Has he got a Legg to stand on?
Last night in the Commons, I could not find an MP with a good word to say about the man asked to audit and cleanse their expense claims - asked by the Commons, mind.
Senior MPs with a legal background said Sir Thomas would not have a leg to stand on if his demands for repayments - based on rules he is applying retrospectively - ever came to court. They point to the fact that his remit invited him to assess claims by the "rules and standards in force at the time".
I have now obtained a copy of the document that all MPs have been sent by Sir Thomas which explains why he has acted as he has.
Sir Thomas says that "to interpret and determine the rules and standards" applying at the time was "not a straightforward task".
He points out that the Commons Fees Office frequently allowed "disproportionate claims" which "must be judged to have been in breach of the rules".
He notes that "in some areas, such as household furniture and equipment... the Fees Office did in fact impose... limits" - in other words, the infamous John Lewis list.
When it comes to mortgages, he says that "the upper limit of the allowance may normally be taken as the relevant and sufficient control" - in other words, those who "claimed to the max" for their mortgage do not risk having to repay money (unless, of course, their claim contained errors).
However, Sir Thomas notes that in other areas - cleaning and garden maintenance - "some limits must be regarded as having been place to prevent disproportionate and unnecessary expenditure from the public purse".
That is why Gordon Brown has a large cheque to write, whereas David Cameron does not. It is also why Labour MPs were cursing the PM last night for proposing - albeit with all-party support - the Legg Review.
I'm 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~30~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
MPs still don't get it! At least Cameron has told his candidates, pay up or you don't stand. Brown, as ever, is silent. One can only presume that his moral compass, once again, is pointing in the wrong direction.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I just don't see the problem here! All parties agreed to the retrospective review. If HM Revenues decided they wanted to review my personal tax I could be investigated up to 5 years back, and even though my returns have been agreed they can be overturned during the review
This is no different! The problem here is that MP's only agreed to a review because of public anger, not because they believe they were wrong in making claims
I can't wait for one of them to knock on my door and ask my opinion, then they might just get to understand what the phrase 'anger over expenses' means. Never mind their anger!
They assumed it would be swept under the carpet and forgotten about. Fair play to Sir Thomas!
What we need now is a list of MP's who say they are looking into legal action to prevent this - and make it public. I wonder how many will be willing to stand in front of the constituency and state it publicly??
Not a one would be my guess as all comments seem to come from an 'unnamed angry MP'
Sack the lot and start again
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I was asked a few years ago, to pay some extra tax (here in France) because the authorities had incorrectly assessed the (correct) information they had been given. In addition I had to pay 10% extra 'for late payment'.
There does not seem to me to be much difference between that and the Legg proposals - the assessments of expenses, even where made in good faith, have now been deemed to be wrong, and repayment is being demanded. They may not like it (neither did I!), but tough!
Complain about this comment
If the MPs are so sure of themselves, let's hand the whole process over to the Police. They can then conduct criminal inquiries into fraud. The basis being that the overriding rule at the time, as now, was:
"wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of carrying out their duties as an MP"
Any claim that cannot be justified in these terms the MP should then face prosecution. During the trial they will then have the chance to argue whether a 2000 quid garden set met that criteria in front of a jury.
Complain about this comment
MP's are squealing because they hoped for the usual Whitewash.
We also have a Prime Minister who is judged to have ripped us off for £12,415. That is more than a soldier on the frontline earns after tax.
Brown should set an example to other MP's and resign over this - but he won't because despite the pious Presbyterian sound bites, he is actually a selfish, false and vile individual.
Complain about this comment
Hello,regardless of what the honourable members with a legal background say,how many of these same honourable members could stand up in court and state that all their claims were valid under the old rules of being necessary to do their job,not many I should think.As we have seen all they have to do is go to the rubber stamp committee also called the standards committee and get let of by their mates.
Complain about this comment
I noticed that Newsnight did a large piece on the expenses scandal last night. The Labour Party sent two MP's to give over the parties view of developments. The Conservative Party refused to send any one....the Conservative Parties silence speaks a thousand words.
Noticed Cameron said that anyone who didn'y pay expenses cannot stand for them. Does this threat come from the same stable as "If any MP is found of any wrongdoing whatsoever he will be sacked from the Conservative Party"...up to date not a single MP has been sacked by Mr Cameron..Actions speak louder than words David.
http://redrag1.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
If they still don't "get it", then just let them wait till June, or earlier please. Then the people can have THEIR say about this whole sorry mess.
Complain about this comment
For so long MPs touted spin,
Causing such a hypocritical din,
But now the effects come home to roost,
Stop complaining!!!
Actions have consequences - moral boost
Complain about this comment
Just because the corruption, fraud and amorality of MPs is so rife as to be the norm, does not mean they can excuse themselves as 'just following the rules'. Did none of them have the decency to think that just because their chum had got away with a dodgy claim, perhaps they should show some moral authority and work to the standards we expect?
Just because your duck house/porn film claim was signed off doesn't make it okay. It just means that the Commons Fees Office was complicit in the fraud!
Complain about this comment
It shouldn't be polite letters containing respectful requests for repayments or further explanations that these MP's should be receiving - it's summonses from the Fraud Squad that should be dropping through their mailboxes. And isn't it striking that no matter how big the repayment demanded - £5,000 - £12,000 - £40,000 - the MP's concerned always seem to have the cash ready to comply. If ordinary members of the public had behaved like these MP's they'd have been locked up a long time ago. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
What about Jacqui Smith (Labour) ? There was a very good report on Newsnight last night - it showed that the punishment was decided by a committee of 6 Labour and 1 Conservative MPs; surprise, surprise, her party colleagues votes that she apologise, but not hand back the £116000 (one hundred and sixteen THOUSAND pounds) that Leg said she should not have claimed.
That is outrageous ! The Labour Party has no concept of democracy, justice or transparency (on top of respect for taxpayers' money, of course).
They can run, but they can't hide. Roll on the election.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
MPs should be thanking sir Thomas - without a genuinely harsh review there would always be a residual doubt over honesty. This way the majority of MPs are be asked to repay something so the guilt is shared collectively rather than being dumped on one or two individuals.
I do however await the prosecution of the most serious offenders.
Complain about this comment
"Last night in the Commons, I could not find an MP with a good word to say about the man asked to audit and cleanse their expense claims - asked by the Commons, mind."
Ughhhh, this is getting ridiculous. It's probably cost more than Legg can recover to prepare his report.
Look, the people who need doing-over are those who APPROVED these claims in the first place. These MP have been going on playing the system for years thinking it's perfectly okay to do so. Why not? Their claims were being approved. They knew they were coining it but weren't doing anything wrong.
Trying to recover money now from the last 5 years is plain barmey unless MPs can be shown to have broken the rules.
Don't get me wrong - I don't support what's been happening but all this cosmetic surgery to try to make things look all shiny and bright again is a further waste of public time and money.
If parliament is concerned about abusing public money, let's turn our attention to the sale of state assets.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
David Cameron was the largest claimer in the commons in his first year as an MP. He currently claims for a mortgage on his home in Oxfordshire. Expenses are supposed to be for where MP's have duplicate expenditure because they are an MP. David Cameron does not because he has no mortgage in London he owns his house. Within the spirit of expenses he should therefore not be claiming. Effectively he is getting the tax payer to buy a house in oxfordshire which if he sells he will make masses of money off. I think he should do three things.
1 Repay the money he has claimed
2 He should sell the house and give any profits to help pay off the massive public sector debt
3 He should resign for so obviously abusing the expenses system
I was really shocked to find out he was the largest claimant of expenses and that he seems to have such a hardline now.
I am really unclear as to why the TPA have not made more of this.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The MPs might have a strong legal case - but even they should understand that any MP who goes to court to avoid paying back their expenses is unlikely to be an MP after the next election.
I am not usually one to stand up for Brown but the headlines appear worse for him because he has been told to pay back a large sum, however because Cameron claimed for mortgage payments the headlines aren't so bad for him.
However, the big difference between Brown and Cameron and Clegg is that Brown had full use of a ministerial home for the last 12 years so didn't really require a second home allowance.
Complain about this comment
At the risk of repetition, here is my take on the scandal.
If as they proclaim themselves to be MPs had behaved as honourable men and women there would be no need for this review.
They did not and now they must face the consequences.
Sir Thomas Legg details why he has set out a limit to gardening and cleaning expenses. Although I fail to see how such expense can be attributed to the execution of the role as Member of Parliament. In a similar way I find it hard to understand how £400 per month could be claimed for food without a receipt.
The gravy train has stopped. Some must now pay the fare; Jacqui Smith note the spelling please. If they feel that their claims are justified and would like a court or HMRC to adjudicate as to how essential they were to being an MP then go to court. A jury trial would perhaps assist in explaining the public outrage at the behaviour of those elected to serve the people. So on second thought let's not involve HMRC.
Complain about this comment
Conedia
But why do you think David Cameron is making so much noise on this. It is because people will have their attention drawn to his record on expenses and him claiming for duplicate expenses that he does not have. He has massive personal wealth but still he is using the system to claim money from us to make himself richer.
Complain about this comment
All very interesting but Brown's silence about how Labour MPs should handle the situation speaks volumes. Would also be rather interesting to see Legg's letter to Tony Blair. In the end, OK they have all been told to repay "excess" claims -- so be it and lets move on.
More importantly from a democracy and legal viewpoint lets have a little discussion about the Damian Green Home Office affair. Good item for an in depth analysis for this evenings news perhaps ?
Complain about this comment
Nick, I can't believe you are criticizing the auditor. At last these expenses are being correctly evaluated. The law states that the expense must be wholly necessary for the MP to carry out his duties. These MP's need to justify or pay back. They are all intelligent enough to know they were taking a chance.
Complain about this comment
it just shows that the PM has no control over his party, or the country.
now he has to repay an over payment of expenses that does nothing for his reputation or his chances of holding on to his office after the next elections.
sadly it seems even the most honest person can become greedy when offered easy money.
the report may well be flawed and not deep enough but it shows there is more to find and the deeper they dig the more corruption they may well find, but how far back should they look ? 10 years, 20 years, or more.
so the question must remain and that is how many now sitting in parliment are there for the good of the country and how many are there to line their pockets at the public expence?.
Complain about this comment
There was no limit on gardening and cleaning claims excpet the one that it had to be reasonable.All Clegg has done is effectively to say that what they claimed was NOT reasonable.Fair enough.It is a cunning Mandelson spin began yesterday to say that Legg had changed the rules - he has not and he did not - all he has done is to say what was reasonable.
Can someone please explain to me why Godon Brown claimed a penny for gardening and cleaning as he lived in grace and favour homes at our expense? Where was the EXTRA cost he was incuring? Also what about his Sky sub?
Complain about this comment
NuLab now clearly represents the "old guard" as far as spinning, over-politicising and hypocritical do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitudes go.
2010 will bring a breath of fresh air with a new government (please don't re-elect the NuLab desperados).
Complain about this comment
'wheresMyVote wrote:
If the MPs are so sure of themselves, let's hand the whole process over to the Police. They can then conduct criminal inquiries into fraud. The basis being that the overriding rule at the time, as now, was:
"wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of carrying out their duties as an MP"'
On that basis £2000 a year for a cleaner seems more than generous - I don't see how cleaning services are "exclusively" incurred or are they trying to argue that MPs create more of a mess than the rest of us - must be as a result of fighting to get to the trough!
Complain about this comment
Seems perfectly clear to me. The system (i.e. the MPs led by the Speaker they elected) allowed/encouraged a modus operandi to develop that ignored the 'reasonableness' criterion that is stated in the rules. So this little self-regulated club claimed excessive public funds, against the rules. Ergo the 'reasonableness' has to be inserted retrospectively, as requested by the PM. It's a pity the MPs didn't have the integrity to regulate themselves. A bit worrying then that they regulate us. Good for Cameron, by the way. His leadership is shining through. As for the 'incensed', they really don't get it, do they?
Complain about this comment
There are only losers in this sorry business. We the people have lost a lot of money over the years, paying expenses for what are a very mediocre set of public servants. Those honourable MPs who played by the rules have lost out, because they have no more respect than the frauds who have played the system for what its worth. Politics has lost out, beacuse it is now deemed to be the profession of choice for all the three card tick specialists whio have been trying to rip us off for years.
Complain about this comment
Just because it's within the rules doesn't mean it's not obviously wrong. We'll have the opportunity to vote them out soon but my MP, Hazel Blears, looks like she's going to get back in regardless!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
19#
Because if they did it to him, they'd have to do it to a lot more besides - Geoff Hoon for one.
Complain about this comment
28. peterbuss wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why Godon Brown claimed a penny for gardening and cleaning as he lived in grace and favour homes at our expense?
This might help, pb.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5293446/MPs-expenses-Gordon-Browns-house-swap-that-let-him-claim-thousands.html
Complain about this comment
Does Tony Blair come under the expences rules? I would like to know how much he has been asked to pay back.
Complain about this comment
I repeat
David Cameron was the largest claimer in the commons in his first year as an MP. He currently claims for a mortgage on his home in Oxfordshire. Expenses are supposed to be for where MP's have duplicate expenditure because they are an MP. David Cameron does not because he has no mortgage in London he owns his house. Within the spirit of expenses he should therefore not be claiming. Effectively he is getting the tax payer to buy a house in oxfordshire which if he sells he will make masses of money off. I think he should do three things.
1 Repay the money he has claimed
2 He should sell the house and give any profits to help pay off the massive public sector debt
3 He should resign for so obviously abusing the expenses system
I was really shocked to find out he was the largest claimant of expenses and that he seems to have such a hardline now.
I am really unclear as to why the TPA have not made more of this.
Why are so many bloggers from the right not bothered about this?
This man wants to be the prime minister of this country but is fleecing us why are people not bothered.
This is not bachelor claiming - getting someone to do your washing because you are single - this is a slick metropolitan millionaire using the state to leverage extra borrowing that he will then personally benefit massively from - why don't people care?
Complain about this comment
Nick - you ask whether he has a leg to stand on. In the famous court of public opinion he most certainly does. It was interesting listening to Alistair Graham former Chairman of Standards in Public Life on the BBC this morning. He made the very valid point that this was a system set up and regulated by the MPs - with that in mind anything goes. The "rules" were so badly drafted that almost anything could get through. This is no defence for an extravagent claim.
Of course MPs could refuse to pay up and see where that gets them. Swift deselection before the election in all probability.
Complain about this comment
Expat in the Netherlands - please come home and pay taxes
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately, whether the MPs like it or not, they're judged by far more than 12 members of a jury - the electorate sit in flawed judgement and that's the life they chose.
What amazes me is that he (Sir Thomas Legg) hasn't really touched on the real issue surrounding expenses.... and that's mortgages.
Why should those who claimed under the rules for gardening be penalised when those who seemed to manipulate the system to receive more than beneficial mortgage arrangements go untouched and untainted?
It makes me sick.
Complain about this comment
"REDRAG1 wrote:
I noticed that Newsnight did a large piece on the expenses scandal last night. The Labour Party sent two MP's to give over the parties view of developments. The Conservative Party refused to send any one....the Conservative Parties silence speaks a thousand words."
That might not mean anything, I had a friend who was a PA to someone involved in a news story on local TV they were asked for his availability (with about 2 hours notice) for a news story only to be told that he had a charity event. This was portrayed on the news as him refusing to appear for an interview. I didn't see Newsnight but was one of the MPs Gordon Brown as this morning Cameron has addressed the media and stated that any MP who refuses to pay up will not be allowed to stand at the next election.
"Noticed Cameron said that anyone who didn'y pay expenses cannot stand for them. Does this threat come from the same stable as "If any MP is found of any wrongdoing whatsoever he will be sacked from the Conservative Party"...up to date not a single MP has been sacked by Mr Cameron..Actions speak louder than words David."
Well Conway lost the whip as a result of his expenses, others were encouraged to stand down at the next election. Others were threatened with the loss of the whip if they didn't apologise.
However, the key word would be found to be guilty of "wrong doing" most of the claims for expenses WERE allowed under the rules they just took liberties. From memory the cases of MPs claiming for mortgages they had paid off were both Labour MPs (which I think many would agree was a case of "wrong doing")
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Against the current.
My understanding is that most MPs have not broken tax law and therefore are under no legal obligation to repay. A minority of MPs may have submitted falsified claims, and these should be investigated by the police and if necessary prosecuted. Of course, given public anger there is a political obligation to repay, but that is a different matter.
Most journalists knew very well that MPs were supplementing their salaries with expenses. The coverage launched by the 'Daily Telegraph' has the effect, and probably the intention, of weakening politicians and by extension the democratic process in order to enhance the power of the press.
An MPs salary of £64,000 is small compared to quango bureaucrats, middle-managment council executives, and the BBC (I believe the BBC Director General receives over £800,000 a year). Once honesty has been restored to the expenses system MPs pay should be increased substantially.
Of course the MPs expenses system should be reformed, as all the main party leaders have agreed, but in the present financial crisis this is a fairly minor issue. No doubt parties outside the mainstream such as the BNP will prove the real winners from this national sanctimonious obsession.
Complain about this comment
Chief exec - how can you say Cameron's leadership is shining through when he so clearly got his snout in the trough? Why is he claiming for a house in Oxfordshire when he does not have too lots of expenditure - he is using the system and it stinks.
Complain about this comment
The Houses of Parliament, the Mother of Democracy: a tawdry and rapacious tart!
Complain about this comment
19. At 09:26am on 13 Oct 2009, balancedthought
Where is the balance?
Complain about this comment
"SecretSkivver wrote:
What about Jacqui Smith (Labour) ? There was a very good report on Newsnight last night - it showed that the punishment was decided by a committee of 6 Labour and 1 Conservative MPs; surprise, surprise, her party colleagues votes that she apologise, but not hand back the £116000 (one hundred and sixteen THOUSAND pounds) that Leg said she should not have claimed."
Really? Wow I am surprised the country could afford all the whitewash as they certainly seem to be slapping it on! Perhaps someone should tell them there is a recession on!
Complain about this comment
Sorry, but there is absolutely nothing retrospective about Sir Thomas's assessments.
Here are a couple of quotes from the Green Book (the rules governing MPs' expenses):
"Claims should be above reproach"
"Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else."
That seems pretty clear to me. If MPs chose to push that to the limits and take advantage of the lack of precise figures, they are not going to get any sympathy from me. And given that there are 30+ comments published on this thread so far with not a single one supportive of the MPs, it doesn't sound like they are going to get any sympathy from anyone else either.
Complain about this comment
I cannot se why they should complain or indeed have a leg (no pun) to stand on when the expenses repayments are being backdated 5 years - after all they have been twisting, turning and using our money for legal intervention for exactly that long trying to stop the expenses being published in the first place.
Complain about this comment
I don't think the rules are being changed at all. Nick, you should do a little research into how HMRC interpret the 'wholly, exclusively and necessarily...for the purposes...' test on employees in general as the same wording is used in employment tax legislation. You'll find it's a very stringent test and very little gets through. How is a clean house or a tidy garden necessary to carry out the duties of an MP? Clearly they aren't.
Dare I say it but I suspect that a brief review might even discover that some cleaners and gardeners had been paid in cash, gave no receipts and so couldn't be differentiated from cleaners and gardeners who didn't actually exist.
Those would be awkward questions to ask, but I get the feeling this isn't the sort of blog where those sorts of questions get asked....
Complain about this comment
38#
You can repeat it as many times as you like, the answer remains the same, despite your seemingly pathological hatred of Cameron.
Because if they did it to him, they would have to do it to an awful lot more besides. He is far from being the only one, regardless of the political colour.
You cant have one rule for one, where it becomes a resignation matter and not for the others.
Dont you see thats what got us/them into this mess in the first place?
Complain about this comment
I am going to stick my head over the parapet here. For once I agree with Nick Robinson. It is fundamentally unfair to retrospectively apply rules that did not exist. Like it or not, these MPs made gardening and cleaning claims for five years that were approved and paid. They had no opportunity to change or alter their behaviour or expenditure. It is unjust to now ask for that cash back.
This sets a dangerous precedent. How will you feel when Gordon Brown announces that last years tax rate was 90% because that seems fair looking at the situation now? Or your car excise duty is tripled for the last five years even though you paid within the rules. Will you pay up the difference meekly? I didn't think so.
The expenses system was a badly framed and implemented. Imposing arbitrary retrospective rules to punish MPs is not the answer
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"#38 Expenses are supposed to be for where MP's have duplicate expenditure because they are an MP. David Cameron does not because he has no mortgage in London he owns his house."
Except that it's additional costs, not duplicate costs.Clearly if you go from one mortgage free property to two properties, one with a mortgage, those costs are additional. Whether morally a claim should be made is a different issue. Although you are also wrong when you say that the taxpayer is buying the house. The taxpayer is meeting the interest costs, Cameron has to meet the capital repayments.
I'm no defender of the expenses system but your faux shock aimed at Cameron might lead people to think you have an agenda. There are far worse cases on both sides of the house than Cameron. Who was that labour MP who designated her boyfriend's house as her main residence despite it being neither in London nor in her constituency and then spent £22,000 on dry-rot treatment? I'm rather more shocked at blatant abuse of the system like that.
Complain about this comment
balancedthought, you don't appear particularly balanced. The fixation with Cameron could suggest that you are another NuLab lacky desperate to fling some mud around hoping that some might stick.
Cameron claimed interest repayments on a second home. The reason no-one is making a big deal of it is that they are all at it. You want an example, take the odious Mr and Mrs Balls. They have a rather modest house in one of their constituencies and a whopping house in North London. London is where they spend a significant proportion of their time. I understand their children go to a (private, of course) school nearby. Which one would you think is their designated main home and which is the second. I'll give you a clue, if the second home is in London, they can claim (double of course) for the interest repayments in the mortgage...
Complain about this comment
Was Leggy sober when he dealt the cards and was this supposed to be fair, so how did Jacqui Smith escape with just an apology? If this has been me and you we would have been in a cell by now, an apology would have fallen on deaf ears.
All parties should be made to pay back every single penny with interest and have their pay docked accordingly to crime - thats fair.
Theses ministers want us to trust them, yet they grab what they can don't they know it is our toil and sweat what provided them... Leggs report stinks to high hell!
Complain about this comment
#53 "wholly incurred in the execution of their role as an MP". That seams perfectly clear to me. The instructions in their bible the Green Book said they should be above reproach.
It is said they are intelligent people which parts of the above sentences did they fail to understand?
As for the former Home Secretary it gets worse and we can't comment on the Damien Green affair either.
Complain about this comment
53#
"Or your car excise duty is tripled for the last five years even though you paid within the rules. Will you pay up the difference meekly? I didn't think so.
The expenses system was a badly framed and implemented. Imposing arbitrary retrospective rules to punish MPs is not the answer"
Funny you should mention VED... that was my first thought this morning. When the rise in VED and the retrospective element for that (for older vehicles upto 7-10 years old) was pushed through, once the initial media storm died down, I dont recall MP's making any kind of fuss about what was seen as a retrospective rule change being inflicted on the wider public. We just had to swallow it and pay up.
And now this... when the boot is on the other foot, they're up in arms.
Sauce for the goose and all that. If they dont like it, stand down. I'm sure there will be no shortage of volunteers to take their place.
Complain about this comment
"balancedthought wrote:
David Cameron was the largest claimer in the commons in his first year as an MP. He currently claims for a mortgage on his home in Oxfordshire. Expenses are supposed to be for where MP's have duplicate expenditure because they are an MP. David Cameron does not because he has no mortgage in London he owns his house. Within the spirit of expenses he should therefore not be claiming."
How so? The spirit is that no MP should be worse off for being an MP. If an MP has no mortgage on their main home (as they have paid it off) but they need to buy a new home due to their duties as an MP they can claim the mortgage interest as an expense.
The expenses are not to cover duplicate expenditure but expenditure which results as part of the job.
"Effectively he is getting the tax payer to buy a house in oxfordshire which if he sells he will make masses of money off. I think he should do three things."
My understanding is that you can only claim for mortgage interest and not capital. In other words thanks to the tax payer he is getting a 0% interest loan.
"1 Repay the money he has claimed"
Why? He technically hasn't done anything wrong - he has used the expenses scheme for the purpose it is there for.
"2 He should sell the house and give any profits to help pay off the massive public sector debt"
Firstly, he still needs it to serve the people who elected him and secondly thanks to Labour public debt is so high that selling every property owned by every MP would probably not even cover today's expenditure.
"3 He should resign for so obviously abusing the expenses system"
Apart from the fact that he hasn't abused the system.
"I was really shocked to find out he was the largest claimant of expenses and that he seems to have such a hardline now.
"I am really unclear as to why the TPA have not made more of this."
You mean the fact that David Cameron is using the expenses scheme in exactly the way that they were designed for? He isn't actually abusing the system (although he is getting maximum use out of it) and his only crime is that he doesn't actually need to use his expenses. And if that is a crime than I am guilty of it as well - I sometimes need to work on customer sites and although I can afford to travel to these sites I still expense them (and with my companies full blessing!)
Camerons only "crime" is claiming for a mortgage on a house when he could actually afford to meet the mortgage payments without expensing it.
Complain about this comment
I just don't understand how in anyway gardening is a vital requirement to doing your parlimentary duties. Travel to and from parliment, supplies, and food and lodging. Surely thats the only requirements needed for any job.
Complain about this comment
The Legg investigation is nothing more than yet another whitewash.
MP's expenses should be fully justified, documented and processed; they have not been and are still not compliant.
This constitutes conspiracy and fraud, and the correct people to be running the investigation are the police.
This will not go away, and the investigation should go back forty years not four, as it is clear that crimes have been committed since the payment of expenses started in the mid-sixties.
ALL MPs are complicit, as they have allowed this thieving to take place for decades.
Complain about this comment
Nick I saw your report on the news last night. It seems you have gone native and were arguing their case to much.
There is only one thing to say.
This is a ROTTEN PARLIAMENT
We have an unelected PM
An unelected deputy PM not even in the commons.
The Senior law officer of the land has been found guilty of breaking the law (A law she ran through parliament).
We've had Labour Lords suspended for the 1st time in 350 years "You will have to make it worth my while for me to come on board"
We've had the first speaker to be forced out of office for incompetence in 300 years.
We've had the use of the police as a political weapon against the oposition and an invasion of Parliament over the Green arrest.
We were promised a vote on the Lisbon treaty then it was taken away from us.
The whole of the political system and political class are viewed with utter contempt by the public and it is down to this collection of MP's that make up this Parliament.
There is only one course of action that can start to clear the site for rebuilding.
An immediate election, nothing NOTHING else will do.
Complain about this comment
The expenses row is vexed and difficult one and obviously an easy one to get the voting, sorry all the public animated over.
However much they may have breached any moral ethical or social code in their claims and we can all take a view on that very few MP's if any broke any law or breached any practice in place at the time. The fact that one should have been there is different.
We as their employers should have been taking far more interest in all their activities salaries and expenses, hours of work, conditions of employment, objectives etc years ago.
Now what are we the citizens of this country doing wasting hours of TV and radio time millions of trees in paper and Kbytes of cyber space discussing what has already been discussed at length. There are many major and far more important social and economic issues that need dealing with and until we can get to an election and vote in some proper politicians with a mandate to act according to the will of the people in all issues of welfare economics law and order and yes expenses. Should we not focus our efforts through all our channels of communication in getting the ones that we elected and their mates in Government who we did not, to do what we want to get this country and our lives and our children’s lives sorted.
Then can we as voters remember in future to vote for the politicians we want to represent us and to tell them if they are not doing so Then might we take a little reasonability for our actions rather than blame others because those who did not vote are just as responsible for the politicians we have governing us as those who did vote and we should never forget that
Complain about this comment
The ACA system was apparently the idea of Michael Foot as a way of circumventing the Wilson government's incomes policy so as to keep MP's sweet and prevent them from voting down that government which had a wafer thin majority. Something notable from the original expenses story was how many MP's of that era like David Mellor and David Steele emphatically stated that the claims during their time in Parliament were nowhere near as extravagant.
The implication is that things only began to run riot during the Blair years, when expenses was seen as a way of keeping Labour MP's onboard and make Blair's continuation of Thatcherite policies more palatable. This is probably also another impact of having a parliament stuffed full of servile careerists who have no experience of life in the outside world. Traditionally MP's had spent years working before running for Parliament relatively late in their lives, now they come straight off a production line of activist, researcher, SPAD and then PPC.
I just hope that some MP does try and take Legg to court, the public will probably tar and feather him! They just have no idea about how angry people are about this whole sorry mess!
Complain about this comment
53 see 49!
52
'Because if they did it to him, they would have to do it to an awful lot more besides.'
I have just 4 things to say to that:
1. Yeah
2. And
3. So
4. What?
Complain about this comment
Yet again Cameron likes to get the PR in first. Just like last time when he threatened to sack any Conservative MP with any wrong doing. He withdrew the whip of Conway months before the expenses scandal broke and months before he said he would sack any Conservative MP's.
It is the usual thing with Cameron, he likes his face on the tv telling people what he will do, he is great with PR, it is the only job he has ever done so he should be, but when it comes to following up on his words he is found wanting.
Sacking wrongdoing MP's, telling his shadow cabinet that they must drop their jobs and concentrate on what the taxpayer pays them for.It is great PR and headlines making all these threats and announcements but he never follows them up. Great PR, awful delivery.
http://redrag1.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
#52 Fubar
Yes, but not everyone is leader of the party that promises to unbreak Britain and to cut the income of those who depend on benefit by 25 per cent or whatever it is.
Let's not forget that David 'we're in it together' Cameron took out a 350,000 pound mortgage on his Oxfordshire second home and started claiming close to the maximum allowance, he used his own money to pay off the remaining 75,000 pounds of the mortgage on his London home.
It's been estimated that had he used this sum of 75,000 pounds to pay towards the mortgage on his Oxfordshire home, he could have saved the taxpayer in the region of 22,000 pounds but alas he didn't.
It does seem very 'strange' that he wouldn't want to reduce the cost to taxpayers.
It's also strange that he appears to feel able to sit in judgement of so many others, including the impoverished, when he seems to really take full advantage of the expenses system.
Complain about this comment
The rule Legg was interpreting was this
"wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of carrying out their duties as an MP"
THIS RULE WAS IN FORCE AT THE TIME IN QUESTION
It is not difficult to see why these troughers now need to pay back loads of money.
It is however extremely difficult to see why on earth they should be complaining about it. They are bang to rights!!! How can they possibly think they shouldn't repay these amounts?
Disgusting. There is no other word.
Complain about this comment
They still do not get it.
Mrs Smith, claimed her FULL mortgage Interest, FULL heating bills, FULL electricity Bills, FULL gas bills and FULL council tax, FULL phone and internet bills and PAID her husband 50-100% above the market rate as her office manager.
She failed to declare to the fees office that over 50% of those bills were incurred where by her faimily living there scott free when she was at her main residance in London. She failed to this declare the benefit in kind on her MP's TAX return singing a box stating that all her second home allowances was solely and wholely used in her role as an MP. This box is signed by all MP's on their tax returns in ADDITION to the standard decelaration at the end of the form. It is their to allow them to come clean where they have had expenses approved by the fees office but they feel tax is due as they were not actually required in their role as an MP.
As to the videos I have only heard / seen evidance that she repaid the two adult videos watched by her husband and NOT the faimily movie watched once when she was in london and again when she returned.
And this is JUST ONE MP's use of the system.
The PM even claimed for a new kitchen and cleaning a flat thet belonged solely to his wife (He did a leagal transfer of the property such that he had NO tax, Leagal or other claim on it).
Others have claimed for NON existant mortages, to pay of mortage capital, for mortages on flats their children live in, research grants for ther university kids, the duck houses, dog food etc are trival in comparision.
We need prosicutions, interest charged and TAX avoidance laws brought in on ALL offenders.
Complain about this comment
"balancedthought wrote:
I repeat
David Cameron was the largest claimer in the commons in his first year as an MP. He currently claims for a mortgage on his home in Oxfordshire. Expenses are supposed to be for where MP's have duplicate expenditure because they are an MP"
You can repeat it as many times as you want it doesn't actually make it true. The expenses are there to cover expenditure which results from their work as an MP (the need for some MPs to have two homes is considered one such expense)
Under your understanding of the rules someone who worked all his life to pay off his mortgage and was then elected an MP would not be able to claim for mortgage payments on a London house he would need to buy to meet his needs as an MP.
After all he doesn't have duplicate expense for being an MP (his first mortgage is paid).
If we are to believe your understanding of the rules this MP would need to take out a small loan out on his existing house in order to claim back the mortgage payments on his second house in London.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#55 AndyC
Yes, I agree, there are worse cases, however, not all of those cases are likely to be our next PM.
- Not all of those cases are openly sitting in judgement of others.
- Not all of those cases want to reduce the pitiful income of those on benefits as a priority.
- Not all of those cases claim that we're in it together.
Complain about this comment
#40 balancedthought
How about you coming to the Netherlands and paying dual tax?
I work for a UK registered company and pay tax in BOTH countries, stop whining. It's difficult enough having to do 2 sets of tax returns to claim back the bits i don't owe!!
I don't mind the UK bit as much as the Dutch though I must admit!
Complain about this comment
"Senior MPs with a legal background said Sir Thomas would not have a leg to stand on if his demands for repayments - based on rules he is applying retrospectively - ever came to court."
Of course, but that is only because of the law as it stands now and applied then. Once you accept the principle as set out by Sir Thomas Legg however, it is a simply matter of passing a new law to allow retrospective legislation. Then there is no end of fun to be had and, as long as it's not them who is being fined £5,000 for wearing the wrong colour jumper on Christmas day 1975, the public will lap it up.
Complain about this comment
One rule for them, and one for us
http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2203776/pwc-consultant-jailed-stealing
Complain about this comment
Poor widdle MPs! After years of earning over twice the average wage of those represent, and having the kind of expenses those of us under the eye of the Inland Revenue could dream of, *they're* furious?
Complain about this comment
How has Jacqui Smith got away without paying back all of the mortgage payments.
Could it be that the committee of MP's, that sat in judgement, ended up as 5 Labour MP's with only one other from the Tory party.
Now what on earth is that smell?
It's still very quiet with regard to McNulty. Anyone know anything?
Complain about this comment
Balancedthought - You are clearly anything but! Cameron has forced quite a few of the Tory grandees to stand down over this issue, so he has taken tough action (and was criticised by quite a few Tories at the time). Despite your bitter comments, his expenses were clearly within the rules, even after Legg's rejigging. Look forward to your similar vitriol towards Jackie Smith who lied about where her primary residence was and was proven to have lied by no less than the police!!
As for having a go at Cameron's background/purported wealth, Tony Blair went to public school and came from a very well to do family, as do Harriet Harman, Tessa Jowell, Hilary Benn, Ed Balls, David and Ed Miliband, Ben Bradshaw . . . need I go on? To simply smear someone because of their background = to admit losing the argument. Not to mention being a hypocrite.
Final point: although expenses are an important issue, I am dismayed at Nick's lack of comment at Labour's conniving to bully the police into arresting Damian Green on false pretences. This is a real issue of principle and goes to the heart of what is acceptable in a democracy. It is what (used to) separate us from dictatorship. But any comment? Of course not.
Bottom line: Nick/this blog is no longer a forum for sensible, measured debate about the critical issues of the day. It's become obsessed with petty stupidities and games. Pathetic when there are so many difficult real issues facing this country.
Complain about this comment
Re: 40 balancedthought
I pay taxes to a government which supports and encourages a child-friendly society that is less obsessed with surveillance, disproportionate fears, big-brother registers and general nanny-ism than the UK.
Complain about this comment
Dear all sorry I have been banging on about Cameron particularly getting us to pay for his house when it is not a duplicate expenditure.
Is this Cameron hatred pointing out that he is abusing or stretching the spirit of expenses to breaking point? Perhaps - am I biased could I not mention all other MP's? Perhaps - truth is I don't know them all - he has though personally been saying MP's should all do one thing whilst clearly doing another thing himself. What I am surprised at is that you are not questioning the facts of the case.
I just think any public figure that stands up and pontificates on an issues needs to be clear that they have not abused the system - something that all the central office comment people have not been able to shrug off although Andy c whatever good attempt at a side step. This is about the morality of stretching the system so that he personally and his family can benefit at the expense of the taxpayer.
The facts are - allowances are for additional expenditure incurred. Cameron does not have two mortgages - then like me he should pay for his mortgage out of his salary. What is wrong with that?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
38 may be making a partisan attack, but I share his annoyance at Cameron getting away scott free from this mess when he's as bad as the others. The only reason he wasn't caught up in the whole gardening, cleaning, furniture type mess is that he's claimed the max allowance on his huge mansion. Why does he need such a massive residence at taxpayers expense? Why isn't the press pointing this out as a way to balance the attacks on Brown over his gardening and cleaning claims? It's all taxpayers money going to people who don't need it, regardless of what they spend it on. Praising Cameron's leadership on this stinks of hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
Young Teflon Blair knew what he was doing when his expenses were shredded. Accidently is the allegation.
Complain about this comment
If the MPs want to moan about retrospective rules not being legally enforceable, then perhaps they should consider going to court over it, because if the courts looked at their expenses in detail they'd say that most of them should have been classed as perks and not expenses, and should therefore have been subjected to tax, which means that most MPs have actually broken tax laws.
Let the MPs go to court if they want, because they'll win the "restrospective" battle but they'll be found guilty of tax fraud.
Complain about this comment
"endangered_species wrote:
I am going to stick my head over the parapet here. For once I agree with Nick Robinson. It is fundamentally unfair to retrospectively apply rules that did not exist. Like it or not, these MPs made gardening and cleaning claims for five years that were approved and paid. They had no opportunity to change or alter their behaviour or expenditure. It is unjust to now ask for that cash back."
That is true, but if it is also true that expenses need to be "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of carrying out their duties as an MP" many of the expenses claimed could be considered to have broken that rule.
If someone was under declaring their taxes for years THEY would be expected to pay back taxes - the same principle could apply here.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Let's just deploy Sections 2-4 of The Fraud Act 2006!
It is already on the statute book and could have been written to deal specifically with those in this Fraudsters' Parliament who have stolen from the Public Purse!
Investigate!
Prosecute where appropriate!
Sentence when the guilty are found!
.... and le's do it now!
And pleeeeaaase! A slap on the wrist from a committee 'packed' with one's political cronies (while members representing other parties make themselves spectacularly scarce) and an 'apology' to the other rascals in this Fraudsters' Parliament will NOT suffice!
Complain about this comment
Who cares what the MPs think or feel? As Hattie said the Court of Public Opinion will decide.
Reporting against Sir Thomas is frankly disgraceful. He has been asked to do a job, and he has undertaken it extremely well.
The only discrepancy is the committee that decided who should pay back what (Jacqui Smith) which was mainly Labour. That is what you should be reporting and getting back to us on Nick!
Complain about this comment
fubar @ 52
despite your seemingly pathological hatred of Cameron
it's an issue even if one thinks he's a star in a jar
if they did it to him, they would have to do it to an awful lot more besides
FINE
he is far from being the only one
but he's the only one who's going to be our next PM - we've seen (from the sad decline of Brown) how important moral authority is for a Leader, haven't we? - and Cameron, I'm afraid, has lost his with this fiasco - I won't pretend there was ever anything more than say a 25 pc chance of me voting Clown but that's been reduced to near zero because of this - wonder how many other people feel like that?
Complain about this comment
The rules, whatever their intricacy and options of interpretation, were for the shocked and disillusioned public, no more than 'put your hand in the till and take what you want'. What Sir Thomas has done is to set out what would be fair. Fair to taxpayers, many of whom find it hard enough to pay for one home and refuse to accept that it is right or reasonable that they should pay for their representatives to have two, let alone luxury fittings, cleaning and gardening of which, for themselves, they can only but dream.
Complain about this comment
MP's can complain about Legg, and yet they gave him the authority to conduct his investigation
At the same time, however, the former Two Homes Secretary does not have to repay anything despite being in breech of the code and made to make an apology...which was neither penitent nor believable.
The precedent's have been set by Brown, Cameron and Clegg, and whilst Legg may not be totally lawful there may be other repurcussions.
I would still advocate a complete ban on salaries and allowances for MP's until the next election
It would therefore mean that the new policies would be put to the electorate and taken out of the hands of the politicians. It might also concentrate minds to find an effective solution, and of course if they continue to whinge they just have to call an election to restore salaries under the new parliamentary structure.
Complain about this comment
Redrag didn't Brown say on the same programm yesterday that MPs should pay up and shut up? Or was I dreaming. I would say he got his retaliation in first. It was just not very good.
Complain about this comment
I can't understand why MPs who acted within the rules that existed now have to repay money because of retrospective changes, but Smith, who actually broke the existing rules, doesn't repay aything. Can anyone please explain this?
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr Balance - I'm looking for Mr Cameron's name on the 'most expenses claimed list' but cannot seem to find it. Could you help me out by directing me to the source of your oft repeated post?
http://parliament.telegraph.co.uk/mpsexpenses/home
Complain about this comment
#52:
"Because if they did it to him, they would have to do it to an awful lot more besides."
And what's wrong with that? Are you suggesting that it's OK for them to get away with it just because they were all at it? A great many MPs were milking the system for all it was worth. I would like to see consequences for every single one of them.
And I don't just mean making an apology to the house without having to pay anything back.
Complain about this comment
We can go on and on about expenses but it is in the main history
It’s like talking about Hannibal crossing the Alps we are never going to bring one elephant back.
Now talking about what should be done next week and the week after in politics might just save an old lady in Watford from dying of hypothermia this winter. It may help some more people invest in business and employ a few hundred instead of making a few hundred unemployed for Christmas. It may even get us to reduce our carbon emissions so fifty thousand don’t die from drought in central Africa. it might just help us beat the recession and start to recover. We can debate expenses until the elephants sorry cows come home it will not take this nation one step forward.
It is a none debate we all want reasonable fair and proportionate wages hours and expenses so do it from today or are their still some who believe different to that if so then we should have a debate about the future of our nation.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
38. At 09:48am on 13 Oct 2009, balancedthought wrote:
I repeat
David Cameron ....
--------------------------------
So you posted exactly the same attack on david cameron twice. Anything about labour? Thought not.
balancedthought? Yeah right.
Complain about this comment
Governments have imposed retrospective reviews and rules in all sorts of areas, particularly financial services. This was because a minority of people in the sector had behaved unethically and the only way to try and restore the reputation of the profession was to put up with it. Hearing the MPs squeal shows how little they know about the real world.
Complain about this comment
Difficult to know whether to only play the party political card, or the anarchy card here.
The more the apologists for squalid behaviour on the part of public servants seek to justify their actions, and suggest that, somehow, they are being persecuted unfairly by a retrospective view of their behaviour dring this parliament, the more tempting it is to declare a plague on all their houses.
After all, these are the same people who have supinely voted in all the bad laws and bad budgets which have affected us, often retroactively from a financial point of view.
They don't like it up 'em, do they?
Complain about this comment
How convenient this all is. Cameron making announcements which make him sound tough straight after he had a rather poor conference. Labour MPs bashing Brown over expenses when they should have been bashing him over his poor leadership. A Civil servant appearing to be tough with MPs when it has been civil servants who managed the whole saga (until they realised they could earn more my leaking)so that they appear to be tough and not self serviing themselves.
The reason for this is that there is nothing we can do about our real economic problems as we just have to wait to see how everything works out.
Complain about this comment
Balancedthought wrote: 'I just think any public figure that stands up and pontificates on an issues needs to be clear that they have not abused the system - something that all the central office comment people have not been able to shrug off although Andy c whatever good attempt at a side step. This is about the morality of stretching the system so that he personally and his family can benefit at the expense of the taxpayer.'
So that'll be the RT Hon. Gordon Brown MP, Prime Minister, then? Having been asked to repay 12+ grand by an independent adjudicator he himself approved sounds like he stretched the system pretty tight to me. What a moral, upright man! Sone of the manse indeed.
Agree with you enitely: let's not have him pontificating any further!!
Complain about this comment
balanced thought @ 38
Mortimax is a slick metropolitan millionaire using the state to leverage extra borrowing that he will then personally benefit massively from - why don't people care?
EYE care, babe, I care very much - and yes, you put your finger on it - taking out a mortgage purely to generate the claim is not the behaviour of a future PM - that, plus the "pass the sick bag" galivanting around afterwards, being all "livid" about other people's claims, has cost him all semblance of moral authority - it's deeply disappointing that the only "defence" appears to be, okay but Brown is a bit of a charlatan too ... and even this comes only from dyed in the wool Cs
I say all this with real sadness because I like David Cameron
Complain about this comment
Sir Thomas Legg is trying to set an very dangerous president for the public here and our current two main party leaders (not sure what Clegg's opinion is) are more interested in courting public opinion to understand - or perhaps they do - the thought of setting a precedent for the retrospective changing of rules and thus the retrospective adjustments to expenses claims will give parliament/government and individual MPs all the ammunition they need to apply the same retrospective 'logic' to such things as the taxation system, would anyone really welcome having the various tax rates adjusted upwards retrospectively and thus receive a demand for the back tax since some arbitrary date, or perhaps those who paid for goods by credit or debit cards could end up getting a retrospective VAT demand or the current keeper of a motor vehicle receive a retrospective VED demand that has been adjusted back to some past date. Do not think that your MP (in the short term) will care what you think, after all they repaid their, lawfully claimed, expenses back, what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander - oh dear, we seem to be back to duck houses...
Complain about this comment
Nick, watching Stuart Bell last night defending the indefensible and how MPs have three weeks before coming to their 'negotiating point' - not sure if he said 9th November! Then it will go back again to Legg for further checking, how quick will this?
Lets say Legg takes a further 3 weeks, we are surely into the winter hols (sorry recess) and no decision given out. We are running into the new year! Further if MPs decide to take legal action, then those MPs who are thinking of paying up will probably delay awaiting a decision from the legal action, we could easily be at Easter with the general election looming in May.
Can't any MPs see that this is scandal is not going to go away? Please tell me that this they are not so blind? Also can we have some one form the fees office explaining what has been going on and some of the workings?
As MPs are using the defence if was agreed by the Fees Office and who was running it? Was this speaker Martin? The man who let the Police arrest an MP! Probably one of the significant recent events in Parliamentary history.
Jacqui Green tried to apologise, but didn't seem to think she had done anything wrong. Perhaps I should ask if I see her - 'I am a tax payer and I want my £116,000 back!'
Oh and GB tried to launch another fightback.
Complain about this comment
MPs have continually blamed the system as being at fault.
Well the system was devised by them, the Greenbook rules were devised by them, the recent changes (ha ha) to the Greenbook rules (July 2009) were devised by them.
In short, the rules were devised by honourable members FOR honourable members. They reckoned they were trustworthy enough to police themselves, to rely on each of them being honourable and have a good moral code as befitting their position as our representatives.
The system is NOT to blame. The Fees Office is NOT to blame. Blame is entirely held by MPs themselves. They blatantly and systematically disregarded the rules set down by themselves.
They can squeal all they want, but they know, we know, and they know we know, that they have been commiting fraud against the tax payers for years.
They, the MPs are to blame. No one or nothing else is to blame. just them.
Complain about this comment
This episode is turning into a very useful test of an MP's primary motivation.
Are they, to coin a phrase, 'all in it together' primarily for the money or as a public servant?
With the added twist that the extremely wealthy Members can be very sangfroid about the whole affair.
Delicious, in a perverse way because we English may not have much of a democracy but at least we can briefly enjoy the spectacle of the so-called 'great and good' suffering for once.
Complain about this comment
Parliament agreed Legg to take charge of this Inquiry. If they don't like the findings, tough.
Why can't MPs understand things have to change. I know it's difficult when you have been part of a system that pays for most things and now more scrutiny and accountability is required but think of the poor old tazpayers living on rations.
It's the MPs who don't have a Legg to stand on!!
Complain about this comment
Hmm, when MPs agreed to Gordon Brown's plan for Legg to scrutinise their expense claims did they read the small print first?
We the gullible public have been conned numerous times with this sleight of hand, so what is sauce for the goose and all that. Absolutely delicious!
Complain about this comment
#81 - "Dear all sorry I have been banging on about Cameron particularly getting us to pay for his house when it is not a duplicate expenditure."
Except as has been pointed out, we aren't paying for his house. Just the interest on the loan, Cameron is paying the capital.
"The facts are - allowances are for additional expenditure incurred. Cameron does not have two mortgages - then like me he should pay for his mortgage out of his salary. What is wrong with that?"
Well at least you're now accepting it is 'additional', not 'duplicate'. Indeed, Cameron does not have two mortgages but if he wasn't an MP he'd have no mortgages. As it is, he has one mortgage. On which we are paying the interest, so Cameron does not benefit at our expense on that point just isn't actually disadvantaged.
"am I biased could I not mention all other MP's? Perhaps - truth is I don't know them all"
I've just remembered the name of that MP who claimed her boyfriend's house (in Southampton and 100 miles from her constituency and 90 miles from London) was her 'main home' so she could spend £22,000 doing up the property at the taxpayer's expense. It was Margaret Moran. So now I've introduced you to her, can we expect a rant about this or are you saving your rants for Tory MPs only?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick @ zero
those who "claimed to the max" for their mortgage do not risk having to repay money
that's a shame, Nick, isn't it? - big chance wasted - we need a new rule (retrospectively applied) whereby claims which were of the "Play the System" type, rather than a genuine reimbirsement of necessary additional expenditure, are now thrown out
this will penalise (and rightly so) a number of dodgeballs who went the mortimax route ... including, of course, the Eponymous
Complain about this comment
"I won't pretend there was ever anything more than say a 25 pc chance of me voting Clown but that's been reduced to near zero because of this - wonder how many other people feel like that?" Sagamix.
Oh, please. There was never more than a 0% chance of you voting Tory, this issue has changed nothing and you're delusional if you think that this will save Brown or the Labour party. Trying to create an issue out of Cameron's mortgage is just not going to work, as media coverage is showing.
Cameron has out-thought Brown on this issue at every step, as every impartial observer has agreed.
Complain about this comment
It is quite telling that MSM are failing to report this part of the story:
did anyone watch ‘Newsnight’ last night, their report explains why Jackie Smith does not have to pay anything back, it is because her case was dealt with by a different body, and the panel that had final decision on her fate was originally made up with, 3 conservatives, 3 lib dems, and 6 labour mps. the decision was taken on a day when the conservative and lib dems mps were ‘NOT’ available, so the decision that she didnt have to pay and would only have to apologise was made by labour mps. says it all really.
also, you nick, labour and the MSM appear to be spouting on about mortgages, hoping that the tories will come off worse in this scenario, this is a non story, unless it is in regards with people that have deliberatley misled, misused (flipping), blatantly claimed expenses for mortgages that belong to their spouses, or fully paid mortgages, claimed for capital and or more than their actual intrest,(as appears Cameron did to the tune of £200 odd, but he did pay it back immediatley when it was discovered). as Legg states MPs are entitled to claim upto the maximum allowed for intrest payments, intrest payments that exceed that amount should not be paid by the public purse, i also believe each individual MP should post their letter from Legg on their web sites, so their constituants can make informed decisions when it comes to voting, people should not rely on MSM to formulate their decision as they will always try to sway the public to their way of thinking, FACTs FACTs and more FACTs please on all of them whether Tory labour Lib Dems if they have troughed and are unrepentent, they should go, this only applies to none criminal activity, those that are blatant liers should be prosecuted.
Complain about this comment
97.
'It’s like talking about Hannibal crossing the Alps we are never going to bring one elephant back.'
Hannibal never claimed for mortgage payments on his second elephants when it was in fact his main elephant though, did he?
Complain about this comment
3. At 09:10am on 13 Oct 2009, mightychewster wrote:
"I just don't see the problem here! All parties agreed to the retrospective review. If HM Revenues decided they wanted to review my personal tax I could be investigated up to 5 years back, and even though my returns have been agreed they can be overturned during the review"
Yes, but it's one thing reviewing that you have abided by the tax rules in place at the time, it would be quite gruelling to be told that - whilst you paid all your taxes, as specified by law, on time and in full we have decided unilaterally (without reference to any due legal process) to retrospectively change your tax rate, thus we require you to pay 'X' amount in back tax - and then you get your manager telling you to either pay up or face the sack, no right of reasoned appeal allowed!
Complain about this comment
Legal or not it was an honour system.
They were trusted to not claim more than they needed to meet unavoidable expenses that being an MP required of them.
Instead of behaving honourably many of them behaved like accountants, perhaps at the behest of their accountants, claiming the maximum amount they could; indulging in sharp practices to that end. Legally they may have no case to answer, but morally they do.
For them to still be resisting maintains their breath taking hypocrisy of 'do as I say not as I do'; one of the reasons that particular individuals have been picked out for special criticism.
Complain about this comment
"balancedthought wrote:
Dear all sorry I have been banging on about Cameron particularly getting us to pay for his house when it is not a duplicate expenditure.
Is this Cameron hatred pointing out that he is abusing or stretching the spirit of expenses to breaking point? Perhaps - am I biased could I not mention all other MP's? Perhaps - truth is I don't know them all - he has though personally been saying MP's should all do one thing whilst clearly doing another thing himself. What I am surprised at is that you are not questioning the facts of the case."
We are not questioning the facts of the case because we know them to be within the rules.
Cameron makes good use of the ACA by having a property with an expensive mortgage in Oxfordshire. However, under the rules mortgage interest payments are covered by the ACA. If the government brought out rules that allowed people to claim the income tax back on the cost of travelling to work you would not expect people to claim you are abusing the system for taking advantage of that. He might be stretching his expenses to the limit however they are both within the letter and the spirit of the rules (remember expenses are NOT means tested)
"I just think any public figure that stands up and pontificates on an issues needs to be clear that they have not abused the system - something that all the central office comment people have not been able to shrug off although Andy c whatever good attempt at a side step. This is about the morality of stretching the system so that he personally and his family can benefit at the expense of the taxpayer."
The point is that Cameron is not abusing the system, he IS however making full use of it in the way it is intended. Now you can claim it is immoral that he is using a system of expenses when he is rich enough not to need them.
Have you ever claimed expenses from work? If so were you able to afford NOT to claim those expenses? The same principle applies only the money involved is much smaller.
"The facts are - allowances are for additional expenditure incurred. Cameron does not have two mortgages - then like me he should pay for his mortgage out of his salary. What is wrong with that?"
Your two basic facts are correct, the allowances are for additional expenditure and Cameron does not have two mortgages.
Cameron only has one mortgage, his main home he owns free and clear. However, to be an MP he "needs" a house in Oxfordshire - this house he has a mortgage on. If he wasn't an MP he wouldn't need the house in Oxford therefore it is an additional expense and Cameron can claim it under the Additional Costs Allowance.
So to put it simply under the Additional Costs Allowance Cameron can claim for his mortgage even though he doesn't have a mortgage on his main home.
Complain about this comment
#12
"Just because the corruption, fraud and amorality of MPs is so rife as to be the norm, does not mean they can excuse themselves as 'just following the rules'. Did none of them have the decency to think that just because their chum had got away with a dodgy claim, perhaps they should show some moral authority and work to the standards we expect?"
But don't you think it's either/both unfair and stupid to change the rules retrospectively; pick on only certain types of expenses only, then demand money back against these retrospective rules that come with no real authority? As Ann Widdicombe claims, an employer doing that would find itself in trouble.
As for Cameron declaring that Tories who refuse to repay being sacked has finally sacked me as a Tory voter. That's hardly the attitude of a good leader who should be more concerned about justice and how valid Legg's report really is.
I'd just love my employer telling me that my "daily allowance" for travel abroad has been cut back retrospectively over 5 years so I have to pay back allowances that were legitimately approved.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Do you know what troubles me deeply if you stop to read all the garbage of all the posts across the Peston, Robison and Neil Blogs mine included you have a fairly proportionate balance in our representative MPs.
Now is not that something to be truly concerned about.
However I am also troubled that its significance will strike accord with all.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"I care very much - and yes, you put your finger on it - taking out a mortgage purely to generate the claim is not the behaviour of a future PM" - Sagamix
So you don't think he took out the mortgage to buy the property then? And as all we're doing is paying the interest and not the capital repayments, in what way is Cameron benefiting? Read the papers, watch the news. No-one thinks this is an issue except a few die-hard desperate Labour supporters who have lost the economic and political arguments and are reduced to hopeless innuendo/smear tactics.
Complain about this comment
110. At 10:55am on 13 Oct 2009, excellentcatblogger wrote:
"Hmm, when MPs agreed to Gordon Brown's plan for Legg to scrutinise their expense claims did they read the small print first?
We the gullible public have been conned numerous times with this sleight of hand, so what is sauce for the goose and all that. Absolutely delicious!"
Until the next government applies the same (il)logic to adjust (upwards) the tax rules and aply them retrospective. As you say, what's good for the goose and all that... Still delicious?
Complain about this comment
They should be careful about bleating over the relatively minor retrospective 'clarification' on cleaning and gardening expenses (having a bigger garden or more cleaning is a CHOICE that individuals made) As the same principle could be applied to the overall housingc cost. i.e. if you chose to move house (or flip the designated property) that was your choice and as such the costs incurred were yours and not the public purses. the real fun may start when decisions are made as to whether a new kitchen was repair or improvement, or if the third new TV in 4 years was a necessary replacement.....
it is a little unfair that any who just claimed a large dollop of mortgage interest on the same property will emerge relatively scot free, but all MP's chose to claim what they did. As individuals they made their beds.....
Complain about this comment
MPs claim that Legg is imposing rules retrospectively - but he is not.
The rules and standards in place stated that claims should not be excessive. That the Fees Office originally allowed a claim does not mean that it was not excessive since the Fees Office judgement of whether a claim was excessive or not were dubious and arguably corrupt.
At the end of the MPs claim they signed to say that the claim was "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for carrying out their MP duties. On this basis it is hard to see how any cleaning or gardening expense qualifies let alone food.
Complain about this comment
49# DisgustedOfMitcham2
" seems pretty clear to me too"
Complain about this comment
To all those defending Cameron's mortgage expenses, is it churlish to point out that this is a millionaire claiming taxpayers money to pay part of his mortgage, who aas one of his first acts as Prime Minister is going to oversee the removal of tax credits for families earning over £50000 a year to save public money.
I don't care if it's within the rules, pretty much all the claims were within the rules, I don't particularly care about Cameron's background, but I do care that an independently very wealthy man is claiming taxpayers subsidy for a mortgage while telling far less wealthy individuals that they can't have public money for their families.
Complain about this comment
BalancedThought, I understand from your posts that you don't know many politicians and so can only focus on expenses claims made by David Cameron. I hate to think of you suffering for your lack of knowledge so why not have a look at the following?:
Elliot Morley, Margaret Moran, David Chaytor, Lord Paul, Barroness Uddin.
Complain about this comment
Sir Thomas has discredited his own report by stepping so far beyond the boundaries of his remit. He has no right to re-write the rules retrospectively, after they had been approved by Parliament at the time. If I was an MP and got one of his 'letters' I would as publicly as possible - tear it up.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
but he's the only one who's going to be our next PM - we've seen (from the sad decline of Brown) how important moral authority is for a Leader, haven't we? - and Cameron, I'm afraid, has lost his with this fiasco - I won't pretend there was ever anything more than say a 25 pc chance of me voting Clown but that's been reduced to near zero because of this - wonder how many other people feel like that?"
The big problem is that while Cameron did claim thousands for mortgage payments on his house in Oxfordshire he was totally within the spirit, letter and principle of the rules.
If you compare Brown to Cameron on the expenses row I personally feel that Brown comes off worse. Although, both did work within the framework allowed and Brown comes off worse in the press because they haven't scaled back the mortgage payments.
As a senior minister Brown is on quite a bit more than Cameron and also has full access to a Ministerial home - however he still claims allowances for his second home.
If Brown was not a minister he would need a place in London and in Scotland, however as a minister he only needs a place in Scotland (his London residence is provided for him). Cameron however has need for a place in London and one in Oxfordshire.
The majority of Camerons claim was for mortgage payments on his second home, again this wasn't the case with Brown who is charging for a cleaner in a dodgy looking deal that he has with his brother (IMO it would seem a lot less murky if Brown paid his cleaner direct)
I don't think anybody agrees with what MPs can claim on expenses, but I imagine more people can understand mortgage interest payments being claimed back (although £25,000 is over £2000 in mortgage interest payments each month which is beyond excessive) than payments for cleaners, garden work, duck houses, moats etc.
And be honest Saga, you missed the decimal point didn't you? There is no way that there was a 25% chance of you voting Tory - 0.25% sounds far more likely!
Complain about this comment
Sagamix wrote:
"he [Cameron]'s the only one who's going to be our next PM"
The latest opinion poll had the Conservatives 10 points ahead converting into a majority of (only) 8 seats.
A few points more for Labour on polling day and the UK will have a Lib/Lab Government under Gordon Brown.
An alternative scenario, if the expenses scandal blows up again during the election period, is that we will be governed by a coalition of extremists and c-list celebrities. I'll call this the Easter Island scenario, after the statues of course.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Billboiler and boilerplated
Will you please get it into your heads that the people, not just labour or tory voters, but all the people are actually quite annoyed about all this, as the MPs will find out when ole gaudy pulls the starting handle for the next election
Complain about this comment
From what little I have seen which grabs the headlines (as apposed to the entire list of MP's and what they have been asked to do), the mortgage aspect is being further investigated, hence requests for copy statements etc. Also, cleaning is supposed to include dry cleaning, house cleaning, laundry etc. There are also requests for receipts I believe.
Hmmm....anyone claiming out-of-pocket expenses in a company are required to submit receipts/bills. Surely this was a requirement of any claim by an MP? If not, why not?
Cleaning has an interesting figure in the Legg report-my husband's suits cost £7.50 to clean. At 1 a week that's £390, cleaning at £7/hour (what I get charged in a rural area) for 12 hours a week totals £4368, washing stuff £208, not to mention water and electricity. £2000 is less than half the total of these, so I think it's a reasonable figure-a proportion of the total cost, not all of it.
Shock horror that MP's should have to pay some of their cleaning costs! Most other people don't!
Will they ever live in the real world I wonder?!
Complain about this comment
#107:
Excellent post!
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated. Can you explain how gardening and cleaning are necessary to carry out the duties of an MP? Legg did not change the law he stated that £2,000 and £1,000 were reasonable amounts to claim.
Complain about this comment
It's the bureaucrats, not the MPs, who must be held to account. The expense scandal would never have happened if the civil service had kept control over spending as taxpayers have a right to expect. Simple exmaple: Search any news base or blog to see what our diplomats abroad are doing with our money. Search UK high commissioner to Canada, for example. You will find croquet parties, garden parties and opera fund raising where the main topic seems to be the gossip du jour. This is doubtless repeated around the globe by dozens of other civil servants. Who approves this kind of frivolous spending? More bureaucrats. Until taxpayers demand accountability and transparency there will be none.
Complain about this comment
As at No.1., they still do not get it; also at No.6., expenese necessarily incured in carrying out their duties.
These, it appears to me are the tests that need be applied. If an MP., is sure that the public would not be angry at their claims and it was necessary to make these claims to carry out their duties, then go ahead.
If they cannot satisify these tests, either reimburse the public purse or allow a full criminal fraud enquiry to be carried out, without any overhanging threat of political repurcussions.
We now know what test should be applied, as in the Damien Green case, and no further prevarication should be allowed.
Complain about this comment
Post 117 Poprishchin
Don’t know about the war chest funding issue the records were trampled under foot, however he did forget to take enough supplies for them so half were unfit for battle or dead when they arrived at the other side
have we progressed.
Complain about this comment
Chad Sexington I refer you to the list of names in post #131. You could add Milliband's, Balls and others. Your rant is a tad biased.
Complain about this comment
"AndyC555 wrote:
"I care very much - and yes, you put your finger on it - taking out a mortgage purely to generate the claim is not the behaviour of a future PM" - Sagamix
So you don't think he took out the mortgage to buy the property then? And as all we're doing is paying the interest and not the capital repayments, in what way is Cameron benefiting? Read the papers, watch the news. No-one thinks this is an issue except a few die-hard desperate Labour supporters who have lost the economic and political arguments and are reduced to hopeless innuendo/smear tactics."
Cameron is benefiting in that he basically gets a 0% interest rate on his mortgage, and I am sure when he sells the property he would make a profit. However, nobody is actually buying Cameron's house for him.
Complain about this comment
You may argue whether Legg was acting reasonably to assume that some sort of sensible limitations "should have been" incorporated with the rules for MPs' expenses.
I'm still more fascinated by the "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of carrying out their duties as an MP" basis on which expenses were allowed.
Did Legg actually contrast payments approved against the existing HMRC regulations applicable at the time?
It always amazed me that MPs were claiming for garden equipment. What's that got to do with being an MP?
From a legal perspective, if MPs expenses are accepted, why does HMRC impose different standards for "normal citizens"?
Complain about this comment
128. At 11:16am on 13 Oct 2009, Pensfold wrote:
"MPs claim that Legg is imposing rules retrospectively - but he is not."
Well according to Legg himself, he is, as he could not find any existing rules that covered certain aspects of the expenses system, thus the need - in his opinion - to impose some!
Complain about this comment
118#
Correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear you may not have heard of, or had any intimate dealings with IR35 then?
Complain about this comment
116. At 11:02am on 13 Oct 2009, tisfedup wrote:
did anyone watch ‘Newsnight’ last night, their report explains why Jackie Smith does not have to pay anything back, it is because her case was dealt with by a different body, and the panel that had final decision on her fate was originally made up with, 3 conservatives, 3 lib dems, and 6 labour mps. the decision was taken on a day when the conservative and lib dems mps were ‘NOT’ available, so the decision that she didnt have to pay and would only have to apologise was made by labour mps. says it all really.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This is the best illustration I have seen that this Parliament has to go.
If we can't even trust the STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES committee of the house of commons to act in our interested and not in the Parties best interest we are sunk.
Nick where were you on this one?
You are supposed to reveal this sort of thing its what we pay you for.
Complain about this comment
@134
One thing in the plus of being goverened by extremists and C list celebrities is that you know some of the policys would be amusing, seeing Nick Griffin fighting with Lumley over the rights off Gurkas. I'd pay to see that one!
Complain about this comment
"johnharris66 wrote:
Sagamix wrote:
"he [Cameron]'s the only one who's going to be our next PM"
The latest opinion poll had the Conservatives 10 points ahead converting into a majority of (only) 8 seats.
A few points more for Labour on polling day and the UK will have a Lib/Lab Government under Gordon Brown."
When was this poll taken as the latest one I saw was a 19 lead for the Tories. There was a slight dip towards the end of last week where the polls narrowed to 9 or 10 but since then I think three or four polls have given the Tories a lead of 15+
Complain about this comment
I think the problem here is that most of them have not actually done anything illegal, no one is going to vote for them anyway and so, they have nothing to lose by refusing to pay anything back.
What the public needs is the voting in of a new lot who will change the system for the better, or abolish expenses altogether, but that would mean voting in a party other than the big three.
Complain about this comment
"Exiledscot52 wrote:
Boilerplated. Can you explain how gardening and cleaning are necessary to carry out the duties of an MP? Legg did not change the law he stated that £2,000 and £1,000 were reasonable amounts to claim."
True, he could have said that they were not necessary and refused ALL claims for gardening and cleaning.
Complain about this comment
#132. At 11:21am on 13 Oct 2009, jonofbothwell wrote:
"Sir Thomas has discredited his own report by stepping so far beyond the boundaries of his remit. He has no right to re-write the rules retrospectively, after they had been approved by Parliament at the time. If I was an MP and got one of his 'letters' I would as publicly as possible - tear it up."
Whilst I share you sentiments about Sir Thomas and his unilateral actions, if you were an MP and did as you suggest I fear that such is the public bear bating, witch hunting, salivating cannibalistic feast you would also be looking for new employment at the very least...
Complain about this comment
My thoughts are that Legg’s letter are just a white wash:
McNulty gets "nothing to repay" Legg letter.
Complain about this comment
# 107 brishank
"They, the MPs are to blame. No one or nothing else is to blame. just them."
Absolutely. An excellent post.
I am glad they are angry. A taste of their own medicine. If they are intelligent and supposedly leading the country, why did they make so many claims which were not:
"wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of carrying out their duties as an MP".
Leadership demands accepting the consequences of your own actions, not "blaming" somebody else for what is "allowed".
There may be no MP (or BBC journalist) with a good word to say about Sir Thomas Legg, but I think he will find a lot of support from the British public, who are grateful for a bit of commonsense, clear thinking and decency.
Complain about this comment
BalancedThought seems intent on demonstrating his 'balance'.
Track that IP back to Labour List no doubt.
Complain about this comment
#133. At 11:24am on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
"The big problem is that while Cameron did claim thousands for mortgage payments on his house in Oxfordshire he was totally within the spirit, letter and principle of the rules."
Yes, and that is the point and why it's turning into a shambles for Cameron, he did nothing that many other MP's caught up in this mess have done, claim totally within the spirit, letter and principle of the rules. So if other MP's have 'done wrong' and thus should pay up or loose the Tory whip then so should Cameron himself!
I suspect that Cameron decided to 'shoot' from the hip before finding out the content of any letter waiting for him, after all Legg would not be asking for 'clarification' if there was no sign of smoke or flame.
Complain about this comment
So Nick where is the report of the composition of the Standards and Privilledges Committee. Have you not seen the Hansard report. Not a very thorough political correspondent are we.
Also as a little aside investigation now that it has been stated that Damian Green's arrest was inappropriate, who in the Home Office pushed for it. Now that would be a more interesting and challenging assignment for a political reporter.
Complain about this comment
The Legg exercise is a sham!
Cleaning back dated,and reduced,even though NI record
prove it was legit.
A member has to prove he stayed alone in an hotel,years ago,to
claim 50% of the bill.
Why didn't Legg do something about 2nd homes and flipping ?
Who's protecting who ?
Where's Bercow's independence now ?
Commons now at a stage where it couldn't organise a **** ** ** * ******
Complain about this comment
According to the Newsnight political editor a senior Tory MP 'tore up his letter in disgust'If that is true it seems to imply that he has little desire to pay up.Does anyone know who it was? Will vacuDave be taking action?
Complain about this comment
sagamix 90 104 114
It's interesting to read your posts this morning.
We argued about the Cameron mortgage affair last night, on the AN blog, reaching the point where you agreed that it was a credible possibility that Cameron's mortgage claims were not exploitative, but simply a credible reflection of the constituency house he had bought and his financial and domestic circumstances at the time. I won't go over it all again (unless I really have to!) - its all there on the other blog if people want to see it.
Now, however, you come out with things like
"and yes, you put your finger on it - taking out a mortgage purely to generate the claim is not the behaviour of a future PM"
and
"we need a new rule (retrospectively applied) whereby claims which were of the "Play the System" type, rather than a genuine reimbirsement of necessary additional expenditure, are now thrown out ... this will penalise (and rightly so) a number of dodgeballs who went the mortimax route ... including, of course, the Eponymous"
I have to ask you, saga, where is the integrity in what you are posting? The whole point is that we debate, concede points, accept new evidence and alternative opinions, and so modify our positions accordingly. What we do not then do is reset our positions back to where they previously were and carry on regardless.
Except, of course, if the real purpose of your being here is merely to spread malicious propaganda for purely party political purposes.
Complain about this comment
By the sympathetic tone of his blog Nick demonstrates how out of touch with the real world he is within the Westminster Village. Perhaps as well of a change of government we need a change of Political Editor as well.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated. So Mr Brown wrote a cheque for £12,514 because he had that much loose change? He obviously agrees that his expense claims were beyond the pail.
I would think that the investigator would wish to be certain of the circumsatances before asking for repayment. Therefore the request to Cameron.
I see more cause for concern in the PM writing a cheque, without question. I wonder how much he thought he would be asked to repay not as low as £12,514 I will wager.
Complain about this comment
"Boilerplated wrote:
#133. At 11:24am on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
"The big problem is that while Cameron did claim thousands for mortgage payments on his house in Oxfordshire he was totally within the spirit, letter and principle of the rules."
Yes, and that is the point and why it's turning into a shambles for Cameron, he did nothing that many other MP's caught up in this mess have done, claim totally within the spirit, letter and principle of the rules. So if other MP's have 'done wrong' and thus should pay up or loose the Tory whip then so should Cameron himself!"
I would be very surprised if Cameron refused to hand over any money IF he was asked for it. It would do major harm to him in the polls and turn his party against him. I also think Cameron didn't have much choice other to make the statement he did and I was expecting all three leaders to say much the same thing yesterday.
However, my guess is that he is unlikely to have to as by all accounts there are no additional limits being put on mortgage payments.
"I suspect that Cameron decided to 'shoot' from the hip before finding out the content of any letter waiting for him, after all Legg would not be asking for 'clarification' if there was no sign of smoke or flame."
It would be interesting to see what happens, but as I said before my guess (as I said above) is that there isn't much there.
Complain about this comment
I'm flabbergasted. Presumably Sir Thomas hasn't got a garden.
Even if the reported £1000 pa gardening maximum applies to only one of an MP's two homes that's £40 per week. If the gardener was only going to mow the lawn (a weekly job for most of the year), by the time they arrive they would have no time to even think about doing any work. I wish I could find a tradesman to 'turn out' for £40, most require £50 just to come and say 'Hello'.
I've absolutely no sympathy for MPs who have milked the system but I've even less for retrospective injustice (a Labour 'speciality'). If limits are to be set they should be reasonable not ridiculous, certainly for past 'approved' expenditure.
Complain about this comment
#136. At 11:32am on 13 Oct 2009, U14147588 wrote:
"Billboiler and boilerplated
Will you please get it into your heads that the people, not just labour or tory voters, but all the people are actually quite annoyed about all this, as the MPs will find out when ole gaudy pulls the starting handle for the next election"
I understand that very well but my point is people are allowing common-sense and due-reason to fly out of the window in their 'rage'. Oh and as for the next election, that is even more scary, give me a parliament full of moderate MP who 'play the expenses rules' to a parliment full of uneducated, probably semi-illiterate, extremists any day, worse still a parliment full of "celb' MP" who have no coherent policies - up to 5 years of political stagnation...
Complain about this comment
All the time and money MPs spent trying to hide the facts from us really says it all. MPs still just do not get it, playing the system is just that, playing the system, not very honourable is it? They knew that it was not honest and therefore should not have done it. I realy do not understand how they had difficulty in deciding just to pocket it.
Complain about this comment
#151:
"I think the problem here is that most of them have not actually done anything illegal"
Are you sure about that? IANAL, but my understanding is that obtaining money by deception is illegal. If MPs knowingly claimed for expenses that were not wholly, necessarily, and exclusively incurred in their parliamentary duties, then I think there may be a good prima facie case that they have indeed done something illegal.
I think what you mean is "No MPs have been prosecuted, or are likely to be prosecuted, for having done anything illegal".
Complain about this comment
#143 ExiledScot
Are any of the names in your post 131 proposing to remove tax credits from couples earning over £50000 a year on the the basis that they don't need them while claiming mortgage interest off the taxpayer and being a millionaire?
Because that is what Cameron is doing. It completely undermines the case he is trying to make for austerity. "We're all in this together"? I should coco.
Complain about this comment
mark @ 133
Mortimax was totally within the spirit, letter and principle of the rules
not the spirit, Mark - pls refer BT post @ 38
andy @ 125
No-one thinks this a problem for Mortimax except a few desperate Labour supporters
desperate Labour supporters like The Spectator, for example?
Complain about this comment
131 AndyC555
'... BalancedThought, I understand from your posts that you don't know many politicians and so can only focus on expenses claims made by David Cameron. I hate to think of you suffering for your lack of knowledge so why not have a look at the following?:
Elliot Morley, Margaret Moran, David Chaytor, Lord Paul, Barroness Uddin.'
Hear, hear! All six of them are as bad as each other!
142 hack-round
'Post 117 Poprishchin
Don’t know about the war chest funding issue the records were trampled under foot, however he did forget to take enough supplies for them so half were unfit for battle or dead when they arrived at the other side
have we progressed.'
I refer you to the Iraq War and the British Army supply chain in Afghanistan i.e. No!
Complain about this comment
Anyone find out why Cameron and the Conservatives refused to send anyone to Newsnight to discuss the Expenses Scandal?Labour managed two MP's who put across the party line but the Conservatives wouldn't send anyone.
http://redrag1.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
#118 Boilerplated:
Fair point, that would be deemed unfair. The reason I point to HMRC as a case study is that the rules are very clear on what is deemed a 'work' expense and what is not allowed. You would simply not be allowed in the first instance to have made the claims - therefore you could not retrospectively had it taken away. All employers go over employees expenses very carefuly and reject out of hand what is not allowed
The Green Book rules were also just as clear. It was clear what could be counted as a 'legitimate' expense occured in carrying out the duties of an MP and what is not. The difference is that MP's decided what was allowed and what was not themselves (technicaly it was a civil service body I know) but essentialy they OK'd their own expenses which they knew could not and would not stand up to the 'wholly and necesarry blah blah' test.
If that test had been applied to each and every expense claim submitted (as with private business) then we would not be having this issue now as the claims would have been rejected there and then
Complain about this comment
68, 66#
I'm not saying that Cameron should be immune from being admonished, punished, whatever.
All I was alluding to is that in the grand scheme of things, regardless of who is going to be the next PM, that there are other "offences", some including the real offence of evading capital gains tax that have occurred as well. I am not seeking to endorse Cameron or make light of it. And a number of MP's, of varying political colours, Labour and Conservative, have made a lot of money out of it and claimed the maximum ACA (Kevan Jones for one) and Eric Joyce making himself a millionaire at public expense through the claims system, plus Geoff Hoon building his property portfolio.
But, if you want to let your blind class/money/jealousy driven hatred of Cameron get in the way of an otherwise reasoned debate, on you go. Dont let me stop you.
What did I say in post 21 before one of the overzealous mod squad deleted it? I'd give it til 130 posts before it descended into the usual grenade-tennis.
Seems like I was being over-optimistic.
Complain about this comment
145#
"From a legal perspective, if MPs expenses are accepted, why does HMRC impose different standards for "normal citizens"?"
a) Because they voted in an exemption for MP's and
b) Because HMRC and the Treasury has been politicized.
Complain about this comment
#171 "Elliot Morley, Margaret Moran, David Chaytor, Lord Paul, Barroness Uddin.'
Hear, hear! All six of them are as bad as each other!"
Elliot Morley & David Chaytor - claimed for mortgages that didn't actually exist. David Cameron - Claimed for a mortgage that did exist.
Margaret Moran - claimed her boyfriend's house, in neither her constituency nor in London was her main home. David Cameron's properties are in London and his constituency and belong to him.
Lord Paul, Barronness Uddin - Accused of claiming as their main home a property they didn't actually spend any time at all in. David Cameron, claimed as a main home a proeprty he spent a lot of time in.
So not at all the same (unless I'm miss-reading you and the "6th person" is in fact Jacqui Smith).
Complain about this comment
sagamix 170
And there you go again, saga. I hardly think 38 is a balanced argument in relation to Cameron's adherence to the spirit of the expenses rules. Read my post at 161!
And your reference to the Spectator is hardly accurate either. The "problem" they refer to is money and class, not mortgage expenses.
Stop smearing!
Complain about this comment
i have yet to find a member of the public public who believes mps should be allowed to keep the money they have made from false claims,and why the police are not involved with charging them with fraud
Complain about this comment
#163 Exiledscot52
But GB has been signing large cheques on the nation's bank account for the last 12 years! Hope his don't bounce as 'ours' are now likely to do!
Complain about this comment
19
Cameron would not need 2 homes if he was not an MP. Therefore having two homes requires extra expenditure, regardless of whether he owns one of them already.
Quite simple really, amazing anyone would need to have it explained to them.
Complain about this comment
#139. At 11:34am on 13 Oct 2009, Exiledscot52 wrote:
"Boilerplated. Can you explain how gardening and cleaning are necessary to carry out the duties of an MP? Legg did not change the law he stated that £2,000 and £1,000 were reasonable amounts to claim."
That is not the point, the rules ALLOWED it, how would you (assuming you are married and have kids) react if the tax man decided retrospectively to remove any tax benefits that you received because you were married and had kids, telling you that; "Well you would have got married anyway, you would have had kids anyway and you would have had to feed and cloth the kids anyway, so we want all your tax rebates back please."!
I'm not defending what was claimed for, just that people can't start changing rules retrospectively (especially doing so unilaterally), it's a very dangerous precedent to set...
Put it this way, you drive down a road at a legal speed of 50mph for month, your car is recorded by a speed camera on a daily basis and (because you are driving within the law) you are neither stopped nor is a postal summons sent, yet 12 months later the speed limit on that road has been lowered to 30mph and some "wise-spark" who has been charged with reviewing the implementation of speed enforcement and fines has decided unilaterally to sent out retrospective fines/summons for actions that were totally within the law (rules) at the time of the 'offence'. Would you be happy, to retrospectively receive a driving ban if not custodial sentence (to be served in the current) for doing nothing illegal at the time, 12 months ago? Think about it...
Complain about this comment
#165:
2 points:
1. Even if you accept that mowing the lawn is an expense "wholly, necessarily, and exclusively" incurred in the performance of parliamentary duties, you don't need to mow a lawn every week throughout the year. I find that between about late October and Late March it only needs mowing a couple of times.
2. Why is paying someone else to mow your lawn "wholly, necessarily, and exclusively" incurred in the performance of parliamentary duties?
Complain about this comment
Fraud is Fraud prosecute them or are they above the law ?this should be taken much further lets go back 10 years that would be much more interesting
Complain about this comment
jrp @ 161
sorry JR, I still think he has a case to answer
don't wish to be overly partisan (or inflamatory) so I'll put it no stronger than that
any case it's not me banging on about it today, it's that Balanced Thought person ... and with a name like that, you can't accuse HIM of being biased
Complain about this comment
164 mark_WE
""I suspect that Cameron decided to 'shoot' from the hip before finding out the content of any letter waiting for him, after all Legg would not be asking for 'clarification' if there was no sign of smoke or flame."
It would be interesting to see what happens, but as I said before my guess (as I said above) is that there isn't much there."
Indeed, as far as we know (from PM on R4 yesterday), there isn't much there at all. Cameron previously paid back about £200 where it emerged that he had mistakenly claimed mortgage capital as well as interest. Legg seems simply to be asking to see something to back up the calculation of the sum involved. If there were a bigger issue to do with Cameron's mortgage, we would have heard about it by now (and from someone more reliable than sagamix, too!).
In short, "no smoke without fire" "doesn't hold water"!
Complain about this comment
#166
I understand that very well but my point is people are allowing common-sense and due-reason to fly out of the window in their 'rage'. Oh and as for the next election, that is even more scary, give me a parliament full of moderate MP who 'play the expenses rules' to a parliment full of uneducated, probably semi-illiterate, extremists any day, worse still a parliment full of "celb' MP" who have no coherent policies - up to 5 years of political stagnation...
Common sense says that you don't need your grass mowing to be an MP
Common sense says you don't need a duck house to be an MP
Common sense says you don't need a cleaner to be an MP
Common sense says you don't need mock tudor cladding to be an MP
I and many other here have said that MP's salaries need to be raised and their expenses should be in line with the common public's
An as for semi-literate - you might want to have a quick look at your last statement (I know, I know - damned BlackBerry :)
Complain about this comment
147. At 11:42am on 13 Oct 2009, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
"118#
Correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear you may not have heard of, or had any intimate dealings with IR35 then?"
As I understand that it, IR35 went through due parliamentary process (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't recall hearing about Parliament being recalled to debate retrospective changes to the expenses rules.
[irony]
Anyway, most of those caught by IR35 were on the 'fiddle', everyone knows that, just like all the MPs are, they wouldn't have been caught otherwise...
[/irony]
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
mark @ 133
Mortimax was totally within the spirit, letter and principle of the rules
not the spirit, Mark - pls refer BT post @ 38"
You mean BT's post @ 38 which was later proved to be written based on a faulty premise? The post where he said "Expenses are supposed to be for where MP's have duplicate expenditure because they are an MP"
If you are going to use a post as a defence at least use one which is accurate!
Cameron claims only the ACA - which is the Additional Costs Allowance, that means expenses which arise from being a MP which are additional to normal day to day costs - like say having to buy a house in a different area of the country to be near the people who voted you in or the house of commons.
The spirit is to cover additional costs, Cameron's mortgage is an additional cost therefore he claims it.
Complain about this comment
104#
"taking out a mortgage purely to generate the claim is not the behaviour of a future PM - that, plus the "pass the sick bag" galivanting around afterwards, being all "livid" about other people's claims, has cost him all semblance of moral authority - it's deeply disappointing that the only "defence" appears to be, okay but Brown is a bit of a charlatan too ... and even this comes only from dyed in the wool Cs
I say all this with real sadness because I like David Cameron"
Have you seen any lorries discharging nuclear or toxic waste or illicit substances into the mains water supply in Hampstead recently? Saga, will you listen to yourself:
Taking out a mortgage to generate a claim at public expense - are you out of your mind? Any ACA claim is against ONLY the interest, NOT the capital sum outstanding on the mortgage. HE, your sworn nemesis, is responsible for paying the CAPITAL SUM - and is allowed by the system to claim the interest on that property in his constituency.
Depending on the size of the deposit that was put down, depending on how long ago it was when the property was bought, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the interest payments account for approximately 40-50% of the monthly payments. Have you ever had a mortgage, Saga?
Who in their right mind would take out a chuffin' mortgage, saddling themselves with hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt, paying several hundreds, maybe over a 1000 a month, like I do, PURELY to get the public to pay for less than half of the amount of the payments IF they are of such wealthy means that they didnt have to?
Barking mad, smearing and lying again, for a change.
Oh and for those who think that an already loaded Cameron is going to make a monster profit on any future sale from his Witney constituency house... it will be a mark of the man if he does what a number of Labour members spectacularly failed to do on the sale of their constituency properties... pay capital gains tax, for which he would be rightly liable.
By all means, criticise MPs for developing such a self policing system that was on a hiding to nothing from day 1. By all means, call for a change in the rules and in the law to effect all MP's.
But to single out your favourite class-based hate targets when your own darlings have made such a complete horlicks of it themselves AND deliberately decieved the taxman or had claimed mortgage interest on NON EXISTANT Mortgages - all you do is just make yourselves look like partisan jerks.
But dont let your blind hatred, bigotry and prejudice get in the way.
Good grief.... I'm starting to sound like Electric Hermit...
Complain about this comment
I can't understand all party political sniping going on here. They've all been at it. All are guilty. Let's just get an election and be rid of the lot of them!!
BTW. Can anyone tell me if the Noble Lords and Ladies of the Supreme Court can still claim their daily attendance allowance at the Upper House. I ask because the Court is conveniently situated across the road and it would be easy to nip over the road during the lunch break to sign on.
Complain about this comment
#149. At 11:44am on 13 Oct 2009, calmandhope wrote:
"@134
One thing in the plus of being goverened by extremists and C list celebrities is that you know some of the policys would be amusing, seeing Nick Griffin fighting with Lumley over the rights off Gurkas. I'd pay to see that one!"
No doubt Hitler and Stalin were amusing, to start with, at least...
Complain about this comment
Without getting into the argument about whether Legg's rules are in fact retrospective, I would hope that most fairminded people would as a general matter reject retrospective rules outright. A number of people here have reiterated the unfairness of retrospective rules and noted that we wouldn't much like tax rules being applied retrospectively.
In that context, it is worth noting that one of the very few people who cannot complain about retrospective rules, without considerable risk of being called a hypocrite, is Gordon Brown himself. For it is Gordon Brown who announced in his 2004 Pre Budget Report, that henceforth he would dispense with the previous convention that new tax anti avoidance laws should be prospective only, and that in various areas they would henceforth be retrospective.
Perhaps those MPs now complaining about retrospective rules could be invited by the pundits, including Nick Robinson, to tell us whether they spoke out against this retrospective principle in the Commons in 2004, when Gordon Brown announced it. I don't recall a beep from any of them. But that was a proposal applying retrospective rules to ordinary folk, not MPs, so perhaps it doesn't count as unjust ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The problem Nick is that the expenses issue is going to dog this lame duck Prime Minister and his lame duck Government right up until the General Election. It is clear that Labour has run out of ideas, has run out of money and has run out of luck. We, the people, need to have our say.
Call an election now!
Complain about this comment
156. At 11:56am on 13 Oct 2009, JerkDickinson wrote:
"BalancedThought seems intent on demonstrating his 'balance'.
Track that IP back to Labour List no doubt."
...and no doubt many IPs could be traced back to either Tory central office or addresses held within the membership files within that office! Oh, and probably a few from the Lib-Dems central office too for good messure...
Complain about this comment
Maybe it's time to stop banging on about the expenses of MP's who are paid a lot less than many middle-managers (in both the private and public sectors) to do a far more important job, and instead focus our attentions of basic constitutional freedoms such as the press being able to report what's going on in Parliament, including Paul Farrelly MP from Newcastle-under-lyme asking the Secretary of State for Justice a question about Trafigura, the company who dumped toxic waste in the Ivory Coast?
Complain about this comment
"MPs still don't get it! At least Cameron has told his candidates, pay up or you don't stand. Brown, as ever, is silent. One can only presume that his moral compass, once again, is pointing in the wrong direction."
Conedia, I usually accept a bit of partisan banter, but really, your talking complete tosh.
1: Brown set up the external audit, to root people out!? Cameron wanted internal party audits instead
2: Cameron said the same thing "pay it back or quit" earlier in the year. Sadly, after claiming 250k would be paid back, it was revealed yesterday that sadly, not even half of that amount has reached whitehall. And many of the main culprits have simply refused to pay it.
3: Brown wrote to ALL MPs, not just his own, asking for them to pay it back. Before Cameron even spoke a word on it.
Complain about this comment
Boilerplated if as I contend that gardening and cleaning are not necessary to be paid for by the public purse for MPs then it WAS NOT allowed.
It appears Legg has said OK they were all at it, so in a magnanamous gesture he allowed then £2000 and £1000 per annum for it.
To my mind he could and should demand all gardening, cleaning, food(£400 a month with out receipt) and any unsubtantiated £249(no receipt for less than £250) claims to be repaid.
Complain about this comment
Well I suppose it was fairly predictable, but nonetheless it is very dispiriting to find that the labour leaning posters here are focusing on actual "gardening and cleaning" costs, and not on the generally iniquitous behavious of parliamentarians across the political divide.
This is actually a pan-political party issue (if there is such a thing) affecting everybody, but in their attempts to mitigate criticism of the government (because this has all come to light on their watch) they are attempting to muddy the watres and pretend that the worst offenders are Tory MPs.
Frankly, if the peole had known this was going on to this extent 10 or 15 years ago, regardless of who was nominally in power, the outcry would have been the same.
So, please drop the political attacks, and criticise the MPs. they know who they are, and now, thanks to FOI (or in spite of it) so do we. Their days are numbered.
Complain about this comment
"All very interesting but Brown's silence about how Labour MPs should handle the situation speaks volumes. Would also be rather interesting to see Legg's letter to Tony Blair. In the end, OK they have all been told to repay "excess" claims -- so be it and lets move on."
Stop being so biased.
Brown set up the external audits. And when they were completed, told ALL MPs, in writing, that they should pay it back. Way before Cameron even opened his mouth.
Cameron only wanted internal audits. Internal audits, that in truth still haven't even been paid off yet.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
jrp @ 161
sorry JR, I still think he has a case to answer
don't wish to be overly partisan (or inflamatory) so I'll put it no stronger than that
any case it's not me banging on about it today, it's that Balanced Thought person ... and with a name like that, you can't accuse HIM of being biased"
You know Saga, sometimes I think you just post as a joke but then you post something like this and I am sure of it!
Complain about this comment
It is clear what has happened. MPs have treated 'expenses' as entitlements. Over time anything and everything could be claimed as expenses, with or without receipts. They never expected disclosure. When asked to do so, they resisted and when finally forced, they found a mechanism to obfuscate by blacking out all material information on spurious grounds of security and confidentiality. Thanks to Telegraph the whole thing has been brought to light.
Some MPs claim that they only claimed under the prevailing rules, these were approved and now Legg has moved the goal post.
I worked all my life in a multinational which practiced the highest standards of ethics all over the world. It operated a honour system on expenses: you authorised your expenses, but at random some expense statements were audited and if you had claimed anything against the letter or spirit of rules, you lost your job. I personally know even senior managers who have been sacked because they signed statements with incorrect expenses of a few pounds: the fact that their secretaries prepared the statements did not absolve them of their accountability. My response to the MPs is conditioned by my background.
First, they did not follow the rules. Expenses have to be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of performing their duty. A lot of expenses do not follow this.
Second, many of them have definitely played the system, by flipping houses and doing several other things.
Third, Legg is not introducing changes retrospectively. He is merely interpreting the rules with common sense.
Fourth, what even Gordon Brown did, i.e. paying your brother for cleaning expenses, would not be acceptable to Inland Revenue if I was doing it in my business. I will be asked for proper receipts. Incidentally how much of VAT has been evaded in all these payments made by the MPs.
Fifth and most important, the MPs tried their level best to hide what they were doing. The public are their employers. If as soon as the parliament was formed, they had told us what they would claim, we as public could have told them what was acceptable and what was not.
Governance is about having structure, systems including disclosure and value systems in place. MPs expenses lacked all three.
Complain about this comment
Mentally unbalanced and without thought.
Cameron's claims are fine because:
He would not be incurring a mortgage if he was not an MP, therefore he should not have to pay for the mortgage interest himself.
Simple as that.
Geddit?
Complain about this comment
176 AndyC555
I think David Cameron is trying to appear 'tough' on this expenses issue but that falls a bit flat when it becomes clear that the treatment he dishes out to 'old' tories and way he deals with the shiny and bright new ones he surrounds himself with are not consistent. He's quite prepared to protect those MPs whom he considers 'one of us' whilst feeding the awkward squad to the fishes!
Unless, of course my 'blind class/money/jealousy driven hatred of Cameron' is getting in the way again! Ho hum...
Complain about this comment
# 181 Boilerplated
to use your analogy... I am an intelligent person and drive through the middle of town at 70 m.p.h. The law states that I should drive at a "reasonable" speed and I know there are children and older people who walk in this town.
Unfortunately there are lots of accidents and retrospectively they decide a "reasonable" limit is 30 m.p.h., and fine me, throw me in jail or whatever.
Am I intelligent, moral, hard done by? Or was I just pushing my luck? If we are to take commonsense out of the equation then we might as well just have a free for all, but for everyone.
Complain about this comment
172 REDRAG1
"Anyone find out why Cameron and the Conservatives refused to send anyone to Newsnight to discuss the Expenses Scandal?Labour managed two MP's who put across the party line but the Conservatives wouldn't send anyone."
Labour have a rather delicate party line on the expenses issue because of their fears over the damage it may do to them electorally, particularly because of the problems with Brown's initial response to the affair, Brown's own dodgy claims and the abuses by numerous serial "flippers" who have not been sacked from the cabinet. Because of the rather dicey position they find themselves in, they have perpetually to send people into the studios to defend the party.
The Conservatives are rather less damaged by the affair (despite the best efforts of propagandists and smear-artists here and elsewhere). Because the system they set up within the party has largely worked, they see themselves as preferring to move on to more important matters, like the economy and the governance of the nation. Hence, they are happy to watch Labour as they struggle to extricate themselves from the mess - which is best done from the sidelines.
I've had a look at the blog that you linked to in your post. Could you please take the time to remove some of the foul language from it before you link to it again? Thankyou.
Complain about this comment
Oh I am so glad expenses are back in the arena - I really have missed the wailings of pathetic MP's as they try to wriggle off the hook.
What this event (and the Damian Green one for that matter) has shown clearly that MP's have no idea what it's like in the real world - they are so far out of touch.
Lets get a few facts straight - there are no 'clean' MP's in the House of parliment - the reason is because although not everyone actively abused the system the rest knew such an abuse was happening. I am not aware of any complaint being raised by any MP in the house - therefore they are all guitly in the collusion of keeping the matter from the public. You cannot have MP's collectively deciding (without judiciary) what is in the public interest and what isn't. As it turned out the matter was in the public interest and they were wrong.
It was clear by their actions (the attempted prevention of the revelation of the information) that they knew they had done wrong - and yet no-one seems to have questioned this.
If I run someone over in the dark and claim I never noticed - I might get away with a minor charge. However if I repaint my car the following day in order to cover it up, then it's a clear sign of guilt and the judge / jury would see that.
Why are MP's being judged on a different sets of standards? Is it because they feel they are the ones to dictate moral and legal standards and not abide by them?
I call that a dictatorship - it's just there is nore than 1 you are used to in your traditional totalitarian regime.
With Damian Green I understand the report found that the police "should have made an appointment in order to arrange his arrest at a convenient time" - Arrange and arrest? Have you heard such nonesense?
You can be arrested on the street based on suspicion of a crime, even if in hindsight that crime has nothing to do with you. The police retain the powers of arrest. In this case there appeared to be a security breach and the police acted upon it. Why should MP's be arrested by appointment? Is this how the rest of us are treated? - I didn't think so.
I agree it is unfair to retrospectively apply rules (because we don't do it with law - thank goodness) - but seeing as the rules were open to interpretation then only the interpreter can sight wrongdoing - this mantle has been passed to Lord Legg.
Welcome to the real world MP's - it's a world of imbalance and unfairness which you helped create. Don't start crying like babies because you cannot handle it - we have to put up with this unfairness on a daily basis - not protected by the laws you invent to protect yourselves.
Now stop your smiling Nicholas Robinson and get out there and start cross examining MP's. They are truly far more pathetic than I could possibly have imagined and clearly not suitable for leadership and it's your job to demonstrate that.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 184
Deeply inadequate response, and you know it, too.
Stop smearing!
Complain about this comment
"Anyway, most of those caught by IR35 were on the 'fiddle', everyone knows that, just like all the MPs are, they wouldn't have been caught otherwise..." - Boilerplated.
IR35 was aimed at countering what this Government saw as the 'fiddle' of one-man service companies contracting when they would otherwise have been employed by those they were working for. It is particularly common in the IT sector. Many IT contractors found their prospective employer would NOT employ them and insisted that they set up companies. The biggest culprite here? You might have guessed it.... Government Departments.
And if anyone thinks the IR35 legislation was oppresive, you wait for the next stage in this Government's crack-down on the private sector, aimed squarely at the construction industry and started with a 'consultation' document charmingly entitled "False Self-Employment in Construction". Not that they've made their mind up on the subject before hand.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mike_Naylor 197
"2: Cameron said the same thing "pay it back or quit" earlier in the year. Sadly, after claiming 250k would be paid back, it was revealed yesterday that sadly, not even half of that amount has reached whitehall. And many of the main culprits have simply refused to pay it."
Provide a respectable reference for that remark or withdraw it.
Complain about this comment
Nick, I wonder whether you've considered whether the furore over the backdating of new expenses limits isn't just a convenient smokescreen?
If Legg had suggested the limits to apply in the future, everybody would quietly accept it, wouldn't they? But in that case, the main story would have been that Gordon Brown double-claimed a bill for £1,400.
Obviously just a totally innocent error, needless to say, perish the thought that the fraud was deliberate. But did he not force some of his colleagues to resign over similarly innocent errors earlier in the process?
But the furore means that his fraud/error is hardly being reported. And in telling his MPs to swallow their medicine, the PM takes the moral high ground and the media faithfully report it.
And all because Legg exceeded his brief. I wonder where that convenient idea came from?
Complain about this comment
Personally it's about time this was dealt with once and for all. Those MP's who do not re-pay expenses if asked to do so, should have it made very clear to them they WILL NOT be able to stand at the forthcoming general election. No matter what party they are from.
Complain about this comment
181. At 12:34pm on 13 Oct 2009, Boilerplated
Your speeding example is not applicable as you have indicated there is a speed limit of 50mph to begin with - thereby handing legality up to that speed.
In the case of MP's there was no speed limit really and some of them took it to mean that they could fly past the primary school at 200 MPH in their Ferrari's and that this wasn't being unreasonable or anti-social.
I think you'll find in the case of the driving law this would be deemed as 'driving with due care and attention' or 'dangerous driving' regardless of the lack of a speed limit. As a result a prosecution would apply (even retrospectively) and in this case it would more severe than a speeding fine.
This is more accurately what MP's are being subjected to.
If I were you I would stop trying to defend the unreasonable with reason.
Complain about this comment
187#
Glad I saw the irony tags. :-)
1500 investigations launched by HMRC though to only end up winning 6 cases recovering less than 1.5M in "evaded" taxes in 12 years... a pernicious, vindictive, oversized hammer to crack a not oversized nut.
Complain about this comment
Personally I think it's all got a bit silly. Yes, we were outraged when it first broke but there are so many nuances, facets to this issue that it will never be satisfactorily resolved, do you think?
Duck houses, Mp's houses, it's turned into a farce. They are a laughing stock quite frankly and I think we ought to pack it up now and resume some modicom of decorum.
What I think is MORE pertinent is the local councils who are more directly involved in our personal lives and who are mostly living the life of Riley, well their Chief Execs are and what about the silly Mayors travelling in chauffeur driven cars and going to garden parties on OUR MONEY when they can't even mend the roads? Eh? Let's turn the tables on them, PLEASE!
Complain about this comment
#181, Boilerplated:
I refer you to my earlier post at #49.
Complain about this comment
204#
"I think David Cameron is trying to appear 'tough' on this expenses issue but that falls a bit flat when it becomes clear that the treatment he dishes out to 'old' tories and way he deals with the shiny and bright new ones he surrounds himself with are not consistent. He's quite prepared to protect those MPs whom he considers 'one of us' whilst feeding the awkward squad to the fishes!
Unless, of course my 'blind class/money/jealousy driven hatred of Cameron' is getting in the way again! Ho hum..."
Even if it were true - so, if he doesnt get rid of the old guard, by fair means or foul, they remain the nasty party and have never and will never change their spots, they'll always eat the babies of the poor after they've kissed them on the hustings, they'll steal the bread from the mouths of pensioners and throw them into penury - and if he does get rid of the old guard, he's a cynical, manipulative poshboy trying to create his own political dynasty to look after his public school/banker mates? - rightly or wrongly, thats the political system we have allowed to develop.
Regardless of which choice Cameron had made, I venture that he would still have been criticised.
Never saw any of that kind of behaviour between Blairites and Brownites did we? Never briefed against each other, never bullied anyone into not standing against Gordon in the bloodless coup?
Complain about this comment
114 Conbobulation of sagemice:
There is a limit on the amount that can be claimed. Cameron has purchased a property that allows him to claim the full limit.
Now I know this makes you wrathful, that someone should take as mcuh as they are allowed while remaining within the rules. But it is exactly the same as I do when I select my company car, I take the best one I am able within the allowance set. What I do not do is take a lower priced one, then take the difference to spend as I see fit. The 2nd is a crime, the first is just normal good sense.
Since I do not need a second car, I do not have one of my own. But if I did, I would do exactly the same.
Why would we expect anyone to do anything different?
Complain about this comment
#202:
Excellent post. I agree with every single word you write, and couldn't have put it better myself.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
180. At 12:33pm on 13 Oct 2009, greatHayemaker wrote:
"
Cameron would not need 2 homes if he was not an MP. Therefore having two homes requires extra expenditure, regardless of whether he owns one of them already.
Quite simple really, amazing anyone would need to have it explained to them."
...what you have done there is ignored the reasons behind the 'neccessity of a second home' which are:
1) Chronic underinvestment of rail transport in this country ( a problem caused by MP's. I work with people here (in London) who struggle in from Oxford daily - is Cameron different? How can he have transport policy if he doesn't travel in rush hour?
2) The assigning of 'dead cert' constituencies to party seniors so they don't have to worry about their own election.
I know for a fact that if I worked with you in London, doing the same job, and decided to move to York, and as a result I was bought a house by the company in London - you would quite rightly be in uproar.
However it seems you are happy that we live in a society where imbalance is simply accepted - but only on your terms....
Complain about this comment
ALL MP`s KNEW the rules - they were / are, quite explicit - please read them before comimg on this HYS. Expemses necesarily incurred etc etc - well heaps of them abused this and took OUR money to feather their nests, and did so KNOWINGLY.
To bleat now is reprehensible.If any MP challenges this,taxpayers,and there are a few of us still in the UK, should march on Westminster ASAP.
Finally, u try telling ANY Govt Dept that has overpaid u that it was a mistake and u r sorry and expect that to be the end of it - guess the response???? - yeah, stand by for Court action BUT MP`s are above our laws as evidenced recently by so called Hon Members - one an ex Home Secretary for G--s sake.
Complain about this comment
Why are there posts on this blog trying to defend David Cameron by saying "they were all at it"??
This may be true, but given he is probably going to be our next Prime Minister there is no doubt in my mind that he is in a position of unusually high reponsibility compared to most MPs (as are the other party leaders, and no, I dont like Brown's expenses either).
Too many people are trying to turn this into a party-political issue, when it just isnt, the bad expenses are across the board. But because both Brown and Cameron have been trying to outdo each other for the title of 'expenses reformer/slayer', shouldnt they be more open than most to criticism of their expenses?
Frankly, if this blog is indicative of the kind of scrutiny Cameron can expect to face if and when he is in power, then we are all in trouble.
Complain about this comment
My earlier comment about Jacqui Smith's £100,000+ claims is in its 3rd hour of moderation.
Funny that it was a near verbatim quote from a Newspaper of Record.
Hopefully when the Tories get in they will gut the BBC of its Labour bias.
Complain about this comment
I simply don't understand how ANY gardening expenses can be "wholly, exclusively, AND necessarily incurred for the purposes of carrying out their duties as an MP".
Is it absolutely impossible for MPs to live in flats without gardens?
And even if they did have to have gardens in order to be MPs, surely some of the benefits are shared with their families so the benefits don't go exclusively to the MPs personally.
Complain about this comment
#202
Well put!
I also work for large multi-nats and the expense system cannot be fiddled, everything I claim for requires a receipt (even if it is less than 1 pound) and I need to justify every item expensed
There's no reason MP's should have different standards. Sir Thomas has not re-written the rules. He is merely applying some common sense (which has been sadly lacking from parliamentary expenses) to the existing guidelines
Complain about this comment
Now when I post I'm a new member LOL.
Complain about this comment
It is time for MPs to stand up and face the music once and for all so that we can get on with normal business on Afghanistan, Health and Education etc. That means either paying up now if the spirit of the law has been either flouted or breached even mistakenly, but delaying payment if the MP concerned thinks that Legg has made a mistake (that must be allowed under natural justice). Claims in the latter category must be resolved and if necessary any payment settled within three weeks.
When this is all completed and monies owing settled voters must be in a position to know which category their MP comes under:
Those whose claims have been within the letter and spirit of the law and who have had to make no restitution. Deatils available to all voters.
Those whose claims included items that were outside the spirit and rejected and repaid (again individual details available for voters).
Those whose claims were outside the letter and the spirit and for whom disciplinary and possible legal action will be appopriate. Again these should be in a list for voters although nobody in that category should be standing at the next election.
We are talking about our representatives, and to listen to some of them on TV last night (the Labour knight in particular) I had that horrible feeling they still dont get it and were talking more about Legg than about themselves. Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime applies to MPs as well as us. Pay up.
Complain about this comment
This is a hugely complex issue which seems to cover criminal law and tax law as well as parliamentary procedures none of which I am an expert on but I can't accept the principle of retrospective legislation.
Legg should have produced guidance as to what he thinks individual MPs should have claimed and then let them decide whether to repay it and then face the electorate.
The whole matter should also be passed to both the police and HMRC to investigate as well - that is their job and they will be better at it than a Civil Servant.
There has been a lot of fine words but to date no one has received any kind of punishment. To date the biggest censure has been Jacqui Smith's rather pathetic apology, she wasn't even sacked she was allowed to resign.
Complain about this comment
ref 209.
You are absolutely right.
IR35 was never designed to stop "fiddling" ,after all all those IT consultants working for a single company were simply adhering to the law of the time.(nothing illegal)
The problem of today is that the one man company simply have part time contracts with two or three companies and therefore now not able to be taxed at source as they are not covered by IR35 legislation.
This is the current ploy of thousands of highly paid management consultants and also the commentators on the TV who have several contracts with different radio and TV channels who avoid the legislation because they have multiple employers.
And much to the annoyance of the IR it is legal-so I guess they will need to come up with some new scatter brain idea to squeeze the money out of people earlier.
Complain about this comment
206. At 1:07pm on 13 Oct 2009, jrperry wrote:
"The Conservatives are rather less damaged by the affair (despite the best efforts of propagandists and smear-artists here and elsewhere)."
Don't try and differentiate between rats and snakes or I shall simply refer to
DUCK ISLAND
....which is a blatant abuse of the system by someone who is experienced enough to know better.
I was waiting for the 'boys in blue' to start with their childish schoolboy finger pointing about how they weren't the worst offenders.
Maybe this is what we should apply to our prison and legal system - we shoudl let out the 'least' law breakers (burglars, robbers etc.) and leave all the others in prison.
wrongdoing is wrongdoing - there are no shades of variation that are relevant.
Complain about this comment
I hope Mr Robinson will be providing a full reply to the comment no 196, at 12:56pm on 13 Oct 2009, from FruitMonster.
It raises even more important issues than the immorality of some MPs.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
208. At 1:12pm on 13 Oct 2009, jrperry wrote:
"sagamix 184
Deeply inadequate response, and you know it, too.
Stop smearing!"
In order to smear first the item must be clean - and in the case of MP's they weren't - and aren't.
I don't think sagamix is being politically biased (unlike yourself) but like many of us we're all sitting in our smug self-satisfaction that we were all right all along and that MP's are basically 'top end benefit cheats' who clearly think they are above the rules and expectations that are placed upon the rest of us.
How much is Tory central office pay these days for an activist?
Can it be claimed on expenses?
Complain about this comment
Many posts: I do not have the time to read them all.
The Police have realized that people who happily or normally commit minor offences have the mindset to go on to commit more major ones. It's the "I got away with it once and and I'm now used to it" mentality.
The MPs who took for for granted their right to claim, by established practice and, so far, unregulated 'rights', easy expenses have offended The House and their constituents.
Do the worst claimants also hide their their concerns from the Register of Interests? Do they lobby on behalf of grateful interests outside of The House and electorate for present or future remuneration?
So, MPs are angry at 'retrospectivity'. It's an easy emotion to invoke on their return from a good break with fading public memory of the exposure of their, dare I call them, perks.
Constituents and the country's trust in some of the elected representatives has been knocked and their Anger on new [to come] revelations will surely be greater than that of MPs.
Time to come clean or resign.
N.
Complain about this comment
How can The Commons complain about retrospective treatment when they pass BN66 (which allows a retrospective change in tax law)?
Complain about this comment
What's this?
"Despite a long-established tradition that reports of parliamentary proceedings are protected from legal action, the newspaper (Guardian)said it was not allowed to mention a question tabled by an MP for answer by a minister later this week.
It said it had been barred from reporting who the MP was, which minister would answer the question, where it might be found or even why the gagging order was in place."
If the government had been more transparent about MPs expenses and not tried to hide certain "redacted" details, this storm would have developed but many have been manageable.
If newspapers - I don't care whether they come from a right, left or centrist point of view - are to be gagged, then it really may be time to be afraid.
Come on, Nick, tell us it isn't true.
Complain about this comment
219. At 1:32pm on 13 Oct 2009, greatHayemaker wrote:
"Now I know this makes you wrathful, that someone should take as mcuh as they are allowed while remaining within the rules. But it is exactly the same as I do when I select my company car, I take the best one I am able within the allowance set. What I do not do is take a lower priced one, then take the difference to spend as I see fit. The 2nd is a crime, the first is just normal good sense."
.....or wasteful - why take a bigger and more powerful car than your needs require? (assuming it's the price differential)
Is it your built in greed that makes you think someone else might benefit if you don't take your full allotted share (regardless of whether you need it)
"Why would we expect anyone to do anything different?"
I was in this position and I took the cheaper smaller car (Fiat) as I did not need a big one (Ford).
The question should be why do some people think waste is acceptable as long as it's ensuring nobody gets a free ride?
It's the same logic that idiot apply when purchasing mammoth vehicles. I need a giant truck for the 2 times a year when I fill it up with stuff.
.....obviously these foolish people have never heard of a trailer.
Don't apply illogical thinking to justify greed - it's greed and you should be asking yourself why you would make such a decision..
Complain about this comment
It would be a very good day for a Vote of No Confidance in G.Brown!
Complain about this comment
#200, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"All very interesting but Brown's silence about how Labour MPs should handle the situation speaks volumes. Would also be rather interesting to see Legg's letter to Tony Blair. In the end, OK they have all been told to repay "excess" claims -- so be it and lets move on."
I rather thought the point was that Tony Blair's expense claims had been "accidentally shredded".
I thought that was a bit odd at the time. Maybe his claims had been shredded, but surely the HoC lads and laddettes actually make a record of the payments they make?
Or are we saying that both Tony B's submissions and the HoC office's records were coincidentