil service. Surely any civil servant examining these claims for payment who was worth his salt would have thrown a good many of them out. If any of those people concerned are qualified accountants their professional bodies should be examining their competence.
Complain about this comment
Too many MPs have been proved greedy and unscrupulous. Too many feathering their own nests at our expense. The 'expenses' racket must stop. Let them vote themselves a rise in pay - they will of course - but
take away their expense accounts. The "2nd homes" scam has proved too much of a temptation to too many.
Too many , of all Parties have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, willing to commit near fraud for personal financial gain. They are disgusting.
Complain about this comment
It is easy to deplore the exaggerated expense claims and the quite overt manipulation of what can only be described as an incompetently organised and operated claims system.
However, our indignation needs to be balanced by an understanding of what is expected and what is acceptable.
I think the prevailing level of remuneration received by MPs is perfectly adequate for the task in hand. It need not be increased.
I have no problem with members with constituencies outside easy commuting distance of Wetsminster having a second home close to Westminster funded by the taxpayer. Only when I mean funded I mean the property is paid for but not the internal arrangements, not the domestic help and not the council tax. In no way can these be considered as legitimate expenses. Once this second home is sold then I would expect Capital Gains Tax to be paid on any surplus.
I also have no problem with members having their transport funded between Westminster and their constituencies and within those constituences. However, this should be based on the same criteria as applied to the general public by the Inland Revenue.
I also have no problem with members employing their family and friends as servants of the House on the basis that this employment is formally audited with measured outcomes.
What is apparent is the abuse of a feeble system. This says all that we need to know about the character of the worst abusers and how they should not be re-elected. It is not a case of who do they think they are but a case of who do they think we are. We should be fair but also very firm in our judgements.
Complain about this comment
Er I thought the Govt was saying it was the fault of greedy bankers?
Complain about this comment
Whatever happened to moral values. Just because the claims are " within the rules" the MP's must realise this is morally wrong.
Harman was on the BBC this morning. Can't she answer a direct question.
She said that the government was changing the system. No one asked her if this had not come to light would the system have been changed.
Brown has leader should do the decent thing and resign but I suspect he is having an extra layer of Teflon sprayed on this morning.
What I would like journalists to find out is what directorships the labour government have got lined up after the next election.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
You and the BBC's coverage of this story is an absolute disgrace. Time and time again, you have reassured us that most Mp's are honest, that everything was within the rules etc
And here you are doing it again: "what's been revealed so far looks unlikely to force anyone from office and compared with allegations of fraud that politicians have faced in many other countries this would be regarded as small beer."
Point 1 I know that ministerial fraud is widespread in certain countries on the continent, but that's one import, we in the UK could do without. Besides, fraud is fraud and a fiddle is a fiddle, whatever the amount claimed. It's the principle, something you seemed to have forgotten.
Point 2 As has been mentioned elsewhere. How is the Mandelson claim not a resignation matter? He claimed monies for the renovation of his constituency home, after he announced that he was standing down as an MP. Clearly, he was intending to sell the home (as he has done) and the renovations (we paid for) were designed to maximize the sale price on this property. Or are we supposed to believe that Lord Mandelson was intending to live in Hartlepool for the rest of his life?
Get real Robinson, and start reporting it like it is. These people might be your friends, but we the license-fee and tax-payers of this country pay your wages and expenses. We want honest reporting of the facts. And before some Labour troll has a moan. Yes I want Nick to be tough when he comes to sleaze from all parties so when the Telegraph reveals the scams of the shadow cabinet, which are no doubt as bad as the real cabinet I expect searching questions etc
Complain about this comment
Shall we all stand back and wait until the details of ALL parties expenses are revealed...before we begin our protestations at this LABOUR Government...just a thought.......??
Complain about this comment
Nick
You made the following statement:
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics".
Maybe not directly, but you forgot to mention about the second jobs, consultancies, Wives as Secretaries, kick backs from the Lobby groups etc.
Oh, & dont forget about the rather flexible expenses system that allows money to be made on second homes hundreds of thousands of pounds sometimes.
Im not allowed any second job because Im supposed to be committed to my employer by contract.
Blair has made Millions since leaving office & Cherie seems to have done rather well out of the Human Rights legislation - glad somebody has.
You need to look outside of the box Nick; nobody goes into politics for the right reasons any more.
Complain about this comment
"compared with allegations of fraud that politicians have faced in many other countries this would be regarded as small beer"
So are you saying that it's OK if our MPs are corrupt because they're not quite as corrupt as MPs in some other countries?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps an investigative journalist could push for Brown to release the original contract with his brother so it can be forensically tested for the age of the ink and we can all confirm that this contract was not manufactured, or doctored, very recently.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
From the Telegraph today an updated story with Downing St comment.
"Downing Street today released details of the contract for the cleaning at Mr Brown's flat.
A spokesman said there was nothing "unusual or wrong" in the arrangement, under which the Prime Minister's brother Andrew paid the cleaner directly for work.
Downing Street said that, for "a number of years", the brothers shared a cleaner. Andrew Brown paid the cleaner and then Gordon Brown paid him his share.
The contract shows that the cleaner was paid £357 a month - a rate of £4,284 a year - from December 2004 for work at both of the brother's flats in SW1.
The cleaner spent seven hours cleaning the then-chancellor's property and three hours on his brother's.
But the revelations from Number 10 are likely to give rise to questions as to why the Prime Minister did not simply lodge receipts directly from the cleaner. He has directly employed other cleaners."
7 hours cleaning a week seems a bit excessive especially when they are in recess for nearly half the year. That is unless she spent her time repainting the walls after nokia impacts.
This really is interesting, why would someone have a share of a cleaner knowing that he would claim on expenses, it would have been far easier to invoice directly. Unfortunately the way the this claim was submitted makes it look as it was a bogof deal, which is unfortunate when the person concerned is guided by his moral compass.
Complain about this comment
Post 62. Agree 100% Harman should have been asked about the Court of Public Opinion on MP's expenses.
I imagine the answer would have been short and sweet. "Send them down".
Complain about this comment
ianmac46 @69
principally you're right, but it's an eyeopener to see what the best paid politicians are up to
and you're so 'egassem no'
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Here are some questions that you might like to raise. Hat-tip to Dizzy
1) Between 2004 - 2006, Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and lived in the flat above Number 10 Downing Street having swapped the Number 11 residence with Blair some years before. So please, pray tell, why did his private flat need cleaning so much?
2) For a cleaner to clean a three bed Victorian terrace house it's going to take a cleaner a couple of hours a week at around £10 per hour. That's £2080 over two years. Brown's bill was £6577 over 26 months, why?
3) Given we're talking about a flat, not a house, that works out to a cleaner charging £30 per hour, for two hours per week. A tad steep, no?
4) Of course, it may be that actually the cleaner cost less. Reporting suggests that Gordon was just covering half the cost of the cleaning bill with his brother Andrew. What size property was Andrew having cleaned? Could it be Gordon just paid half the cost with our money for a quarter of the actual work?
The bottom line here is does a cleaner, where one half of its job is cleaning somewhere that is hardly lived in, really cost £12,000?
http://dizzythinks.net/
Complain about this comment
wouldn't it be reasonable to just pay MP's a decent salary and get rid of all expenses bar travel to and from constituency. We wouldn't then have the farce that is the expenses system.
Complain about this comment
First, while I can see the logic of expenses for travel and daily subsistence, I fail to see the logic of expenses for furnishings, home improvements and (heavens above) services like cleaners. Why not EITHER have the HoC authorities buy a 600+ bed hotel for the use of MPs when in London and dispense with all T&S and other expenses (bar travel between London and the consttuency) OR accept that MPs - like the rest of us - often have to work away but don't need the full trappings of glorious cultivated living to do it. I am amazed at the brazen cheek of MPs who think it acceptable to bleat about their 'selfless lifelong commitment to improving the lives of ordinary people in Britain' on the one hand, while signing expenses claims for new Italian silk designer curtains for the penthouse with the other. And by the way, given that their jobs are not permanent - they can be thrown out at regular elections - what in heavens name is wrong with RENTING a 'second home'? Oh, and while we are at it, can we set a radius limit to this nonsense of the 'London residence' in the first place? While the MP for Orkney clearly needs one, it isn't at all clear that an MP whose constituency and home are both within a one hour commute does. Reform sitting hours so that the House sits only between 0830 and 1800 for more weeks of the year and everyone can go home with the rest of us weary commuters - you know, the ones working to pay the taxes that support this sort of insanity...
Complain about this comment
Sure it needs sorting out but the fact that it is now being aired via the politically partizan Telegraph (who despite their enthusiasm for freedom of information will not identify their sources) will generate lots of heat but not much light. Apart from the odd inconsequential sacrifice do we really expect any major Conservative embarrassment?? What should have been a non-partizan cleansing of the stables will now become cheap electioneering as the Telegraph periodically dribbles out whatever toxic revelations it deems necesary to keep the Cameron bandwagon rolling..
When the dust settles and the bodies are dragged away will we be any closer to a situation where MPs from outside Greater London are permitted "reasonable" (as in Clapham Omnibus, or as in Argos Catologue) reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by having to come to the capital and little else? Don't hold your breath.
Maybe we should go back to the good old days when only toffs of independent means went into politics.
Complain about this comment
Why does no journalist,yourself included ask the simple question of any MP to justify their expenses on the,above reproach rule that they are supposed to abide by?
Asking Andrew Walker to justify some of his actions as head of the department that scrutinises(?) these claims would make for interesting viewing.
As for politicians not getting rich by entering politics it seems Blears seems to be able buy plenty of houses on her paltry salary.
Complain about this comment
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics. They'll tell you that they need to live in two places to do their job properly and that costs money which they're entitled to re-claim" Nick Robinson.
Excuse me, Nick, but isn't your job as a journalist to challenge what you are told rather than meekly repeat it in the media?
If an MP told me that I'd ask him/her to point out any poor MPs, any ex-MPs now living in poverty. I'd point out a large number of ex-MPs who have gained financially enourmously from politics. I'd say that I know people who commute from as far afield as Bouremouth to work in London and they would NOT be allowed to claim a second home under HMRC rules nor would 'normal' people be able to do the same if they worked in two different places and I'd ask why MPs should be treated preferentially to those they are supposed to be serving. I'd ask whether any other group of people could set their own rules on tax-free, taxpayer funded expenses and again ask why MPs think they are different. I'd ask whether defending themselves by saying 'they were in within the rules' really had any moral weight when they now admit that those rules were wholly inadequate.
In other words I would do the job YOU, Nick, are supposed to be doing. Of course, by doing so I might lose a cosy relationship with politician chums but at least I'm sure I'd know I was doing the right thing.
Complain about this comment
Nick - because you are in the Westminster bubble I rather think you miss the point. Virtually all of us in the real world would be fired if we so much as added a few pounds onto our expense claims.
The excuses I'm hearing 'it was within the rules'; 'it was cleared by the fees office'; 'I paid it back when I was alerted to it' just do not wash with us. We pay for these expenses; and we have had enough of it.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Here's a question next time you interview the PM. Did all of the £6k cleaning claim paid to his brother find its way to a cleaner?
Complain about this comment
"Questions that MPs dread"
Clearly wouldn't include any questions they are likely to be asked by Nick Robinson.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
before you get too deep into political apologist mode, consider the following.
MP's are elected to represent the interests of their constituents.
They are paid a salary for doing this, just like any other employee in this country.
They are expected to be honest and open in all their dealings.
Now when it comes to expenses and the rules it seems there is a deliberate campaign to defraud the public of money. The system is being blamed becasue it is too lax and open to abuse, yet this is the system that they have devised.
Apparently all the rules have been followed and unnamed people have approved payments that are found to have been wrong. Have these unnamed people been sacked or disciplined in any way, as would happen in the real world? - we pay for our mistakes. If an MP mistakenly claims for payment of council tax, who checks that the correct amount has been claimed? Why is this allowed to go unnoticed for 6 years?
Why does a well paid Chancellor of the Exchequer (who lives in an official residence in London) feel the need to claim from the state for cleaning of a second home which, by definition, does not get used much?
There is an Augean stables of a mess here which even Hercules would baulk at trying to clean up. What we need are 635 men in white suits to stand at the next election and get rid of the corrupt many who are treating us so contemptibly.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
It is clear that the publicly funded EBC is incapable of reporting impartially on the abuse of public funds by members of the Government. I suspect that is because you are an employee of a publicly funded organisation that does not appear to have any particular regard for transparency, accountability or efficency. It must be hard to criticise GB when you know that the Beeb and its employees are milking the taxpayer.
Why don't you declare a conflict of interest, and let the taxpayers judgement hold sway on this and related topics?
All the best
PS - when the Lib Dems and Conservatives come to the fore in this debate, try not to make more of an example of them just because you can. It is the government that needs to be called to account first and foremost.
Complain about this comment
International comparisons are irrelevant. These hypocrites have been plundering the public for all they could, while raising our taxes and lecturing us on how we should live our lives. Most taxpayers are a lot poorer than them.
Their pensions are a scandal too.
Your insider's complacency misjudges the public mood.
Complain about this comment
69
Many on this blog are calling for MPs of all parties to be held to account. But the simple fact is that Labour have been in power for nearly 12 years and appear to have been complicit in creating an additional salary for MPs via the expenses. Would the Tories/Libs done anything if they were in power - probably not - but it matters not because Labour did nothing. To claim to represent the "hard working family" or the "working class" whilst claiming an amount equivalent to the average UK salary for a second home, on top of the £65K salary is a disgrace. And then they tried to block publication of these details. If this govn was in the business of serving the people they would have been open and honest - after all they have the majority in the HoC.
Complain about this comment
When writing: Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics, Im not sure if Nick Robinson was in agreement or simply stating yet another lie promulgated by our politicians.
Rich, of course, is a relative value, but just one example: John Prescott. How does a Merchant Navy Steward end up owning an 8-bedroomed house in Hull, valued at about £500,000, plus a £450,000 London flat? Additionally, he will receive a £100,000 resettlement allowance following his retirement, and a pension of about a £120,000 a year.
What would have been the value of his home (singular) and pension as a Navy Steward?
Complain about this comment
Oh! How I'd like some of your " Small beer"
Are you intent on insulting the public of the UK with this ridiculous defence of the indefensible?
I suspect , if you were a Chinese polician found fiddling the books , or even a Thai one, that no one would be putting forward the " we're not as bad as..... "argument.
I suspect the politician would be publicly hanged or shot!
Small beer?? Add the whole lot up and we'll find out just how much
" small beer" this lot have been swimming in!
The BBC really has lost its integrity ,just like the politicans at Westminster.
Time for the public to STOP paying the salaries.
Complain about this comment
44. ColonelDigby
Well spotted. One set of rules for the governed, another set for the governors.
The "within the rules" arguement is a nonsense. They are well aware of how tax and benefits are regulated in the real world, why should they be treated any differently?
From the cases already appearing the question of fraud must come into play. Here is the official port of call for complaints:
http://www.sfo.gov.uk/cases/guidance.asp
Good luck!
On politicians in general and the esteem in which they are held:
Nadine Dorres on QT last night; "Trident is not a weapon of mass destruction."
Where do they find these people?!? Perhaps there should be an entrance exam.
Complain about this comment
Some excellent posts today.
But no-one has pointed out that MPs have been given a whole month to go through their expenses to ensure that they are correct!!! Hmmmm. Just another dodge in a whole dodgy scandal, with everyone concerned doing all they can to cover their backs.
If any of us posting here - MPs and spin doctors excluded of course - were to give these excuses to the Inland Revenue they would wipe the floor with us, and quite rightly.
The Inland Revenue, allegedly, approach their cases from the position that you are guilty and must prove yourself innocent. The general public has taken the same position with MPs and other people in power. Quite rightly so in my opinion. They must prove themselves innocent to the "The Court of Public Opinion."
As for "small beer", to someone with little income - pensioners, the poor, etc, this is "very big beer indeed". And while what happens elsewhere may be "enormous beer" and just as fraudulent as benefits cheating.
Complain about this comment
It matters not that the claims were within the rules - the British have a good sense of what is right and what is wrong, and the British public have a right to expect their cabinet ministers to exercise that sense of right and wrong.
Using taxpayers' money to pay thousands to your brother for a cleaner, or using a loophole to claim 2nd home expenses on multiple homes is plainly wrong. Simple as that.
Our cabinet seem intent on taking as much of taxpayers' money as they can for their own benefit, instead of for the benefit of the country. Such appalling irresponsibility is frankly unacceptable in a modern government.
Complain about this comment
There are dubious machinations afoot here.
The information arrived in the hands of the Telegraph by nefarious means. This has been picked up as a leak to a Tory supporting newspaper by some quarters. Anyone who reads the broadsheets regularly will know that the old Torygraph stopped being that some considerable time ago.
That being the case what are we to read into the publication of the Cabinets expenses first?
Looks like an elephant trap for the Opposition to me. Or it could be that the public outrage will escalate with the increasing ludicrousness of the claims yet to be revealed.Be sure there will be damage to the Tories to come.
How much of this did Gordon know before hand? His Youtube horror show is now being used by the likes of Harriet Harman and Liam Byrne to say that he was aware of the problem and trying to fix it, but the nasty Opposition wouldn't back him. Another trap sprung.
All this is more damaging to the country as a whole than any individual or party. Viva la revolution?
Complain about this comment
Nick - I just wonder whether you may have become too close to the Westminster Village. You are too kind to our MP's over this matter. Take the cases of Browns double claiming for plumbing and Straws over claiming on Council Tax.As someone who woked in local govt for many years I can assure you that such claims made by any local govt officer would have resulted in dismissal for gross misconduct on the grounds of fraudulent use of public funds - indeed as a Personnel Manager I have indeed been involved in sacking people just for that sort of offence. For Brown to wring an apology out of the fees office when it was him who signed off the double claim is disgraceful.For Straw to claim it was done in error and when he found out about he corrected it ( waa that when he realised it would be published by the way !) it doesn't wash as he again was the one signing off for the claim. I can really really assure you Nick that such excuses would not wash for any other public servant making these claims and I am not sure you have really recognised just how serious these matters are.I could also mention the quite disgraceful practice of some MP's doing up second homes, selling them off at a profit, pocketing the money and then repeating the practice over and again.
Harriet Harman, kept saying ad nauseum this morning that it was all within the rules, but there is a preamble to the rules talking about the spirit of what should be claimed which would seem to negate much of what has in fact been claimed.Evan Davis was absolutely brilliant this morning in pessing the hapless Harman on this matter without sadly any success.
I'm a Cameron supporter but I don't kid myself that the Tories (or indeed Lbi/Dems) will come out any cleaner on this matter than Labour - it will look worse for Labour though as they will (foolishly) keep prattling on about having a moral compass etc etc and I'm not sure how impressed their core vote will be with their Leader and Foreign Secretary claiming for cleaning expenses and gardening in these troubled times.
Complain about this comment
NIck, I think that was you on Today this morning, saying that people don't go into politics to earn money, or words to that effect. Let me give you a few names; M. Thatcher, J. Major, and T. Blair. A nice little list of people who discovered a whole heap of nice little earners when they left politics. But who would have wanted ladle out money to these three if they hadn't been politicians in the first place?
Complain about this comment
I think Harriet Harman's phrase "The Court of Public Opinion" is about to turn on her and her cronies.
Just another Labour sound-bite coming back to haunt them. Ask Woolas, Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas.
Complain about this comment
When I worked for British Steel (back in the dark ages!) we were given what was called "out of pocket expenses" if we had to travel away from our home, stay in hotels, eat out etc. Now, it was up to us if we stayed at the expensive places and used the mini bar or stayed in a B and B and used the rest to buy whatever we wanted. Not without flaws I know but it was a blanket amount and up to us how and where we spent it.
Moving on, and a bit flippant, but the thought occurred to me that we could do with Joanna Lumley, Daniel Hannan, Carol Vorderman and Kirstie Allsop in the next Government! At least they are in touch with the situations in the public. -;)
Complain about this comment
The gravy train is about to arrive at its final destination but only because the engine has run out of steam without a driver, the tracks have disappeared and all the wheels have fallen off.
MPs expenses and their general arrogance should be seen in the same light as the culture which existed within the banks, the public sector, the regulators and establishment which have led us to the current situation which is the Credit Crunch.
Everyone, even those state run economic and political editors, attempt to forensically analyse the actual cause of the Credit Crunch such as the removal of Glass Seagal, the sub prime toxic debt, Thatcher selling council houses.....(blah, blah, blah).
However the main cause of our current woes was the failure of our establishment to notice that anything was wrong because they had accepted that it was right and this goes for all parties.
When I hear politicians, bankers, the public sector regulators and other establishment figures, (and fellow bloggers) saying that no one could have seen the present economic events coming, it is because their noses were so deep in the trough of the plenty that they were oblivious to the inevitable crash that was happening all around them.
This expenses scandal is not 'small beer' and Nick should be ashamed of himself for belittling what is in reality a 'constitutional crisis' but then he too, like many in the media who feed off politicians, are blind to the corruption and immorality that infects and permeates all parts of public life.
The solution to this problem is very simple. MPs should appoint an all party committee of Lords to further appoint an agreed independent person outside Parliament to look at what goes on in the private sector with large blue chip companies such as BP, Shell and so on.
These companies have employees who have exactly the same issues as MPs such as distance working and working in two work places and have done fro years. This problem is not peculiar to MPs; after all Nick, you too work away from home all the time.
This independent person should also look at work practices such as working normal hours like 9 to 5 and no night sittings (except in emergency), and fewer holidays. MPs should also be compelled to attend more debates; if not let's close Parliament and have a teleconference debate between the three or four MPs who do turn up (we'd not only save money on second homes here, you'd also save the travelling expenses too).
There are several luxury flats and houses dotted all over London and if MPs need one on a permanent basis because they live far away, that's fine.
It's also fine if they need a luxury flat for one night because of urgent business and they live a few miles away. No one minds expenses being claimed, just so long as no one is out of pocket whilst doing company business.
These flats are available for rent, for one night or three years, it's your choice. The only proviso I would say here is that the rental flat must be owned by a non-related person. This way you won't get an MP renting a luxury flat from their relative or friend at top rate.
What annoys everyone and this is why Nick's commentary and others in the media completely miss the point is the fact that MPs are using their expenses as another income stream; small beer indeed.
This expenses problem is not hard to sort out. All it requires is for MPs to realise that freebie world is now far behind us and as hard as it will be to give up their money churning ATMs, the time has come to stop misbehaving and taking all of us for a ride.
Politicians are the new greedy monarchs who Cromwell and the will of the people got rid of in the 17th Century. It's now time for them to shape up or ship out if they don't like it.
And another thing.....
If MPs continue to live without ever having to dip their hands in their own pockets, how on earth can they make meaningful decisions regarding the public finances. I mean if politicians don't feel the pain of paying money away, they have no idea what is like to foist an endless tax regime on the citizens they are supposed to represent.
This is the point; constituents are not being represented by their MPs. .
If the media want to earn their keep right now, they should be supporting the people and putting forward suggestions as to how improvements can be made, not brushing it aside as if it is an irritation.
And finally.....
This expenses scandal is starting to make Fred Goodwin look like Mother Theresa!
Complain about this comment
Browns Cleaner
This was for his second home
He was living in number 11 or number 10 so why so much cleaning of a flat he was not living in?
And why was the cost being shared with his brother?
Have our Political journo's got any brains? They couldn't detect a pint in a pub.
Every aspect of this country is now Moribund the Government is like a drunk on his way home bouncing off every wall and falling in to every hole.
They have administered this country in to Financial Political and Moral collapse but the worst thing is the checks and balances such as the press have become like poodles to people like Mc Poison.
The only thing that gives any hope is people like Miss Lumley and Guido Fawkes.
The post Hutton BBC is no long enlightening the people to the true state of affairs it is too close to the government.
I would say that this is the most dangerous time for the BBC as it looks irrelevant as can be seen from the fact that it took the Blog sphere Guido Fawkes to break the cosy Westminster lobby control by ZaNuLabour and got rid of Mc Poison and Draper.
If you want to see the true opinion out in the real world Google the words
Gordon Brown is a
and see what most people have been writing as can be seen by the predictive results.
Complain about this comment
There is no excuse for any public servant to immorally and without justification help her or himself to taxpayers'money , whether within the rules or not , to remain in office. The fact that the rules are vague and no criminal act has been committed because of this fact , does not excuse the greed being demonstrated by our so called political elite in taking money they are not morally entitled to from the public purse. Within the rules it may be ,but in any other sphere of society it is theft , and should be regarded as such. I trust that the selection committees of people like Straw , Blears and others of the same persuasion to lucre will have the courage to deselect them as parliamentary candidates before the next election; a forlorn hope I fear, knowing the culture ingrained in local Labour party headquarters.
Complain about this comment
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics"
Yes you do.
Complain about this comment
We keep hearing how the "Authorities" and the "Fees Office" approved all the MP's claims. Who are the people actually involved and who regulates and audits their performance? Could it be a committee of MP's?
Also, when an MP makes a capital gain by selling their second home after making improvements paid for by the tax-payer, is he/she liable to pay capital gains tax or can this home then be called his/her main residence to avoid this tax?
If you could answer these questions millions will be grateful.
Complain about this comment
Wasn't it a cheek, that parliment fought publication of these expenses? As taxpayers and voters we are the employers of these people. Imagine going to your boss and telling him "You're not entitled to see the detials, just pay me the money i've claimed"
Complain about this comment
Are you were going to provide some hard evidence for your oft repeated claim that parliamentarians in other countries are much worse than ours? I've noticed that in other countries politicians are sent swiftly to gaol when they are guilty of corruption so it tends to be less widespread.
Complain about this comment
A question they must dread refers to how much lavatory paper they buy. Considering how full of it they are, the amounts of paper purchased must be considerable.
Complain about this comment
There are lots of people rightly incredulous at the blatant excesses, Tudor beams to enhance house looks, multiple sets of Beds & Tellies to furnish 2nd, third, fourth homes on some sort of rotation system - even these silly rules don't allow this without collusion with the 'Fees office' - but I want to look at some of the other things that pass as "not too bad" in light of much heavier crimes.
Nick says that there isn't much to worry about BG's cleaning - I beg to differ, if only to highlight the "different world" in which our representatives live compared to the rest of us. Where does GB's family live? I've heard that he hires out his constituency home because we tax payers put him up at our expense, quite rightly, in grace and favour accommodation (No.10? Chequeurs? not sure). Let's say that we allow him a lower profile second home in London. Is he staying with his family or getting away from them for some alpha male time with his brother? If this latter then we shouldn't pay. If his family lives there then My family makes its mess and clears up after itself or lives in a mess - it's called life. If we get cleaning help because we both work to pay for our home then it might be 2-3 hours a week at £10 / hour - we can't claim it from anybody. Would he be allowed to claim cleaning expenses on his constituency home? Couldn't he use some of his rental revenue to keep his flat clean and tidy and give us a break? This might not be criminal, but it's taking the Mick and disqualifies him from contributing any comment on a fair system because he's completely disconnected - nothing new there.
Harriet on R4 this morning was shameful.
- Apparently, the corruption of our politicians is nothing compared to some other countries: we should be grateful. Well sorry for us expecting high standards. If she wants to represent a country with lower standards, please go and find one - our high expectations are NOT the problem.
- Claims have been in 'Good Faith' under a flawed system that needs revision. I'm sorry but good faith should not be about getting what you can from a naff system that relies on trust, justified by the fact that a lot of other crooks are doing it too. Good faith has to be about the promise to serve and not rip us off.
- Let's be nice and assume that Harriet is one of the few in Cabinet that is beyond reproach. Her party is failing to take action against those wrong doers - such inaction condones the crime. If she wants to talk on this matter then integrity demands that she should leave her party and throw rocks as a clean independent. There is no such thing as a clean MP in a rotten party - This goes for all parties. Until the good ones take action against 'the few' then they are all tainted.
- Finally the Fees Office allowed the various claims and apparently even encouraged abuse of the system. The Fees office should be held to account. They are paid by us to hold our MPs accountable about expenses, not to turn a blind eye or help MPs steal from us. Harriet was using their acceptance of bogus claims as justification for the claims themselves - unbelievable. Administration of expenses is not fit for purpose. Sackings are required, no pension, prosecutions need to be brought.
I'd like to say that Harriet went down in my estimation today, but this is not the first time she has tried to defend the indefensible. If you are not part of the solution, Harriet, you are part of the problem. Now please, go away and leave us alone you sanctimonious excuse for an MP.
Complain about this comment
I see that there are NINE whole pages on the expenses row in the Telegraph today, with more to come.
Michael Martin and Baroness Uddin will probably get a couple of pages each.
This stinks.
Complain about this comment
Nick, for some strange reason I don't notice much sympathy for MPs in the postings here. Maybe the "court of public opinion" is out of step with politicians here.
Complain about this comment
Regarding the PM's flat cleaning, can somebody please answer me this.
Since May 1997, Gordon Brown has had first Number 11 and then 10 as his official residence paid for by the state. Since becoming PM he also has use of Chequers and other grace and favour pads. I can understand why he would need to maintain a home in his constituency in Fife but why should he have been able to claim for a London flat?
How often did he stay there?
And if he wasn't using it much then who was?
Complain about this comment
I particularly like Guido Fawkes definition of the comments coming from Harman et al.
It has since been corrected - I knew it was going to come out and it was such a blatant fiddle that I realised I had to repay the fraudulently claimed money before it came out.
The Fees Office approved the payment - the Fees Office always take the word of honourable members. They always make the payment without question.
It was a clerical error - it was a small fiddle.
Lessons have been learned - we have got away with it, but we wont do it again.
We have to have two homes to do our job properly - why stay in a hotel when we can build a property portfolio at the publics expense.
Claims were made in good faith - we have always got away with it in the past.
It was within the rules - MPs make the rules to suit themselves. MPs are lawmakers, judge and jury. It is a joke at our expense. They really are almost all at it.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and just another thought on this whole "you don't get rich by going into politics" idea:
Nick, perhaps you could tell us what percentile of the UK income distribution you are in if you are earning:
a) a backbench MPs salary
b) a ministerial salary
And that's before you add on the value of expenses, which clearly go way beyond reimbursing necessarily incurred out of pocket expenses.
Maybe you don't usually get Fred-Goodwin-style rich by going into politics (although I suspect some do), but you certainly get to be what would seem to be very rich by the standard of most ordinary people.
Complain about this comment
Gosh Nick, you are so out of touch with "The Court of Public Opinion" on this one it's unbelievable!
"Every receipt from every claim by every MP for four years made under a system which all parties now agree was not only open to abuse but all too often encouraged it."
Too often encouraged it? If you walk by a window and it has a fruit pie on the sill cooling down, is that encouraging theft? Because the temptation is there does not mean you have to succumb to it!
===
"The Commons has been bracing itself for this ever since they lost a battle in the courts to prevent publication under Freedom of Information legislation."
As Jacqui Smith is fond of reminding us, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
===
"What they were not ready for was a leak of every detail to a newspaper, probably in return for a large sum of money."
Why should the payment of a fee for a story make the story any less valid? I note that the authorities confirm that the information is accurate. It just means that MPs have not been able to redact (censor in proper language) the most damaging parts!
Clearly this information is in the public interest, and given the attitude this government has towards whistleblowers, who can begrudge the whistleblower the chance of some compensation for the expected loss of their job.
===
"What ministers call "inadvertent mistakes" others will describe much less charitably. What they say was "within the rules" others will call plain greedy. This will damage not just them and the government but the reputation of politics as a whole."
Inadvertent mistakes just will not wash, Nick. AS others have already pointed out here, can shoplifters now use the "MP Defence" and get off any charges simply by repaying the money when the have been caught red-handed? It's exactly the same principle.
===
"Neverthless, what's been revealed so far looks unlilkely to force anyone from office and compared with allegations of fraud that politicians have faced in many other countries this would be regarded as small beer."
Nick, that is such a pathetic comment from you it is almost beneath contempt. Almost. So, because our corruption is not top of the premier league it is OK is it? And again as others have pointed out, the amounts are NOT small beer, and the amounts involved do not lessen the seriousness of the offence. Theft and fraud is theft and fraud. Simples.
===
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics. They'll tell you that they need to live in two places to do their job properly and that costs money which they're entitled to re-claim."
Again, as already said, I refer you to Blair and Kinnock, to name but two. Lots of people in the real world have to work away from home. They either commute, 90 minutes travel time is deemed to be acceptable by the Department of Work and Pensions for jobseekers, or people stay in a bed & breakfast, or modest hotel accomodation. No other employer would pay for an employee to BUY a second home on expenses, and be able to keep any investment profit. Also, no other employee would be able to pick and choose what they class as their main home to maximise their profit, like Brown, Darling, Smith, Balls/ Cooper etc can and do.
===
"Tonight some are facing very awkward questions indeed and others - in all parties and at all levels - fear that they may be next."
They will be next, and quite rightly.
===
Finally, please explain why we the taxpayer should be paying for a cleaner at Mr Brown's Westminster flat when he has the use of two grace & favour homes, 10 Downing Street and Chequers, as well as his constituency home?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics"
Another lie. They just can't stop it.
Complain about this comment
RE: The commentary over the 'small beer' remark by Robinson.
I think next time there is a political scandal in some third world country the politicians and state media will be lining up to say 'well its small beer compared to what politicians get up to in the UK' as their justification.
I hear that Brown also claimed some money for an Ikea kitchen. I suppose that's acceptable because it was an Ikea one and therefore 'what the plebs could afford' justification from the ruling classes.
I wonder what our great politicians of yesteryear (Gladstone, Disraeli, Churchill & Attlee) would be making of this issue.
Complain about this comment
95. At 09:59am on 08 May 2009, bigmacsub wrote:
There are dubious machinations afoot here.
The information arrived in the hands of the Telegraph by nefarious means. This has been picked up as a leak to a Tory supporting newspaper by some quarters. Anyone who reads the broadsheets regularly will know that the old Torygraph stopped being that some considerable time ago.
That being the case what are we to read into the publication of the Cabinets expenses first?
===
Clearly you do not read The Telegraph on a egular basis or you would know that since it was acquired by the Barclay Brothers it has become another mouthpiece of the political Left.
This can be amply demonstrated by their story shabbily spiking the "smeargate" emails scoop, having been offered the story and then breeching the non-disclosure agreement they had signed and running a spoiler story attacking the messenger of the original story. Something you seem to be doing here, rather than commenting on the greed and corruption of those who are meant to serve us.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Another thing...
This insistence that it was 'within the rules'. I don't care about the rules.
A government that is responsible for creating rules that say what is right and what is wrong in this country needs to know what is right, without relying on rules to tell it!
If you need rules to tell you that it's wrong to make a profit on a second home improved with taxpayer money, you do not have sufficient ability to be capable of governing. Indeed, you are not fit for public office.
Complain about this comment
This is disgusting the whole of our democracy has been bought into disrepute by all parties, that said if people were honest with themselves, if they wer'e handed these benefits on a plate, would they really sniff their noses up at it, now though is the time to ensure 'Honorable' becomes top of the agenda, and those that have deliberately used expenses 'within the rules', to gain substantial profit should resign or be sacked, next years expenses had better make very different reading.
I also think that we should take a good look at the BBC another bloated British public funded body, the waste, expenses, the duplicity, it is time...hhahhaha just as i am typing this listening to gaunty on sun talk, he is saying that David Cameron also wants to do this, and reduce the liscense fee (tax).. wayhay.. lets start getting this all into to some prospective, the Left leaning infilteration of all our public services BBC, NHS, Education, Security Forces/Services, management of Infrastructures, has led to waste, misuse, lack of integrity, lack of business accruement, no accountability, the list goes on on on.. people we have to open our eyes and see whats right in front of us, and then do something about it.
Complain about this comment
So just after the court rules that receipts must be published Jack Straw "discovers" he's been claiming the wrong amount for council tax for four years.
Can someone explain to me why this isn't fraud?
Complain about this comment
Questions most MPs dread?
Isn't that precisely the point? They have long ago suspended any sense of shame for anything they do.
No one is responsibe for allt his governemtn debt.
No one ws responsible for the banking crisis.
The Tripartite system is now under review rather than being blamed for systemic failure.
Is it any wonder that when 600 and odd MPs can collectively run an economy into the ground over thirteen years adn hod no one to account that they are hardy likely to bat an eye lid about their expenses.
It has been said many times before but none of these guys would last the three months until their first rview in the private sector and this car crash of a government is what we have to show for our indefference.
Massaging the message and fudging the numbers beame newlabours stock in trade over thirteen years and expecting them to change now over expenses is stretching the imagination.
Not one member of any party is being honest about the severity of the ownturn, the enormity of the dbet burden, how high taxes will have to rise and how deep public sector spending cuts will have to be after the election.
Turkeys may not vote for Christmas but a clear message needs to go out about just what a mess we are in and the public is tired of living in the Brown mythical paradise of zero interest rates and massive public borrowing.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
Is there any other first world country where the political leader is expected to spend his evenings on his expenses claim? Does he not have staff who do these things for him, and are likely to commit errors?
I have seen enough of politicians to know that they are not necessarily nice people, and that I do not share their motives to want to be in the limelight all the time, but also have little job security. If you want to live in a democracy, then you have to bear the costs. Some of that will be expenses claims that are not to your liking.
And as for those contributors who claim a hair shirt existence in the private sector. Are we to believe that the Mercedes dealers and 5-star hotel operators are all dependent on what people will voluntarily pay out of taxed income? What about the "corporate hospitality" that keeps afloat Wimbledon Tennis, Football clubs, and the racecourses and grouse moors? Who scrutinises all those expenses?
Complain about this comment
On the BBC website:
"Culture Secretary Andy Burnham was in correspondence with the fees office for eight months over an expenses claim for £16,500 to buy and renovate a new London flat.
Officials finally agreed to pay the cash after rejecting the claim three times.
This followed a series of letters from Mr Burnham asking for his expenses to be paid urgently.
Mr Burnham says that over the past five years he has under-claimed on the Additional Costs Allowance by about £40,000."
===
Under-claimed? UNDER-CLAIMED? Mr Burnham seems to be under the misapprehension that the GBP23,083 Additional Costs Allowance is a target to be reached, not an absolute ceiling for legitimate claims. The bare-faced cheek of the man! Guilty in "The Court of Public Opinion".
Complain about this comment
I have long suspected that financially we were we were quietly being taken to the cleaners by our politicians. To have the scale of it revealed is galling. What I find most annoying however is that now they have been rumbled (despite a valiant attempt launched at our expense by Gorbals Mick and his advisors to stop the truth coming out), is how Harriet Harman continues to try to defend the indefensible by continually reiterating the mantra that No rules were broken as if this fact somehow made it a virtuous situation. If Dick Turpin had been allowed to write the Highway Code on elastic he would not have been convicted of robbery either. This morning, in an interview on radio 4 she went in to her mantra but having realised that it wasnt convincing anyone she then sounded as if she was almost saying that, Hey, we may be corrupt, but only a little bit compared to many other places. Can you buy a disk for Brussels?
Complain about this comment
A sad day for British politics. Of course these excesses must be exposed, but unfortunately exposure will benefit parties of the extreme left and right, particulary the BNP.
Complain about this comment
why not move parliament ?, better still why make them have to go to London at all, stay in the constituencies they are paid to represent, work from home and if they need to enter a debate use video over their broadband connection.
Items of a sensitive nature can be discussed in person at the local Tesco superstore they have branches everywhere and they could use the loyalty cards to build up points. Let them use the public transport, no cars allowed or paid for by the public.
And make them pay back every penny taken in dodgy expenses WITH interest , they don't, have never and never will deserve of can justify a large portion of these.
If they don't like it, leave politics, its the choice most of us have to make, dont like it, lump it, and this is aimed at the whole lot of them, no special favours for Tories Libs or Labour alike.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
I am sorry to say this but once again I believe you have got this really very wrong.
Your comments about it being small beer and politicians not getting rich are at odds with court of public opinion. The court that Harriet Harman was so beholden to before.
I work in Parliament and I can tell you that MP's have a pretty good deal. They have an array of privileges and benefits and how you cannot seem to grasp that the General Public should be able to expect them to behave with a modicum of honour and decency astounds me.
They should not be able to make rules that effect their own pay and privileges. Those who are immoral or fraudulent should be duly punished. Any struggling small business owner will be gobsmacked at the slackness of the Parliamentary system. The Government really should start doing the decent thing.. they will be punished by the public if they do not.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
100. andfinally
"This expenses scandal is starting to make Fred Goodwin look like Mother Theresa!"
I think that's over-egging it a bit...however Harman's "court of public opinion" soundbite continues to backfire on her.
80. Fingertapper
After forking out what I'd imagine to be a fair whack for this information, the Telegragh will want get a decent return, so it would make sense to put all parties through the wringer and maintain interest for as long as possble.
Expenses shouldn't be a party political issue, if MPs are found guilty they should all be be hung out to dry regardless. You can argue that the onus rests on those in power but that doesn't excuse those taking advantage of the system.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Something is rotten in the state of Britain. A government reviled clinging to power to the bitter end despite being devoid of ideas regarding the crisis' we face. A government who regards the message more important than the deed. A political class found wanting both morally and ethically. And a financial class who, despite being responsible for near bankrupting this country and for impoverishing a whole generation to come, retain their personal wealth and sleep easy knowing there will apparently be no prosecutions.
Without a general election v.soon this country will riot, at the very least, this summer.
Complain about this comment
Its not party political, they'll all be the same, I expect to see all parties disgraced over the coming days.
However, in almost a niave sense, I feel let down that in the cold light of day not a single one of those ministers "outed" today have had the decency to appoligise, let alone stand down.
Ms Harman was very quick to run to the court of public opinion when it suited it her, yet when the same court is returning the same verdict again and again about her, her collegues and her rivals from other parties all of a sudden it seems ok to ignore it.
Complain about this comment
Systems don't encourage abuse....people do; in this case MPs. Immoral, greedy, lying, decitful, corrupt, disgraceful...pick which suits, but it is the MPs at fault. It doesn't matter what system there is, if the people are corruptable they will abuse that system ergo MPs are corrupt. Having NO expenses would solve the problem.
Complain about this comment
"Neverthless, what's been revealed so far looks unlilkely to force anyone from office and compared with allegations of fraud that politicians have faced in many other countries this would be regarded as small beer"
Oh dear...this makes it even more clear that the whole lot should be kicked out. It just shows how far the UK politicians have sunk. Nick don't you realsie how much WORSE this statement makes it? Oh they're not as corrupt as those over there...or that banana republic there...
P.S. Did you make this statement when any Tory sleaze was being discussed? Or when it was a Tory MP getting a slagging in the press...I don't think you did, did you?
Complain about this comment
Nick, you introduced us to "de-fenestration", how about adding "kleptocracy" to your reports now, seems apt.
Complain about this comment
I would urge all to listen to Evan Davis on R4 (Today) giving HH a grilling on expenses. This is more like what is needed from the BBC. I cannot believe the brass-neck to just wheel out the "within the rules" and to not answer the questions. IF they want more public trust then it is about time they started being honest with the public. Does she really believe the twaddle she came out with? I like to think not. To wipe the slate clean do they not have to admit to their "crimes".
Complain about this comment
Nick
One of the interesting things to come out of this is that MP's live on their tax free expenses, the rest of the country gets paid a salary. It is clear they all have absolutely nothing that left to pay out of salary after the expenses have been claimed. No wonder the Government has increased tax on the rest of us, they are immune from the actions of the Chancellor and couldn't care a hoot!!!
The next scandal is the Solid Gold pension that they all receive after the arduous job that they do. The time has come to get a big shovel and start digging. There are far too many MP's that shouldn't be in their position and should resign now before a General Election otherwise it will be a major issue on every campaign trail.
"How big were your expenses" will be the standard heckle. In future lets get to Internet filing with full receipts. Sunlight is a great antiseptic.
Complain about this comment
John Prescott, aka two jags, two jabs, and now.....two bogs (seats)!
Complain about this comment
250 to 500K a year? Eh?...why so much? Give them 150 ABSOLUTE MAX and that is still more than fair. If they don't like it then perhaps we can attract people that actually WANT to do the job because of what it is NOT because they can get rich quick and have a guaranteed super pension.
Complain about this comment
Why should MPs have a 2nd home anyway?...most of us normal people who have to commute to London for work just get the train etc and then come back the same day or stay in a hotel etc. Why should they be any different? They don't generate any wealth for the country, therefore should be made to do things on the cheap. Very few MPs are in London 5 days a week and they don't do late sittings anymore, therefore there is no need for these 2nd homes...It is scandalous what these people get away with but as long as they are the ones making the rules, nothing will improve...It's just one big gravy train that needs to be stopped once and for all!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Brown only paid his cleaner £4000 a year, is that not below the minimum wage, surely that's illegal??
Complain about this comment
Nick, your small beer is more than many people pay in taxes... need I say more, they are spending OUR money in a frivolous manner. These claims would not pass the revenue services scrutiny and would be considered fraudulent by any company I have worked for.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
This is not "small beer" as you put it.
Those in Westminster have over the years, rather than serve the people, served themselves. With self-appointed pay-rises, to wider and wider use of expenses and allowances to prop up a profligate lifestyle.
They have forgotten that being in Parliament is not about generating a nestegg, its not about creating a property portfolio, its not even about using taxpayer's money to "do up" your house. Being an MP is not even "just a job". Its about serving the public, governing and creating legislation to do just that in the best way possible. Its not about oppressing the public with ever more restrictive "anti-terror" legislation, it's not about changing legislation to help your mates and sponsors, but thats the self-serving governance we have from all parties that get in power.
This is big Nick, despite all your protests to the contrary.
This could, if taken to the conclusion I'd like to see, be the end of party politics in this country.
The other big story is why you and all your "journalistic" colleagues failed to report on the abuses of power over the years as they happened. Thats a story that also needs to be reported on: how a government can coerce and manipulate the press in such a way as to remove the effects of its governance from the public conciousness.
Its time it stopped and hopefully today the majority of people will see the whole sorry Parliamentary pig sty for what it is.
Complain about this comment
31 lippy lippo
most sensible post to date.
What I would love to know is how each member of parliament voted last week,that would tell us a lot.There were many on both sides of the house that wanted no change at all,I know its popular to blame GB but he as of late been the most outspoken about changing the MPs expenses and as in the usual Tory way been ridiculed for it.as Lippy Lippo says and he is quite right if you were entitled to claim for these things you would, many of you will give me the holier than thou line but I know and you know you would,. Perhaps thats whats meant by the politics of envy.
I dont suppose that any of you think that for one moment that GB sits at his desk and writes down all his expenses and makes a claim, he and other ministers have secretaries to do that and their not infalible, thats not intended to be a excuse and its not laying the blame on them but its almost certainly what happens, double claims for the same thing occasionally indicates that, there is no doubt that these expenses need sorting we know it and they know it, its not something new its been going on for years.
the Telegraph obviously bought these details from a so called whistle blower of the as long as you pay me variety, they were to be publised shortly any way,of course the fact that there's an election coming up shortly wouldn't have nothing to do with the fact that they isolated labour expenses from Tory and Libdems which will be published conveniently at a later date in a much watered down example I'll bet, will be published.
I would like to see the government release all these details on expenses this week before the publication of the Telegraph revealing the rest of the house of commons expenses are revealed in this rather underhanded way.
Complain about this comment
Your reference to "small beer" has touched a nerve or two. Unfortunately your comparison may be accurate but does not excuse the corrupt practices that have come to light.
What I am disturbed by is the failure of MPs to take responsibility. Harriet Harman repeatedly passed the buck to the "system" and the Fees Office in an attempt to absolve many MPs' exploitation of what they admit is a flawed system. Clearly there are some MPs who have taken responsibility and moderated their claims. Regrettably there seems to have been a proliferation of trough diving.
As for the nonsense that MPs do not get rich in the job. There is never a shortage of applicants is there? One must take into account the relative insecurity of the position, there are no guarantees of tenure. But at 2.5 the average wage and the ooportunities that can be fostered while in office, it's hardly poverty and no prospects.
Complain about this comment
The overriding principle governing the ACA is stated clearly in three separate places. It says, in each case, that the expenses must be wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing parliamentary duties. Everything else is just guidelines, allowing a maximum for a particular category doesnt make an expense in that category any more neccesary, or automatically bring it into the test of exclusivity.
Further, the rules stress (which is obvious) that it is the members responsibility to ensure that their claims are accurate and honest. This is obvious really - but Harman trots out the line that these expenses were somehow approved by the fees office. It is not the role of the fees office to decide whether or not a request for payment is made truthfully, it is the the Fiduciary duty of the person submitting the claim.
By the way, are mock tudor beams wholly, necessarily and exclusively needed to do your job as an MP?
Complain about this comment
I note that Miss Harman is using the "Nuremburg Defence" that all the expenses claims were within the rules.
I would like to remind her that what the Nazis did in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s was within the rules, as they passed the appropriate laws to make it so.
Complain about this comment
How the hell can Mandelson comment on something like this when he was twice removed from office because of his dodgy dealings.
His remarks were if it's within the rules" well that's rich when it's the MP's that make the rules.
As the Moody Blues put it "Go Now"..........
Complain about this comment
Interestingly, as far as I can tell Mr Straw in this case claimed full council tax, whereaas only paid 50% to the council.
I've been trying to find in what circumstances you can claim 50% off your bill. The single person discount is only 25% whereas the 6 months exemption is only if you list the property as unoccupied. Does the council concerned offer better discounts than where I live?
Complain about this comment
Is this the PM who was the chancellor for 10 years, the one who didn't understand the consequences of the 10p tax fiasco and who mistakenly overclaimed 150 pounds expenses. I suppose when you are talking in trillions you tend forget about ordinary people and the pittance they have to live on after 12 years of this disastrous government.
Complain about this comment
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics."
Let's see - Median Annual Earnings (that's the midpoint folks) for UK adults in Full time work in 2008 - £25,100 (source: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator])
UK MP Salary in 2008 - £63,291 (Source: http://www.parliament.uk/faq/members_faq_page2.cfm)
Difference: £38,191...
Clearly then, by any conventional understanding of the word 'rich' MPs are, on an annual basis, far far nearer to being so than the overwhelming majority of the UK population. I don't have a problem with this per se. I do have a problem with them denying the fact and then seemingly using this as some sort of justification for claiming what appear to be cost of living items for everybody else in the country. Items we pay all sorts of taxes on by the way.
This whole issue just shows how completely disconnected they have become from the constituents they are supposed to represent. How can they listen and understand the country if their experience of it is utterly different to the one that the rest of us get.
Complain about this comment
The real fun will start when it's revealed that an MP - irrespective of party, has been claiming for a 'second home', but his wife/husband doesn't know anything about it... and there's a full time 'cleaner' looking after it!
Complain about this comment
They claim to be people of integrity.
They feign indignation when the press publish "facts".
The reality is they don't like "facts". For a government which has spent 12 years spinning, lying, trailing and smearing to claim the revelations in the Telegraph are politically motivated is just pathetic.
This government are incompetent and hypocritical They are completely unfit for purpose.
Call an election and boot them all out.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
No 10 have released the deatails of the cleaners' contract. So now we know who paid what...
Gordon Brown paid £252 per month (6,577 divided by 26)
Andrew Brown " £105 per month (£357 paid minus Gordon's £252)
One obvious question: According to Downing St. the cleaner worked for both men and they split her salary. Why is the PM paying 140% more than his brother for the same service? Perhaps he has a bigger flat. Possibly, but Gordon's Westminister flat is supposed to be empty and
therefore shouldn't take as much cleaning, as Andrew's. Remember, Gordon also lives at No.10 + Chequers + Home in Fife. It seems quite clear to me - we the taxpayer are cross-subsidising Andrew Brown's household cleaning arrangements.
Oh and Nick - why haven't you or the BBC reported on Jacui Smith's council tax arrangements? Apparently for this tax (and no doubt capital gains) her main house is in Redditch - not London. And I thought this GVN wanted to clamp down on tax-dodgers...!
Complain about this comment
I can't help feeling the whole furore about MPs expenses is a storm in a teacup. MPs don't get paid a great deal considering their responsibilites - there are many in the public sector who get paid more (Sharon Shoesmith was on £100k for example, more than a backbench MP) and MPs have the additional expense of second homes.
We should be concentrating on the real issues, such as the atrocious squandering of taxpayers' money gained from Labours vastly increased "investment" in the public sector over the last ten years. All those quangoes, NHS middle managers, box tickers, consultants, lesbian awareness co-ordinators, etc. The rest of us are taxed into hardship to pay for a bunch of people we could easily do without.
Complain about this comment
We can all remeber John Prescott mocking conservative sleeze at a certain labour party conference.
Well he has certainly been caught with his trousers down in more way than one. According to the telegraph he has claimed for two toilet seats plus the supply and fitting of mock tudor cladding.
What John and his cohorts have learnt from all this at least is, what`s round comes round.
I don`t think anyone in their wildest dreams would have thought labour MPs of all people would have milked the system as they have done. These revelations will go down like a bomb in the hard pressed commnunities they represe - where people are merely living from day to day. Rather ironic with all of this following hard on the heels of yesterday`s report that the poor have even got poorer under labour.
Who would have thought it that NuLabour is so middle classed.
Complain about this comment
I have Cancer and due to the drug treatment and Radiotherapy the side effects leave me completely Housebound { I will not go into specifics but trust me the side effects are Major }
By the way I have full praise for the NHS and their Staff I am receiving fantastic treatment and everyone I meet also is full of praise - In the past twelve months I have had more than Eighty appointments and during the treatment phase I was always seen on time.
I contacted my MP just to see if it was possible to get a Gas/electricity reduction or a benefit to cover my extra expenses as clearly if I am in all the time its a far greater expenses than someone who does not have Cancer.
I was told there was no extra benefit I could claim as the rules do not cover Cancer Patients being a special case.
it makes my Blood Boil to see MP's being able to ' play the system ' while I and thousands of others struggle just to pay our Electricity Bill though no fault of our own.
I am being seen by three Hospitals so have to make separate claims for Bus fares to each specific Hospital.
I have to produce receipts for ever journey which I do not mind doing.
If I can do it why cant the MP's do the same ?
MP's should hold their Head in Shame.
Complain about this comment
Nick
The amounts that have been fiddled may be in the £000s rather than millions but are widespread (probably the majority).
So MPs display a culture of minor fraud being acceptable.
In future no one (that includes you Nick) should give them the benefit of the doubt. Bring in a heavyweight to approve/disprove their expense claims.
At the same time the usage of the term "honourable" in parliament should be dropped.
Complain about this comment
147
So it was GB's secretary that rang up his brother to arrange a cleaning contract? Silly me I thought the PM might have known something about it but now you have made it all clear to me now. These MPs just throw all their receipts at their staff and ask them to maximize the pay back for them.
I shall now rest easy that my taxes are being used wisely.
By the way, you can admit to having no scruples but do not think everyone is the same.
Complain about this comment
RE: grandantidote
Gordon Brown has "of late been the most outspoken about changing the MPs expenses."
You're having a laugh! Would this be the same Gordon Brown who couldn't be bothered to vote on the abolition of the John Lewis list? The same GB who allowed his ministers to kill off this reform? The same GB who allowed his ministers to undermine Norman Baker's anti-sleaze campaiagn? The same GB who intially refused to met Nick Glegg and David Cameron on this issue? The same Gordon Brown who has consistently defended the current speaker? The same Gordon Brown who tried to kick this issue into the long grass, untill after the next election? or the same Gordon Brown who announced his solution to the problem without first consulting his cabinet or the main opposition leaders? Had he sought a cross-party consensus BEFORE he tried to take the credit for fixing Parliament (where previously he had been the biggest road-block to reform) then perhaps we might have had a solution by now.... Brown is part of the problem, not the solution.
Complain about this comment
#147
What an utterly pathetic, and predictable, attempt to, in one stroke, absolve the Government of blame and at the same time, cast aspersions on the other parties. Your tunnel vision clearly knows no bounds.
There is no doubt that MPs have created a system that is open to abuse, and those same MPs have duly abused that system. The evidence for this assertion is clear. There is also no doubt that, by simple arithmetic, more Labour Party MPs will have abused the system than MPs from other parties. The question of the individual amounts by which each MP has enriched themselves over the last four years is yet to be divulged, but as has already been declared, most MPs claim the maximum allowances, so it also follows that cumulatively, more money will have been pocketed by Labour MPs than MPs from other parties.
The fact is, they are all at it. It's just that there are more Labour Party MPs at it than anyone else. Live with it.
Complain about this comment
Back in 1999 HMG though a 70,000 contracts were abusing the tax system.
earning between 40k-80k per year does not actual allow much abuse even if you could. Where as other financial institution that got us into this mess along with HMG where excluded from IR35.
Yet we see that they have been up to there necks in "fraud" on expenses which would probalby topple the amount of money brought in by IR35 by a long long way.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for this Nick. Yours is the most balanced and sensible view on this that I've heard or read.
Its easy, far too easy, for the media to bring down an elected politician by no more than cheap mug slinging, and the public generally are too busy having a life to spend time sifting through a media frenzy looking fragments of truth amongst the tosh.
You could argue that people fought and died to make possible a free press, but when fairly elected politicians can be and are driven from office for no better reason than to provide a good story, democracy is dealt a serious blow - and people certainly fought and died for democracy.
The news stands in our streets and supermarkets are little more, in my opinion, than a national disgrace and TV news, even on the BBC, is driven by the need for the news to attract better viewing figures.
Distorted in other words - the news has become a product which has to be sexed up. Cant we have something better?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#159
"Who would have thought it that NuLabour is so middle classed."
Ah but Labour has always been led by middle class people, usually ones guilty about having a priveleged upbringing so they pretend to be socialists so as to make themselves feel better. The current system of expenses was set up under that great leader of the left Michael Foot as a way of boosting MP's income despite the national wage freeze which the Wilson government imposed in 1975 to combat inflation.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is playing along with the Daily Telegraph's anti-Labour smear. All journalists, editors and commentators can avoid charges of breathtaking hypocrisy by immediately posting the full details of all their own expenses claims for the past four years before pointing a accusing finger.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
'... can't help feeling the whole furore about MPs expenses is a storm in a teacup. MPs don't get paid a great deal considering their responsibilites'
Err.. what responsibilities.
Would that be filing in to vote for the Government on a three line whip?
Err..
Would that be asking a planted question at PMQ's? e.g Brighton & Hove Albion??
Err...
Would that be resigning when a Minister of State's department is 'not fit for purpose'?
Err....
Would that be being responsible for their expenses?
Errr..
How may more.
That's the problem. POLITICIANS ARE NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Having spent six years doing three jobs in FE but only paid for one, often paying for materials out of my own pocket,(not always refunded)because the college was always strapped for cash, it is totally sickening to hear about the petty pilferers from the PM down,making false claims.
These people are criminal and should be treated as such.
Complain about this comment
Sleaze did a lot of damage to the Major Government and it will do the same for the Brown Government. Brown limps from one thing to another - in PMQ's this week MP's from all parties openly humiliated and laughed at him.
Not only is his authority ebbing away, a lot of the ordinary public find him boring and uninspiring. Labour got rid of their best asset - Blair. I doubt Blair would have let this expenses row blow as it has or badly misjudged the public mood about the Gurkhas. On the latter issue, Joanna Lumley is now dictating Government Policy - watch her tell the Immigration Minister when and how the new guidelines will be written. Whilst I support the Gurkhas, it sets a worrying precedent if non-elected celebrities can wield so much power over the Government.
The whole thing seems like the end of the Major years - Brown is 'In Government but not in Power.'
Complain about this comment
I have not heard one decent defence of the expenses scandal by any MP or anybody else for that matter. That's because there is no moral defence regardless of the House Rules.
Sir Stuart Bell is utterly missing the point when he says all future claims of MPs will have to be investigated by an independent auditor.
Of course, this should have been standard practice in the first place.
But where he and his colleagues are so misguided is that there is so much MPs should not be allowed to claim for and that includes second homes.
Our Delirious Leader says MPs have to work from two homes.
No they don't.
They have one home where they and their family live full time and in some cases they need another property which is closer to their 'chosen' workplace; the other property is not a 'home' but a roof over their head.
Sir Stuart Bell goes on to say that all these figures would have been released in July. Oh no they wouldn't!
The whole area of second homes, put into the public domain without knowing the appropriate addresses, would not have allowed Joe Public to scrutinise the figures and see exactly what abuses have taken place. For example, we would have found out that Hazel Blears has a home in her constituency and one other second home in London. What it would have failed to tell the ordinary citizen is that she is now on her third 'second home' and on her way up the housing ladder. By going public in a newspaper, we can now claculate what her Capital Gains Tax would have been had she been just like one of us.
This expenses scandal is an outrage and unless the pigs care to take their snouts out of the trough and smell the bacon, they will in your words, Nick, be well and truly defenestrated by the other animals on the farm.
Complain about this comment
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics"
That's because it's hidden away in private expense claims they never thought would become public. I've never had such a low opinion of MPs and to think these are the same people leading the charge to stop big bonus payouts to bankers... tell me what's the difference?! Inexcusable.
Complain about this comment
Hard hitting stuff Nick !
You are absolutely correct. No-one cares if our Ministers defraud the country (even if "legal" due to they make the laws and police them."
Why not just write "Move along ... nothing to see here" ?
You do know Mcbride has gone, don't you ?
Complain about this comment
You say that it is "all parties at all levels". Let us put this to the test.
You put it to both houses, ask them all the following. Can you, hand on heart, comprehensively state that you have never, illicitly made any claim that, we the voters and payors would find acceptable.
I hope that we would be pleasantly suprised at just how many honest politicans there are. They can form the next government; I hope that it will not be too small.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile the government has walked away from talks with Jaguar
Meanwhile Corus is cutting 2000 jobs in the North East
Meanwhile the Gurkhas are still not allowed to come into our country
Meanwhile the economy is still in freefall
Meanwhile our schools are having money promised reneged on
Meanwhile everything is pretty much falling along the wayside.
MPs should be made to pay it back. They should also take a pay freeze or even a cut for the next parliament or even now, so that they show they understand what people are going through and be maxed as far as expenses are concerned at a number - say £24k per year for a period of 1 parliament. If they go over that they pay themselves.
Oh and those who have done wrong should be booted out forthwith!
Complain about this comment
I think Elizabeth Filkin should be brought back in, given a grovelling apology by the Speaker and all of the MPs, given all the powers she asks for, and be put back to work monitoring the standards and expenses.
Anything less will be a self-(un)policed whitewash by the turkeys.
I bet they will all ask for an amnesty (and no pay-back demands)
Regards,
Complain about this comment
I don't see how this latest publicity stunt by the Murdoch press machine should be placed at the door of Gordon Brown. We know that Murdoch is unable to sway politics in this country by proper debate about policy etc. so chooses to go down the undemocratic route of personality/celebrity mud slinging. Lets face it with the Tory leader in waiting we have somebody who has difficulty looking after his bike, maybe he should clain for it on expenses? but no doubt the Rothchild's or some other will look after him!
Complain about this comment
#158
You are correct that there are other much larger areas of waste.
But to tackle that is going to require a change of thinking, a change of culture if you like. The best place to begin that is at the top.
It will require courage and conviction at least equal to that that was needed in 1979. If only we could see a leader of the right calibre.
Complain about this comment
Of course, the electorate of this great country always suspected that our politicians were like pigs with their snouts in the expenses trough, but to see it all spelt out in such fascinating detail is literally a revelation. Why should Gordon Brown hire half a cleaner and expect the nation to pick up his bill? Good lord, he earns enough money to hire a whole army of cleaners! My wife and I have raised a family and are both lucky to be in fulltime employment. Having a cleaner paid for by the state would have been a big help to us. If Gordon can have a cleaner on the taxpayer, can we also have one? After all, together we earn peanuts compared with our "prudent" leader! It all stinks... second home allowances, hanging baskets, mock Tudor beams, travelling expenses, The John Lewis list... George Orwell was right. Pigs are in charge now.
Complain about this comment
Its no surprise to see evidence that those that govern are corrupt and self serving...
What do you expect with an undemocratic system that ensures power remains in the hands of the same 2 groups.
We need a change of system, a change of government and a switch to proper democracy with the votes of individuals actually mattering.
Complain about this comment
OK so what I don't think the politicians get is this. If we can't afford a cleaner or furniture or whatever, we can't buy it. Even if we could borrow to buy it that would be even worse. You have a salary and you cut your cloth accordingly. At work we have an IT system for over 250,000 people who must show all receipts for everything. If there is not a specific business purpose for the expense it has no chance of being permitted. Every manager has to sign off the expenses for their team. The politicians should do the same. Each group or ten or so should have an Expenses manager, who approves the cost or not. Believe you me when I say I would love to help them design a system. Politicians always say it is a privilege to serve..now we know why. The privilege has been to take the public purse for a ride. An utter disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Buddie
"Can I therefore suggest that you forget about 'politics' for once and instead focus on the reality of the situation?"
Could you demonstrate your apolitical position by also making this suggestion to the preponderance of Tories trying to make political capital? Instead of the one or two Leftwingers? Or are you playing politics too?
Complain about this comment
"small beer"
To Nick this is small beer. He is, after all, part of the gravy train. Not first class, but nevertheless still sitting comfortably in the last coach, cutting and pasting away on his laptop.
Cheers, Nick.
When are the Lab dogs going to stick their heads above the parapet? Only a couple so far. Keeping their powder dry until the Toffs are exposed? Not up for a spot of introspection?
166. At 12:13pm on 08 May 2009, Rtistic wrote:
Twaddle, really.
"cheap mug slinging" Is a hand-written, self-incriminating note on official stationery "mud slinging"? Or did you mean literally slinging mugs? Like N*kias.
Complain about this comment
Oh and the other travesty that does need reporting Nick is the ongoing investigation into the collapse of Rover which has been running for 4 years at a cost of £10k per day - currently costing over £15 million with no end date in site.
This was reported on the BBC Midlands last night. It is truly shocking as it is not really going to achieve anything other than the stock response of 'lessons will be learnt!'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8036439.stm
This is a national disgrace and so please - as our favourite political hack - get on to bringing it to the national attention!
Complain about this comment
To say it is within the rules just shows how bad this governmnet has become. I'm sure other parties will suffer on release of all this info
BUT
Labour has been in power for a long time and they have responsibility of sorting out the rules. Saying that have made or allowed bad rules puts the blame directly on themselves. If they cannot make good rules then what does that suggest as they have responsibility for making the rules on how the country works, how the banks are regulated, etc. If they cannot make good rules about their own expenses then what chance does the country have. Ah, maybe that explains some aspects about the problems facing the UK at the moment.
Seems that in blaming the rules they are actually blaming themselves - so time they took responsibility for it. And taking responsibility means more than just saying "I take full responsibility" and that is the end of it. It means admitting you have made major errors of judgement, maybe stepping down from your job, etc. Taking responsibility is more than mouthing the words.
Complain about this comment
#147 grandantidote wrote:
I know its popular to blame GB but he as of late been the most outspoken about changing the MPs expenses and as in the usual Tory way been ridiculed for it.
The key words are: of late. I would add very late.
In July 2008 30 Government Ministers voted to retain the additional costs allowance and many, including Gordon Brown, abstained. The shadow cabinet voted to abolish the allowance. Don't be misled by the spin, look at the voting record.
Then Gordon told MPs to wait for Kelly to report, but hastily changed his mind when he saw a possibility to embarrass the opposition parties. Rather than consult with other parties he made the notorious Youtube address, widely ridiculed by his own party. Needless to say, he failed to consult his own colleagues either.
As with banking regulation, Gordon Brown tries to absolve himself of responsibility for his failure to act. So he spends his time playing catch-up. See some pattern here?
Complain about this comment
When will be rid of them?
I am incandescent with rage at the blatant fraud perpetrated by the odious, lying incompetents who allegedly represent us.
When will they get it into their thick skulls that 'within the rules' is completely unacceptable when the rules have been created in order to allow theft from the public?
I cant wait for the day that we can seperate these weasels from the trough of public money, although prison would be preferable for many of them. How out of touch are these people?!! As for the BBC's toadying inability to vilify such actions, dont even get me started....
Complain about this comment
I think you should spend some time away from Westminster Nick, this blog is now showing the same detachment from reality as those politicians you bend over backwards to protect. People are quite rightly furious, no one cares if it was within the rules or not, after all it's MPs who make the rules. This is corruption at the highest level and attempts to dress it up as anything else is an further insult to those who've let down been by this shower. How on earth can Tampax, nappies, cat food and bags of sweets possibly be work related expenses? What is the male MP who claimed for Tampax doing with them? who in the house is wearing nappies? is it not obvious that they're also claiming for family? how can that possibly be right?
People are struggling to make ends meet, they work hard and pay a lot into the system, MP's then come along and treat that money as petty cash.
Complain about this comment
Nick, you say: "Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics."
Do you still stand by that statement?
===
Shaun Woodward, the wealthiest member of the Cabinet, claimed almost £100,000 to help pay the mortgage interest on a £1.35 million flat which is one of at least seven properties he owns.
===
Gordon Brown used his Parliamentary allowances to boost his expenses claims by switching his designated second home shortly before he moved into Downing Street upon becoming Prime Minister.
===
Hazel Blears claimed for three properties in a single year at taxpayers expense.
===
The taxpayer contributed almost £10,000 to the costs of Alistair Darling buying a new London flat after the Chancellor changed the official designation of his second home.
===
Caroline Flint, the former housing minister, used her parliamentary expenses to pay for solicitors fees and stamp duty when she bought a new flat.
===
Geoff Hoon has established a property empire worth £1.7 million after claiming taxpayer-funded expenses for at least two properties.
===
Margaret Beckett tried to claim £600 for hanging baskets and pot plants as she lavished tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on her constituency home whilst living in a grace and favour apartment in London.
Complain about this comment
'small beer'?
Nick, you are showing your true colours, your glasses are obviously rose tinted.
And I would suggest an income of hundreds of thousands per year through wages and more wages (aka 'allowances'), not to mention their 2nd/3rd/4th jobs, what they do not get taxed on, and profits from property portfolios, being an MP is one of the EASIEST ways to get rich quick.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
When is the government going to pay for my house to be cleaned? I am busy, I have a working wife but I have to pay my own cleaning bills. What is acceptable about claiming cleaning on any house whether it is a first home or a second home from the tax payer?
Prudence be damned, I am outraged at the profligacy of this.
Gordon pay your own cleaning bills and as for the rest of the trough guzzlers you cannot be voted out soon enough for my liking
Complain about this comment
MPs expenses claims should be wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing parliamentary duties.
Are these?
Douglas Alexander claimed £5,183 for storm windows and £3,868 for storm doors
David Miliband claimed almost £200 for a pram but was turned down by the Commons authorities
Margaret Beckett's £600 claim for hanging baskets and other items for her garden was turned down
Gordon Brown used his expenses to pay for some Noah's Ark blinds
Andy Burnham tried to claim back £19.99 for an Ikea bathrobe
Hazel Blears claimed for a stay in the luxury Zetter boutique hotel in Clerkenwell
Geoff Hoon bought two televisions using taxpayers' money
Paul Murphy submitted a £3,500 plumbing bill because his water was too hot
John Prescott used his allowance to install mock Tudor beams on the front of his home
Complain about this comment
Finally forced by all courts into publishing the info, they're now crying foul because it's been published 2 months early. In fact it's being published over a year late; the government had been breaking the law by not publishing it previously.
The papers are publishing it (and got the true/raw source) because they know that if they didn't get the true source of the raw data then they probably wouldn't get all the info that they're legally entitled to see (if any) because the government is constantly breaking the law when it comes to data protection and freedom of information.
I don't blame the papers one bit for getting the true/raw data source; there's no way on earth I'd trust the government's officially published info when they finally get round to releasing it.
In fact, if you do a comparison between the papers' current raw source and what the government end up officially publishing, that'd make very interesting reading indeed.
Of course they'll say that apart from a handful of "clerical errors", it was all "within the rules". Technically/legally they're probably right, but morally and politically they've been fleecing the electorate for years and so will now (finally) pay the price.
In the private sector, when you make a claim, you don't just ask yourself "is it technically within the rules?", you also ask yourself "is this what a reasonable person would expect me to claim in my situation?". If both of those are "yes" then you claim, otherwise you're in danger of being on the wrong side of the law despite the technicalities.
Courts consider what a "reasonable person" would think, not just pure technicalities, and that's where the government has fallen flat on its face, because what they've been doing is nowhere near reasonable.
Complain about this comment
The powers that be must be pulling your chain pretty tight Nick. You excuse their criminal corruption and Prima facie, de facto and clear and undoubted fraud as "small beer". It is NOTHING of the kind. The "rules" of MP's do NOT have eminence over criminal law. A legal maxim states that all men are equal before natural law: Quod ad jus naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales sunt.
NO PERSON is above the law. They have brought the Highest and supreme court in the land into disrepute. They have committed prima facie fraud and deception and tax evasion. There should be criminal trials for these people and you have the temerity to write this off as "pretty small beer"?
In the last 12 years, this labour government has committed the crimes of fraud, embezzlement, deception, theft, and are accessories to kidnapping, treason and the supreme war crime of unnecessary war of conquest. Some of these things still carried the remedy of the death penalty until 1998. Now I know why the labour Government had the last offences to carry the death penalty neutered.
They are utterly corrupt and they are criminals. Why should ANYONE obey the laws of this land if the members of the legislative body itself are some of the worst criminal offenders in this land?
Complain about this comment
The torygraph are desperately to blame Nulab for the sins of excess by the politicans. I have read, via the internet I hasten to add, the article outlining their sense of moral outrage. Just the one sentence about "Call me Dave" Cameron. His expenses are a mere £65 for the telephone bill. Oh by the way plus £1741 per month for the mortgage on his constituency home.
This from someone worth in excess of £30 million
Complain about this comment
Neverthless, what's been revealed so far looks unlilkely to force anyone from office.
They shouldnt be forced from office they should be facing criminal proceedings for every case no matter what party they are from......fraud is fraud and MP's should not be above the law.
Every penny should be claimed back from the people concerned whether they are home secretary or back bench MP its appalling that this has been allowed for so long and well done to all the people involved in outing this total mismanagement of public funds.
The labour party has to take the bulk of the blame as it is they who have oversight responsibilities but no party is coming out of this looking rosy.
Perhaps members of the public drawn as per a jury should be formed to oversee new rules being drawn up and enforced and the whole process taken out of the hands of politicians .This could be done an implemented before the next election so those that dont like the new system can choose not to stand.
Complain about this comment
192 jim-uk
"who in the house is wearing nappies?"
I always like the quote (I forget who made it)
"Politicans are like nappies, they need changing regularly and for exactly the same reason!"
Seems appropriate in the current situation.
Complain about this comment
The conservatives are awfully quiet on this Nick.
Are they just as bad? Or do they just not want to get caught not being "whiter than white" (thanks for that one Tony) when they get in.
Can you steer us the right way Nick please
Complain about this comment
181. At 12:47pm on 08 May 2009, notfooledsteve wrote:
I don't see how this latest publicity stunt by the Murdoch press machine should be placed at the door of Gordon Brown. We know that Murdoch is unable to sway politics in this country by proper debate about policy etc. so chooses to go down the undemocratic route of personality/celebrity mud slinging.
===
Steve, I'm afraid you have been fooled, clearly you don't get out much. The Telegraph is owned by the Barclay Brothers, nothing to do with Mr Murdoch.
Care to try posting again but using some facts this time?
Complain about this comment
The Telegraph publishes the Tory MP expenses tomorrow.
Based on the fact that Saturday is the day it sells more papers is that because they are so "bad" that they'll sell even more, or so "good" that it will maintain normal sales levels?
Complain about this comment
Nick Robinson is wrong to say there is no evidence of any criminal conduct by any of the Cabinet members whose expense "errors" were revealed today. Jack Shaw is a barrister, he knows that he is lucky not to have been arrested re his council tax deception claim. There are many people up and down the country with convictions for exactly this and they have paid back the money. The issue is there is no one able to make a criminal complaint, if there were they would all be locked up. The PMs employment of a cleaner is questionable from the governments own steps to make employers liable for their National Insurance/Tax registration, and he is liable to criminal charges if the cleaner isnt properly registered with the Inland Revenue. Not many are and employers dont have the proper employer insurances. Exactly the issues the Govt. is supposed to be cracking down on.
Complain about this comment
So the former foreign secretary lived in a grace and favour apartment in London and had a mortgage- and rent-free home in her constituency. So what exactly were her living costs that we have to subsidise? It seems in reality she was getting state aid for a buy-to-let scheme. It would be interesting to see the outcome of a judicial review of whether this represented 'good value' in line with the rules.
As for the argument that you dont get rich in politics, we are always being told that MPs all go into politics to 'change the world'. If the money offered isnt good enough, go and find a better 'ole!
Harriet Harmen was bleating about politicians gaining the trust of populace again on the radio this morning as if this was something that would magically happen by osmosis over time. Unfortunately trust has to be earnt, doubly difficult when it has been so easily tossed away.
I trust we wont hear any more MPs criticising the use of tax havens by wealthy folk, after all, they are only following the rules...
Complain about this comment
I have sympathy with about 99% of the posts so far. I too am disgusted with the behaviour of some MPs, but not very surprised. It is surprising that
1. MPs have so much scope for charging expenses.
2. There is so little need for receipts.
3. It is possible to benefit so much from property under the expense regime.
I am not surprised that MPs take advantage. After all, how many voters would
NOT claim up to the maximum every year if they had an expense account? I think
many people take everything they can, especially when there is a culture of
"entitlement."
This is why most companies have strict procedures for expenses. It is also why there are very clear (for example) tax regulations. If I cheat on expenses my company can both
fire me AND have me prosecuted.
The rules need to change so that MPs have to have receipts for everything they claim.
When they are working in Westminster
they should be entitled to family-friendly rooms in a hall of residence - furnished, but not necessarily with TV etc. They should pay their own phone bills, council tax, TV licence, broadband, etc. Their official phone and broadband should be available in their offices, not in Hall. They should not have cleaning on expenses.
They don't have to work harder than most of the rest of us, so they can cover their own living expenses - unless maybe, they are ministers. Travel should be economy class, as it is for the rest of us. They can pay for upgrades, if they like.
Given the way the expenses regime has been set up, I am not surprised that some MPs seem bigger cheats than others. The culture is to use every possible entitlement. For richer people, like Tony or Hilary Benn, David Cameron, Harriett Harman, and so on, the temptation to tap the system is low. They have always been well off and are well set up. Poorer working class people from marginal consituencies probably feel they have to squirrel away something for when they lose their seats. So I expect they will be the ones that are most exposed when the figures come out. I'm not excusing them, but the temptation must be great when they are surrounded by privileged colleagues.
Still, this whole thing will make interesting reading in the Sunday papers...£3000/year for cleaning an empty flat! Fake Tudor beams for your house! It would be funny if people were not being made redundant who have no assets or savings... especially as they are more likely to have worked pretty hard all their lives.
Complain about this comment
200. At 1:16pm on 08 May 2009, mcgrathbryan wrote:
The torygraph are desperately to blame Nulab for the sins of excess by the politicans. I have read, via the internet I hasten to add, the article outlining their sense of moral outrage. Just the one sentence about "Call me Dave" Cameron. His expenses are a mere 65 for the telephone bill. Oh by the way plus 1741 per month for the mortgage on his constituency home.
This from someone worth in excess of 30 million
Don't blame Cameron or Clegg, Brown keeps saying it's broken if he knew this why when he has been in power particularly when he was chancellor did he not force through changes like he always does when it suits him and his corrupt ministers.
Complain about this comment
200
Since when are any expenses (private or public sector) means tested? I cannot see your point.
Complain about this comment
There's a very great risk of a confused and counter-productive over-reaction here, particularly on second homes. A lot of the suggestions on this blog and elsewhere have much more of a feel of wanting to punish the current MPs who we feel have deeply wronged by than of wanting to build a sensible structure for the future.
We may feel a million miles away from it right now, but we surely want to work towards a world where our MPs act honourably and we respect them. It is therefore vital that overhaul of the expenses/allowances system focuses on creating something reasonable and workable in that world, otherwise we'll never get there.
Let's hypothesise for a minute that we are there: our MPs are good, genuine, hard-working and respected people and none of us are suffering from clouded judgement through wanting to get our own back on them for something. What reasonable business accommodation expenses might they incur? Hotels are obviously suited to short trips to different places. But if my (private sector) job required living for a significant amount of time in a different part of the country (more than a reasonable commuting distance/time from home) a hotel wouldn't be suitable. You can *stay* in a hotel but you can't *live* in one for any length of time. It's not comparable to a home at all. I would expect my employer to provide me with a home - including all it takes to run, furnish and maintain it. The cost only exists because of the requirements of the job so it's a business expense. Remembering that we need to plan for the (as yet hypothetical) world where MPs are honourable and respected, any suggestion that MPs who can not reasonably commute to both their workplaces should not be able to claim for a second home from their employer (the taxpayer) is clearly ludicrous. Of course, if there is any profit to be made from ownership of that home, that rightly belongs to the employer, not the employee.
Complain about this comment
*
This stinks, and I shall show you why...
The contract states :
The cleaner gets paid £357 a month
The cleaner does 10 hours cleaning a week over 3 separate days
The cleaner does 7 hours of cleaning for Mr & Mrs Brown spit 4:3 over two days
It is unclear if both days of cleaning are at the same afress as these have been redacted out
It beggars belief that a London FLAT requires a cleaner to visit TWICE a week and spend 7 hours cleaning. The Browns do not come across as a slothful family.
According to the figures, Gordon Brown pays £249.90p for his shre of the cleaning services every month.
Conveniently this is a mere 10p short of the £250 limit after which reciepts would be required.
BUT beyond ALL of this is the fact Mr Brown has been living in 11 Downing Street and later 10 Downing street for the last 12 years, so he has been effectively claiming ACA costs for a THIRD home.
I cannot see how maintaining a THIRD home falls into the "wholly exclusively for carrying out your duty as an MP" rule. This needs to be investigated further, and most of the Media have completely missed the fact Mr Brown has been living in Grace and Favour accommodation for 11 years.
I would also guess the two separate days of cleaning are actually at two separate addresses, which have been conveniently redacted on the original contract!
Complain about this comment
The "torygraph" are trying to pin the blame for the excesses of the politicians on Nulab.
That nice "Call me Dave" Cameron only claimed £65 for a telephone bill. Oh! by the way he also claimed £1741 per month to cover his mortgage on his constituency home.
Not bad for someone worth in excess of £30 million. His parliamentary allowances are just "folding pocket money"
Complain about this comment
What is quite ridiculous about the expenses is that its quite easy to come out looking rather clean from the ACA.
All a well to do MP has to do is purchase a 2nd home where the mortgage is £480,000, assume a 15% deposit for equity at £72,000 and you have the situation which I believe the Balls are milking, which is living in a £550,000+ London property or a very plush constituency home (conveniently designated the SECOND home) and milk the £24000 a year that constitutes the mortgage interest. I bet a LOT of MP's have done this over the last 12 years to maximise the equity gains on their SECOND home through a housing boom.
Assume a £500,000 SECOND HOME bought in 1997, exactly how much would that be worth in todays money, even factoring in the recent price corrections, it's still more than double equity growth.
Many MP's will have made over HALF A MILLION POUNDS in equity in the last 12 years by maximising the returns of the ACA system.
To be honest I would have done the same if I had such a juicy allowance system, as it would be entirely within the rules!!!
UPSHOT: rules need to change
Complain about this comment
.....and now it all becomes clear. Just why do so many people want to become an MP. To rip off the tax payer of course! Lets face it. It doesnt matter whether a claim doesn't breech pathetically lax rules if that claim is clearly morally wrong. Claiming for porn, claiming for tudor-bethian(ising??) your castle up-country swapping your primary residence multiple times to maximise your claims for soft furnishings, tarting up your constituency home at the tax payers expense and trousering the profit when you sell. All these things are wrong. If they were done by an employee of a commerical organisation that person would be fired and would have to pay the money back and could we be prosecuted too. Lets get on with it.
Complain about this comment
This has to be sorted out by person(s) external to Parliament. The present rules were introduced at the start of Blair's regime. The current lot of MPs have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of reform or setting up a system that is workable, transparent or fair in the eyes of the public. External persons could not be employess of any agency of Government, and preferably never have any dealings with the Government at any level.
If this is not possible then public trust in MPs will never be attained. Let me see, how about a group of smart and industrious people? Say the former KGB as they should know a thing or too about fraud and corruption!
Complain about this comment
Quite why does Gordon Brown's apartment need £252 of cleaning a month when he is living in Downing Street?
Many of us work all hours, clean our own houses and those of our elderley dependants.
They just don't get the public outrage - they cannot see what they have done is wrong. A spell of normality will do them good, life without expenses and allowances like the people who pay their bills.
Complain about this comment
The MPs expenses system has clearly been abused in the past, but I know MPs have got the message and I'm happy that the system is being reviewed. I am content to wait and see what the outcome of that review is later in the year.
The drip drip of revelations that the Telegraph is using in order to sell more newspapers and the hysteria of TV news reporters is even more sickening than the abuses.
Particualrly at a time when there are more important things to be focussing on, such as the institutional incompetence of the Government as evidenced by the Ghurka/Woollas fiasco yesterday...
It is also time for a General Election. The last 12 months of any Government is always an absolute nightmare, an unproductive waste of Parliamentary time. There are some really big issues to be sorted out at the moment. Lets get the Election over and done with please Gordon, so that the UK can collectively get its head down, focus on the task in hand and start the rebuilding work.
Complain about this comment
#186 Youarehavingalaugh,
I took the time and trouble to read all of the posts before I added my comment. I failed to spot the part that stated whether the posters were right or left wing. Perhaps, in your eyes, everyone who feels that the Labour Ministers are milking the system are 'right wing', but I suspect you are wrong on this. Nor do I take your view that they are there to be sniped at as right wingers simply because they are (a) not defending the Labour politicians who have made these claims or (b) attacking the press for publishing the figures. Indeed, I expect these same posters will make similar posts as and when the Lib Dems / Conservatives take centre stage.
For once, I got the impression that the vast majority seemed to be taking a stance based on the issue and not their particular bias. In my honest opinion, I viewed the remarks by grand... to be influenced only by his politics and not by any reasoned argument. He did not seem to address any of the points made by the earlier posters, instead he seemed to be motivated by point scoring. Indeed, I was not alone in criticising him for this.
Having been a regular poster on this blog, perhaps you might want to add your own tuppence worth on the topic rather than having a go at me for asking grand... to do the same.
I look forward to hearing that you are happy to see Labour politicians making these claims, just as I am sure you will do likewise when there is a Conservative politician waiting to be shot at for the same offence.
Complain about this comment
I have no doubt that these expense claims would stand up in a court of law asbeing within the rules set (whatever those of us who claim expenses in the commercial sector may think of those rules....)
BUT as per a abnkers pension arrangements they will not stand up in the court of public opinion....
Complain about this comment
There seems to be an argument because MPs' addresses are not being published expenses cannot be allocated to particular addresses. This is rubbish.
Just as we have "Child B" or "Mrs H" in the courts the powers that be could used "Accommodation 1", "Accommodation 2", etc, for the addresses. For Hazel Blears that would be 1, 2, 3, 4!!! In this way the MPs' addresses would not be divulged and the transactions would be transparent.
Complain about this comment
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics."
I don't accept this line of argument for two reasons:
1) MPs shouldn't go into politics to get rich in the first place
2) An MP earns 63k and Cabinet Ministers are on 141k per annum [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]). This is a lot more than most of us earn and yet we all have to pay our own mortgages, bath-plugs, toilet seats, etc., etc.
Complain about this comment
You know who else "did nothing wrong" and operated "completely within the rules"?
Fred "The Shred" Goodwin, when it came to accepting his huge pension. Seem to remember Gorgon Broon being a little bit more than unhappy about that one.
Amazing how short his memory is. Really looking forward to seeing the back of him, and the rest of his band of merry idiots.
Complain about this comment
Utter disgusting... they are that two-faced and not ashamed of themselves, no wonder they wannabe MPs, they are more interesting in their expenses than serving the people of Britain... and 88p for a bath plug is pathetic - are they really that hard up?
Brown is as bad as the rest of them and proves he's knows what's going on and still lets it continue, wasn't he the prudent chacellor?
Complain about this comment
I worked for a company where I could claim expenses for quite a while and every penny had to be accounted for. It was expected that I would try to keep the expense claims low to offer the best value for money for the customer. These "Honorable" representatives of the people are not striving for the best value for money of their employers or customers (the UK public). The politicians in this country are showing a lack of integrity and are showing that they have very little respect for the UK people.
I am afraid that an election wont solve all our problems. We need political reform across the board. This system is failing.
Complain about this comment
203 I_clean..........
Call me cynical, but I tend to think that Nick is waiting for the Conservative expenses to be published before doing a "hatchet job".
Complain about this comment
Flats get messy when people are there, not when they are not.
'Normal' people clean up after themselves. If they want to treat themselves to a bit of luxury they pay for a cleaner from their own pocket.
What makes Gordon Brown so pompously self important that he not only cannot clean up after himself but also expects us, the taxpayer, to fund a cleaner?
It is not a question of whether he COULD have claim but a question of whether he SHOULD have.
Complain about this comment
Main item on the lunchtime news today was MPs expenses, their excesses, and their shameless claims that the claims were "within the rules".
Second item on the news was that four UK soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the last 24 hours, including 2 gurkhas.
Third item on the lunchtime news today was Major Phil Packer, the Royal Military Police officer who was told he would never walk again after a bombing in Basra, and who is still slowly making his way towards the finish line of the London Marathon. His target is to raise £1 million for Help for Heroes, a charity for injured soldiers. He says that if he does not hit that target, he will feel he has let people down.
===
Compare and contrast the weasely self-serving words of the politicians with the words and actions of these brave men.
Complain about this comment
I'm with Pensfold at 161
Obviously we can't call them honourable members any more, and maybe Harriet is right that utterly corrupt is too strong. Maybe we could settle on some middle ground. Why not call them "the only slightly corrupt member" or for Cabinet ministers "the Right Corrupt member"?
Or we could go for the full Monty Python: "the fairly corrupt but not half as corrupt as those comtemptible European members member".
You have to laugh or you would just cry at where this shabby lot have taken the country.
Complain about this comment
The politicians including Gordon may be within the letter of the rules but they are outside the spirit of them.
It is no different to a sneaky lawyer using a legal technicality as a loophole to get his client off to the detriment of society.
Politicians have become like lawyers and learnt the system designed to protect the best interests of the country such that they can find ways to abuse it.
It is all an intellectual game to them, just look at Damian Mcbride, the abolision of the 10p tax and so on. They are not about doing what is best for the nation, they are all about outwitting their opponents and manipulating the media in order to retain power.
Gordon gets all upset if he feels someone is threatening his 'integrity'.
His integrity is spread all over the road like a hedgehog under a 20 ton truck after the 10p tax gimmick, the troop withdrawel from iraq 'opportunity' when he thought he was having an election, the Gurghas, British jobs for British workers..yet still there he is scrapping his fingernails along the floor to hold on as the court of public opinion tries to drag him kicking and screaming out of the door of no.10.
It is a deeply unpleasant site in this once great nation.
Jericoa
Complain about this comment
200, 213. At 1:37pm on 08 May 2009, mcgrathbryan
Just repeating your nonsense doesn't make it any more credible.
Complain about this comment
219 smf
I am a Conservative and as appalled as everyone else at the way MPs are lining their own pockets at the expense of our taxes. That is MPs of ALL. parties.
I know that there are good MPs, bad MPs and indifferent MPs. For some it is a vocation and others a career.
All I want is a government I can trust to do the best for all of the population; not the rich at the expense of the poor, or the poor at the expense of the rich.
That government is not Brown and his cronies.
It reminds me of a communist Russian joke (circa 1979).
Comrade 1 - What is the difference between capitalism and communism
Comrade 2 - I don't know, comrade
Comrade 1 - Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, and communism is vica versa
Nothing changes!!!
Complain about this comment
Good afternoon nick bit over cast here to day never the less i said things were hotting up over the channel ,they most certainly are and by the look of things.they will get hotter Small beers all round is it ?well the expences is the topic yea? The working man on the bottom of the pile is on a minumum wage right?whats the minumum wage for an mp? which enables him or her to justify claiming for expences in the first place, Don't they get enough in the first instant, that they feel the need of a second bite at the cherry?I also notice the suits are shiner now days and there not cheap .But then after you been found out of cheating on your expence account,you can aclaim lessons are to be learnt cant you? how many more lessons have joe public to be taught as and when enough is enough.
Complain about this comment
LippyLippo 31
I am in a job where I can claim for all these things but I do not. I have to account for everything that I claim on expenses, I could just see me putting down tampons or nappies. Have this lot got no shame. There are many things I could claim for I do not because it would be ridiculous and abuse of the system.
To say that they claim just because they can, just shows what lack of principles this shower have. To defend them is just as bad in my opinion. We have a tax system that Brown set up to squeeze every penny out of the public by means of stealth taxes and here we have a man who will not even pay for his own cleaning bill. Perhaps it would help if we did not have a PM coming down from Scotland when they already have their own Parliament. We have Brown who has brought this country to its knees so that people are losing their jobs and homes and him and his jolly crew still enjoying these sort of privileges it beggars belief.
We all know why MPs want the expenses system istead of extra salary because they would have to pay tax probably at the higher rate they have imposed on others. The ring fenced pension they enjoy is worth a lot on top of their salary alone.
Perhaps you have something there when you say we could go back to the system of the people in politics being rich in their own right then maybe they would not be so willing to take our money. Same with councillors they used to do the job as a public service now it is there as a money spinner.
Brown has increased the powers of the tax office to such an extent that he reckons fraud will be avoided, perhaps he should apply that vigourous structure to himself and his cronies.
I am incandescent with rage about these expenses on behalf of the hard working people of this country.
Complain about this comment
The next steps on MP's expenses that ought to happen:
1. All MP's should be given a month to repay any expenses that they consider "on reflection" might have been better not claimed. No time limit on how far back they should look.
2. The police and/or HMRC should review all the data and prosecute/collect tax as appropriate. In the spirit of a moratorium, amounts repaid as a result of the above review should be taken into account.
3. The PM should act as a statesman and acknowledge that parliament has been brought into serious and significant disrepute by the actions of all/most of its members. To start the mending process there should be an immediate general election.
4. If the PM cannot bring himself to do the above, every MP should, in unison, resign and force a bi-election in his/her constituency. Only those (few?) MPs who can honestly say they have made no expense claims that would fail in the Court of Public Opinion might reasonably not resign.
5. The new government should introduce a new system of MPs pay and expense reimbursement following the current review. The minimum conditions on expenses should include reimbursement, subject to an upper limit, for expenses incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purpose of being an MP. Given the average term of a typical MP, it seems to me that such expenses might reasonably include rental costs for a flat near Westminster but should not include mortgage interest relating to the purchase of a property.
Complain about this comment
224 Screengrid
Hence my definition of MPs as "self-serving professional liars."
The main difference is the degree.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
You've got to the love the New Labour trolls on this blog... but here are a few facts for them.
1. Rupert Murdoch doesn't own the Daily Telegraph.
2. The Torygraph no longer exists. In fact, the Telegraph has been quite close to the GVN in recent years.
3. The Telegraph are planning to run with Tory expense fiddles tomorrow. They highlighted the cabinet today, not because of some right-wing conspiracy, but because sleaze stories about the cabinet sell better than stories about the opposition. And the Telegraph is in the buisness of selling newspapers.Still don't worry you will have your opportunity to crow tomorrow.
4. Expense claims are not income based. They are, or they should be a reinbursement of costs incurred. David Cameron's income - most of which originates from his wife - is irrelevant.
5. Of the three main party leaders - Glegg has the best record on trying to clean up Westminster - followed by Cameron, and then Brown.
6. Labour came to power with a promise to clean up politics. That's why the public is angry with you. We elected you (in part) because the Tories were sleazy. we wanted you to clean up the place, not help yourself.
7. The BBC are not pro-Tory. If you watched the ITN news, it was a car-crash for the GVN. By comparison the BBC news gave GVN ministers a chance to put their case.
8. You had better hope that someone on the Tory front bench has done something wrong - because if Cameron, Osborne, Hague, Davis and co are in the clear. Then the Labour Party is doomed.
9. Unrelated - But this GVN is the worst in living memory. FACT!
Complain about this comment
231.
I think Cabinet Ministers would disagree.
Complain about this comment
Those defending Labour MPs on the basis that all the revelations are a Tory plot and that MPs are as bad are absurd. Would you defend the guards at Belsen by saying those at Dachau were as bad?
Defend your defendants. If you can.
Complain about this comment
Post 203 & 226 I expect that the Conservatives are keeping quiet as someone else is giving the government a better kicking than they ever could.
Also if as 226 you suggest there are some real "doozies" in the conservatives expenses they don't want to be found out acting hypocritically if they are just as guilty.
Maybe Nick's comments about this being small beer may be true. Perhaps the Telegraph have only served up the hors d'ouvres today with the main course at a later date.
Complain about this comment
Nick, you say: "Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics."
And you seem to be daft enough to believe them - and, for some reason - to wish to defend them.
Further: "Nevertheless, what's been revealed so far looks unlilkely to force anyone from office and compared with allegations of fraud that politicians have faced in many other countries this would be regarded as small beer."
So that's all right, then ? I don't know which is more contemptible - their actions or your regarding this matter as unimportant.
Can you imagine Attlee, or Churchill behaving in this way - YES or NO ?
Complain about this comment
#235 angryCB
I agree with your points 1-4. However No. 5 you say:
"5. The new government should introduce a new system of MPs pay and expense reimbursement following the current review. The minimum conditions on expenses should include reimbursement, subject to an upper limit, for expenses incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purpose of being an MP."
===
That is exactly what the current system does. There is an upper limit and the expenses claims already have to be wholly, necessarily and exclusively for their work as an MP.
We need something far more radical. A dormitory system for those MPs who live more than 90 minutes commute time away from Westminster. They should live in their only HOME in their constituencies, they should only have somewhere to STAY in London, not a second home or an investment opportunity. Big difference.
Complain about this comment
DisgustedofMitcham asks:
"what percentile of the UK income distribution you are in if you are earning:
a) a backbench MPs salary
b) a ministerial salary"
The answer is:
a) Between the 97th and 98th percentile.
b) Beteen the 99.1st and 99.5th percentile.
This is based on HMRC data on distribution of total income among taxpayers 2006/07.
Now then, what does that mean in practice? It means that more than 1 million taxpayers earned more than a backbench MP. And between 300,000 and 400,000 people earned more than a minister. That strikes me as an awful lot of people being paid more -- and sometimes an awful lot more -- than backbenchers and ministers, while doing jobs that are rarely anywhere near as important to all of us. And I'm sure there's quite a lot of those 1m+ people who earn above 70k (or 500k+ people who earn above 100k) who are pretty impressive folks, but who look at the humiliation, nonsense and sacrifice of income that goes along with being a politician and think, "no thanks".
Complain about this comment
"Ask any MP and they'll insist that you don't get rich by going into politics."
Nick, could you remind the next MP who dares say that, that their salaries put them in the top few percent of earners in the country? They may not consider that this makes them rich. Perhaps they should ask their constituents what they think.
Complain about this comment
#69 ianmac46: "Shall we all stand back and wait until the details of ALL parties expenses are revealed...before we begin our protestations at this LABOUR Government...just a thought.......??"
Here's another thought for you. Granted, these revelations are going to be bad for all parties.
However, the key word in your comment is "Government". It is they who make the rules, they who have the power to change the rules.
They did not. We all know why, because they were lining their bank accounts and expanding their property portfolios at our expense.
Therefore, the Labour government deserve the most criticism, and hopefully criminal investigation along with all MPs from all parties who have suspicious claims.
The government makes the rules, or chooses not to. This has laid bare the lies and hypocrisy of Gordon Brown being a man with a "moral compass".
Not that Nick Robinson would ever dare to criticise the Labour Party. This blog is an absolutely disgraceful display of partisan sycophancy, and Robinson should hang his head in shame at his own weakness and Brown-nosing.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
How much do cleaners get paid in London? I ask, because according to the Telegraph, this cleaner was costing our PM £35.70 per hour. (10 hr. contract for £357 per month)
Now obviously some of this money, would have been taken up by employers national insurance payments etc... But even so, this cleaner must have been getting £25 + per hour. Is that really the going rate?
Seems a bit steep to me... Anybody else (who is rich enough to employ a cleaner) care to say how much they pay?
Complain about this comment
#246 I don't have a cleaner, but considered it.
I think in London you'll find they are approximately £8-10/hr.
Complain about this comment
"Fifty Ways to leave your leader..."
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2009/5/5/2610/07584
Who said the Left haven't got a sense of humour?
Complain about this comment
ngodinhdiem
It's 10 hours PER WEEK, 43.33 hours PER MONTH, putting it at just over £8 an hour, hardly extortionate! Go look at the PDF of the contract on the Guardian website
Complain about this comment
***Every*** MP dreads?
I don't think Wedgie would be dreading it. There are others too on all sides of the house (Screaming Lord Such (GRHS) would have been another).
Even if they are guilty of this feather bedding too, the current government have more ability to take more money, so although they get weighed down with guilt, NuLab fare worse. So although they don't like it, the opposition parties won't mind too much and at least they have the excuse that they cannot change the rules, Labour can.
Complain about this comment
This morning, on the Today Programme, the Leader of the House demonstrated why our MPs make such a hash of the legislation they push through the House. I have seldom heard such a deceitful "on message" performance showing complete disregard for the facts.
We should be more worried about MPs utter incompetence as it affects our laws and HMG decisions rather than their individual financial improprieties.
Complain about this comment
#235 AngyCB
'...The PM should act as a statesman...'
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah
He doesn't know the meaning of the word 'statesman'. Is that something to do with 'it started in America'?
Complain about this comment
If you have ever wondered what the audio equivalent of a worm wriggling on an angler's hook would sound like, listen to this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8039000/8039503.stm
Complain about this comment
If you lie your way to a war in Iraq - the entire Cabinet with full support from the Conservatives, and spend 6 six years telling yourself you did the right thing, if Blair can be a special envoy to the Middle East, if Jack Straw is in charge of Justice, we have an army in Afganisatn without knowing why they are there, then pushing an expense claim in, any expense claim is rather innocent.
Never mind the loose change, just do not forget the War crimes committed in our name and our need to get this lot in front of a court dealing with War crimes.
Complain about this comment
Surely these "second homes" should be the property of the nation. Why should an MP get what is a good salary AND all expenses paid AND the finances for a 2nd home?
A halls of residence would do the job fine for them. They need somewhere to eat and sleep if away from home for work. It could be well furnished.
None of the parties will come out of this looking good. The government need to take responsibility for this as its on their watch.
Complain about this comment
afternoon , we are all missing a point here . bog standard answer when questioned about their expenses " oh that was a mistake "if they can't complete their expenses correctly without making a "mistake" no wonder our country is going down the pan.
too busy looking after no.1
their other answer of "i didn't break the rules " simply shows how low their morals have fallen - public servants - I don't think so!
Sid
Complain about this comment
The company I work for has rules on expense claims which include a statement that "the claims should be fair to the employee and fair to the company".
I accept it is not a hard and fast tangible defintion but as a general statement that all expense claims should be fair and reasonable before being submitted.
Fair and reasonable are not two words which I would use to describe some of the MP claims I have seen today. The "within the rules" line being recited at the moment is nonsense, the rules were never really intended to address misuse on such a scale.
The fact the rules allow does not make many of them right, fair or reasonable. If the MPs concerned cannot see this then their lack of judgement should preclude them from their position as MPs IMO. And if tighter rules are required to curb their excesses then again this should preclude them from their positions.
Perhaps the worst offenders should offer themsleves up for re-election, and let Harriets "Court of Public Opinion" decide on the matter.
Complain about this comment
The first thing that needs to change is the "allowances" system needs to be changed to an "expenses" system.
Allowances are just that: a sum of money you are allowed to claim. So the mentality is you claim for the allowance, because its money you are entitled to. To not claim means you miss out on money you should have had.
Basically like tax credits and other benefits, except the burden of proof on MPs is less than with benefit claimants. MPs just claim, we have to fill in 60-page booklets of detailed information before we have a hope of getting the money.
Expenses are where you get reimbursed for legitimate expenses, confirmed by receipts. Thats what needs to be implemented for MPs.
Actually I can see why Gordon Brown thinks the tax credit system is so good: in his case an allowance system works wonderfully in his favour. Its a pity the reality of similar systems for the rest of us isn't so rosy.
Complain about this comment
#149 yellowbelly1959
"Wholly, necessarily and exclusively" - spot on.
Where are HMRC on this? Have they given special dispensation? Against less fortunate taxpayers, HMRC have fought many times in the courts that various expenditure was not wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred for the purposes of carrying on an employee or office-holder's duties. Work clothes, accommodation expenses etc have been covered in various cases.
I don't think the case for bath plugs, mock tudor beams etc can even be made on these criteria.
We should vote out all MPs from whatever party who've been taking the p***. I don't even care if it was 'within the rules'. It was morally wrong.
Complain about this comment
Chaps,
Nick is not brown-nosing Labour, no he is simply scared of the Prime Minister and unable to ask him a direct question. The so-called interview last week which Nick conducted in the wake of various alleged tantrums showed the situation and just how scared he is of the Prime Minister. It is a really difficult situation when a journalist runs scared. Not the case with Sky Reporters methinks.
Complain about this comment
123geronimo beat me to my comment. It is not unreasonable for those 'working' away from their home to have some form of benefit and the cost of having to live away from home should not be bourne by the Individual. However, why should an MP get a return on capital growth for a property funded for by the taxpayer. The current system is not fair and equitable as it stands.
The property could be as plush as you like and I am sure with capital growth (in the longer term of course) and savings on expense claims there would still be a considerable saving.
Complain about this comment
162 dorset wurzel
A rather absurd post that doesn't address any of the points that I made, I clearly pointed out that blaming secretaries was not my point only that some things like claiming for somthing twice is more likely to be a clerical error than a rather poorly disguised act of deceptoin which would obviously come to light at some time.I make no excuses for the abuse of the system from any party, but its been the same for donkey's years, long before Labour came to power.But once again that not a excuse its a fact.
#By the way, you can admit to having no scruples but do not think everyone is the same.
Oh! I knew there would be atleast one that would claim to be whiter than white, what a wonderful wurzel you must be, never crossed a white line never parked in a prohibited zone for ten seconds, you must be one in only about ten in this country who have never done wrong.
God bless you sir you are truly a gentleman.
Complain about this comment
"That strikes me as an awful lot of people being paid more -- and sometimes an awful lot more -- than backbenchers and ministers, while doing jobs that are rarely anywhere near as important to all of us."
And about 49 million people earning less.
NOTE: you only get 1 million in your list if you include children, unemployed and retired. And you'll have to exclude any perks and people earning the same amount (since you should count those earning more than 95% of MPs as earning more: a lot will be earning about the same salary).
Complain about this comment
The current government have been in power for 12yrs. The expenses issue has been changed by them. They are well paid and have great opportunities both whilst being an MP and after wards to earn a lot of money. If they do not understand the basics that we all live by then it is no wonder this country is in such a state. The elections in June may send a message that the public do have some power. MPs who do not understand what is morally acceptable may find that we do not find them or their ilk acceptable. This government have been given an easy by journalists and the media so you have absolved them all along. Time for a reality check, no one forced anyone to claim for anything they should not have done.
Complain about this comment
geronimo @ 255:
Although I was jumping about with indignation at the beginning of this blog I tend after some thought to share your calm perspective on things. All of this is really small fry compared with issues of the economy although I can begin to understand how those who have lost their jobs and homes may be feeling. MPs from all sides of The House will be in the same boat and it is now up to Parliament to do something about the regulations so that noone else in the future will be able to say with impunity 'I have done nothing wrong. I kept within the rules'. (Just woke from a nasty nightmare in which my girlfriend and a long lost male friend were both blown up in a barbecue gas cylinder explosion. I I gave The Fire Service the wrong address for the fire site (strangely my parents previous home and they are now both dead these past two years. They appeared at the end of my nightmare to console me). Hence my more considered take on this developing story which is only really intended to sell copy.
Complain about this comment
Probably one of the most eagerly awaited political stories of the year and you can muster a paltry half dozen paragraphs. Whilst you might not get rich being a politician, you certainly do as the BBC political correspondent. How do you fill your day?
Complain about this comment
What's with this story of The Whips keeping some MPs on suicide watch because of the expenses revelations? One can only suspect that there must be more serious cases to follow.
Complain about this comment
Harman just makes me ill trying to justify their expenses. The fact is whoever you work for when you claim expenses you are given a set of guidelines which you must adhere to, it is dishonest to do otherwise. Now tell me who in the Labour Party needs nappies or sweets to carry out their job. Who needs to move 3 times in a year for their job as Blears claims, or is she saying Parliament itself has moved.
They all reckon they work so hard, yet they still find time to collect a receipt for all these silly claims.
So now the police are being brought in to investigate how the Newspaper got hold of this information. The police should be brought in the exam MPs expenses more like. The public will not thank the Government for doing this we want to know what our MPs are up to and obviously we are not going find out from them.
Complain about this comment
MPs don't get rich being MPs? Pull the other one. They might not earn the money that bankers earn but then not many people do.
I am happy that MPs get expenses that correctly reflect the expenses they incur just like I do in my job but at the minute its not like that. They get expenses to pay for a second home but then get to keep the home. It would be like me asking to keep the hotel room after a stay away, its just not reasonable. I heard one on the radio say that MPs should get paid a standard professional salary and then they would not all these extra expenses. I think that is perfectly reasonable as I am sure most professional teachers and nurses will find it reasonable too.
Complain about this comment
Nick, I appreciate that you have to be impartial, but surely it's time that someone such as yourself or Paxo actually grilled the PM on his inconsistency between USING the expenses system and DERIDING it.
I listened with incredulity to his statement on BBC News earlier today that "...the expenses system doesn't work".
It appears to have 'worked' rather well for him over the last decade or two, and he never found any reason to object to it as long as the public were kept blissfully unaware of how much of his day-to-day expenses he was charging to the taxpayer.
The hypocricy is breathtaking. No wonder he was grinning so much in that infamous YouTube statement, I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face either when denouncing something I was guilty of abusing for so long.
The system worked as intended for the people who created it - the MPs. However, the taxpayers were never supposed to find out that MPs annual 'second home perks' equated to more than most of them earn in a year, and that's only part of the culture.
The excuses, back-peddling and refund-payments by many have only come about because this scam has, at long last, been revealed to those funding it - us!
It's 'envelopes-stuffed-with-cash' all over again; just as at the end of Major's government in 1997.
What makes this issue all the more serious this time, it that it's OUR CASH in those envelopes and the recipients claim it was all legal and above board. No contrition, no apology, just "I was within the rules (we wrote ourselves)".
The audacity of the 'innocence claims' are becoming unbearable! They've been caught out and should pay the price. Resignation is the honourable way out for all those named and shamed - no matter how 'right' they think they were - the country don't believe a word of it!
Complain about this comment
They have now called in the police to find the leek the police should be investigating the ministers. Thank goodness for whistle blowers otherwise this lot (on all sides) would be ripping us of forever. The MPs set the rules so they cannot break them.
I claim expenses and are not allowed to profit from them if these people use our money to do up a house or pay the mortgage then any profits should go back to the treasury when sold. Otherwise stay in a hotel like the rest of us have to.
Complain about this comment
164 obagobang
#What an utterly pathetic, and predictable, attempt to, in one stroke, absolve the Government of blame and at the same time, cast aspersions on the other parties.
I think old chum that you need new spectacles, at no time did I try to absolve the government , nor do I. At no time in my post did I cast aspersions on the other parties I didn't need to we all know that their all at it and thats why it has to change,
Atleast I didn't come up with your pathetic attempt at mathmatics, using the fact that because Labour has 60 more members of parliament that they are mathematically bound to have claimed more expenses than Labour, God the lengths some of you will go to try to score a point.
You then go on and the rest of your post more or less agrees with what I had said.
# Your tunnel vision clearly knows no bounds.
It knows no bounds because it doesn' exist, why is it whe any labour supporter voices a opinion he's either got his head in the sand or tunnel vision and rose tinted glasses? and yet when a Tory or any one berrating the Labour party postes its always the epitomy of good sense and brilliantly stated,I think that says more about you tories and cohorts than it does about any of my party supporters, my short sighted friend.
Complain about this comment
What is more important for the police to investigate?
A whistleblower exposing the fraudulent activities of MPs, or those activities themselves.
The House of Commons has spoken clearly which it thinks has priority.
Shame! Call an election, and vote the lot of them out.
Complain about this comment
Just listened to HH on this morning. Blimey Harriet, Conway? Conway? Is that all you have, he was kicked out of the party as soon as the light was shone on him for his misconduct, and rightly so the terrible old Rake! That is what you do when you are a real leader you throw them out! Someone messes up badly you sack them. Conway is now classed as an independent MP and will not be standing for the next election.
Shame the same could not be said for
Hain
Mandleson
Vaz
Prescott
McConnell
Jowell and Hubby
Livingstone
Blunkett
Byers
Robinson
Davis
Which brings things neatly to J. Smith? Anyone discovered just how busy her old man has been doing for his £40K? No? Has she been kicked out? No! Shes OK, why? Because there is no one left in Gordons Party of the Talents left, they've been used up. He aint gonna give Home secretary to the ridiculous Skinner, or the more admirable few like Field or Marshall-Andrews (who sadly is standing no next election too). He is paralysed, and has nowhere to turn, and I'm guessing pretty mad about it!
Blimey Hewlett Packard, Nokia and Staples must be making a mint out of replacement kit!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
That aside I'm sure there are more dodgy Tories to be sacked too. Alan Duncan, I think may have to take the walk of shame, after his terrible performance on Have I got News for you.
Why do these people set themselves up, MP's you just aren't sharp enough to be on it.
Look what Media hugging did for Lembit Öpik he is one of the biggest laughing stocks in the house.
Not MP's stay away from media!!!!!
Complain about this comment
So the police have now been called in to trace the source of the data on MPs expenses.
Seems Gordon Brown, who used to be quite open about receiving leaked information when his party was in opposition, is now opposed to such practises. Even when it is clearly in the public interest.
Wonder what will happen this time. The detection rate in such matters I think is zero so far in the life of this particular government. I don`t think Gordon should get his hopes up too much.
Complain about this comment
Mr Robinson
Has anyone given any thought as to who benefits from the eventual sale of the second/third home? Who gets to keep any of the windfall capital when a property is sold? Arfe any profits surrendered back into the system? Of course not, so the tax-payer firstly pays for their second homes and then generously donates the profits back to the politicians.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This post does not break house rules. You state "provoke, attack or offend others; are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable; "
How does legitimate criticism of Nick Robinson and the BBC fall in this category?
If you don't want to hear our opinions - don't allow us to post them, and, better still, don't force us to pay £130/yr to not be allowed to speak our mind.
Original post follows:
The problem with journalists like Nick Robinson is that they grew up in a society that distrusted politicians and was cynical of them.
This has led him to believe that fraud like this is "small beer" and not worthy of his valuable time. After all, "they're all at it".
It is sheer derogation of duty like this that sees our countries in the shambles it is in.
If Nick cannot muster the temerity to properly investigate those who govern us, he is not fit for his job and should resign. Failing that, he should be sacked.
If this does not happen, it is clear that the BBC is part of the problem, and any new government should conduct a thorough review into its continued taxpayer funding.
Complain about this comment
#272 - the point is Labour are in power, they have had 12 years to reform this system, and not even attempted to.
Why?
Because they are profiting from it at our expense. They would only change that if they had any morals. It is now clear they are bereft of them.
It is impossible to fathom why anyone, even colours-nailed-to-the-mast supporters of the government like yourself, would support such behaviour which is dishonest if not even criminal.
Care to explain yourself?
The Tories and the Lib Dems are not in power, they cannot force a change in the rules. Labour is in power, it has a sizeable majority, it could have changed them if it so wished.
It is now clear for all to see: Labour only want to change the system after a) they have milked it for over a decade, and b) when they get caught at it.
Absolutely disgraceful, as is anyone attempting to justify this behaviour.
Complain about this comment
219smfcbuddie
#He did not seem to address any of the points made by the earlier posters, instead he seemed to be motivated by point scoring. Indeed, I was not alone in criticising him for this.
First and foremost old chap I am not posting on here to necessarily address any of the points made by any other poster, sometimes I address their points sometimes I don't, as they do mine. the point of this thread as I understand it is to give your opinion or "Have your say" if on the other hand, and your post is a good example, someone addresses me then I do my best to reply.
Your remarks suggesting that my post was written with the intention of point scoring is completley wrong as I explained earlier to the person who I believe you are refering to, I am not trying to exonerate anyone from being responsible for claiming expenses, they are all at it and I guess as others have said who can blame them, that is a fact of human nature we all do it but of course because I say that and being a labour supporter ,I have no scruples,of course add to that I have never claimed a penny in expenses in the whole of my fairly long life, but had I have had the opportunity to do that , I probably would have, I am human and have human failings unlike Susan Croft who is whiter than white
and possibly yourself.
Complain about this comment
No3,deanthetory,
Using the phrase 'the enemy within'to describe your political opponents in a liberal democracy is, to say the least rather childish.The last politician that I remember using the phrase was the Tory PM in the 80's.You may recall that she was so useless, the people that knew her best, Tory MPs,stabbed her in the back, booted her out and seemed to rejoice in treating her like a beetle.
Complain about this comment
Bring on a election NOW!
We could all eliminate the expenses debate by voting for anyone other than the currently sitting MP for your area.
Let's get rid of the dross and start again. Just think of the message this will send to all those Party apparatchiks!
Complain about this comment
Does anyone read Grandantidote?
If so and if it's relevant, please could you paraphrase and let me know.
Complain about this comment
280 Original post -
Dead right
Complain about this comment
#243:
It's true that MPs do jobs that are important to all of us. Terrorists also do jobs that are important to all of us, but it doesn't mean we should pay them handsomely for doing so.
And as for the humiliation that goes with being a politician, don't you think that could just maybe have just a teeny-weeny bit to do with they way they constantly lie, cheat, and defraud the taxpayer?
Complain about this comment
£8 per hour in central london for a cleaner is close to what I pay. But what was the cleaner doing? It is for a flat - I pay alot less per month than GB for my cleaner, she has to clean a 4 bedroomed house with kids in it.
Complain about this comment
Pathetic. Just pathetic. They call in the police to divert attention away from the real issue. The public will not forgive the politicians for this abuse of privilege. Why isn't Nick Robinson asking the PM why the taxpayer should pay to clean his flat when he was living in Downing Street as Chancellor?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I understand these people are calling for the police to investigate the leak of this information.
I think the police should be investigating something - but it's not the person who leaked the papers.
Complain about this comment
272 Grandantidote
Sorry mistake on 272
Labour has 60 more members of parliament that they are mathematically bound to have claimed more expenses than Labour.
should have read
Labour has 60 more members of parliament that they are mathematically bound to have claimed more expenses than the tories.
Complain about this comment
The article is really too gentle about these greedy and possibly fraudulent people (of any party). I have personally sacked employees for less. Perhaps you have been too long in the Lobby or possibly the allowances are on a par with those the BBC offer and thus seem reasonable. Perhaps the BBC could publish their allowances so we licence payers can judge?
Complain about this comment
So let me get this right. MP's systematically abuse the their expense claims, for almost everything they can get their hands on (no receipt required. Now it is being made public they cry foul and call in the police to investigate and find the whistleblower. Hang on, I thought that the government liked whistleblowers. Don't they encourage us to report people fiddling benefits? Don't they encourage councils to snoop on taxpayers? Surely they can't advocate one rule for you but a different rule for us?
Complain about this comment
Nataku:
"It's 10 hours PER WEEK, 43.33 hours PER MONTH, putting it at just over £8 an hour, hardly extortionate! Go look at the PDF of the contract on the Guardian website."
I'll take your word for it. And no I don't think £8 an hour is extrortionate. But having a cleaner for 30 hrs per week is!! It's supposed to be a Westminster flat, not a palace. And remember, he lived here part-time. I bet if he was paying the full whack - instead of us the taxpayer - he'd cut down the hrs a bit.
Complain about this comment
I find the hypocrisy of the left wing amazing all bleating about The Telegraph being right wing and only leaking Cabinet details. Do they really think that The Grauniad wouldn't just focus on Conservative misdemeanours if it had good enough journalist to get the story. It is pure sour grapes.
Which when you consider how high the bleating was during John Major's death throes makes you realise it is one rule for them and one for us.
I am sure Johnathan Aitken reads the Telegraph with interest playing "Spot the Difference"
So much for Blair's Whiter than White.
This current lot makes the Tories circa 1990 to 1997 look like a bunch of monks.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Your colleague at the beeb, Martha Kearney, seems to be suggesting that bi-elections shouldn't be ruled out over these expenses in her weekly column
That seems a bit far away from your: Neverthless, what's been revealed so far looks unlilkely to force anyone from office and compared with allegations of fraud that politicians have faced in many other countries this would be regarded as small beer
So what information has her journalistic talent discovered that you appear to have overlooked?
Complain about this comment
This is NOT about whether they broke the rules, it is about the rules in the first place.
MPs set up the rules, MPs allowed themselves largess which no other employee in the land would be granted by their employer or allowed by HM Revenue & Customs, MPs tried to keep how they benefited from those rules secret from the public, MPs won't be paying back a penny of those benefits.
There is no moral defence to this at all.
We could re-write the ending to George Orwell's 'Animal Farm'. Looking in through the window we could be looking at Sir Fred Goodwin and his cronies on one side of the table and Gordon Brown and his on the other. Could we tell the difference?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I've asked before.
Why has HMRC not carried out an investigation into the way the MPs' allowance scheme is operated?
The response that "we were only following the rules" is no defence if the rules themselves are either so vague as to be meaningless, so flexible that it allows each "member" to decide their interpretation or structured in a way that conflicts with existing laws.
A "second home" has revenue connotations when it is sold. Capital Gains Tax applies. It is clearly in breach of common sense - let alone the law - to declare second home status, collect tax-payers' money to pay for it, then cash in the profit with no exposure to any tax implications.
Why has there been no HMRC test case?
How can anyone say that buying a patio heater, or white rope for the garden, can in any way be an essential expense required to perform duties as an MP? Or adding Tudor beams to a home?
How can it be reasonable that Balls/Cooper claim the house they live in with their children as their second home, while Smith lives with her sister but the house her family lives in is HER second home. It's a nonsense. This is, however, not a party issue. But it is a demonstration that common sense goes out of the door when a small group of people are able to declare themselves immune from the tax regime and rules that apply to other individuals and companies in the UK...
Call in the tax inspectors now. They have the power to challenge declarations over a 7 year period.
Complain about this comment
Why did the Tories not clean up the system during their 18 wasted years?
Complain about this comment
#268 SusanCroft
Susan, you might just want to keep your powder dry a bit here, as there seems to be some equally luidicrous claims to come from the tories:
One conservative MP charged £160 each year to have his Aga serviced;
One animal-loving female Conservative MP claimed 78p for two tins of Cesar Chicken and Turkey pet food and £3.69 for Iams Senior pet food.
Elephant Lamps: two for £134.30, bought by a well-known Tory frontbencher.
F is for Farrow and Ball paint: charged by a Tory shadow minister as part of a £1,775 interior house painting claim for his home in the country.
Farleys Rusks: £1.59, bought by a Conservative backbencher in 2006
One particularly wealthy Tory MP charged £10 for a bag of manure for his country retreat.
One Tory grandee charged £35 per quarter for a mole catcher at his country home.
P is for Pizza Wheel: £3, bought from a Bodum shop in Oxfordshire by Tory backbencher; piano tuning £40, claimed by a former Tory minister in 2004
one Tory grandee charged £98.63 for a service on his swimming pool boiler at his country home.
T is for Tampax: Two packs at £1.11 each, claimed by a Conservative MP who lost his seat in 2005.
Potato peeler, £4.50, claimed by a member of the Tory front bench.
Z is for Zanussi Oven:
£337.18, bought by a knighted Conservative MP from B&Q in 2007.
===
Although I have to say that as troughing goes, there is a little more style to the tory claims. Aga servicing, swimming pool servicing, mole catching and so on, whereas the labour equivalent seems to be hiring Rentokil for a rat infestation.
Perhaps they were leaving the sinking ship HMS Prudence!
Complain about this comment
It's Friday, I am going out for a small beer tonight. Can I claim the cost on expenses do you think?
Complain about this comment
Doesn't it make you weep.
Some bright spark is calling in the police to investigate the "leaking" of information to the press, claiming that it was a potentially criminal act.
This after a judge had said that, in keeping with the Freedom of Information Act - passed by Parliament - information should be made public.
I'm amazed that the Home Office didn't send the police around to haul in the judge, who was obviously seeking to undermine the government.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Any comment on the fact that labour has now brought in the police to investigate the source of the leak, when in fact it was information that legally was supposed to have been in the public domain over a year ago?
The fact that members like straw and brown have both admitted that they'd filed false claims means that technically they're guilty of fraud.
Bring the police in I say; let them investigate the fraud, and let them ignore the leaker (who was only publishing information which was legally supposed to be in the public domain anyway).
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS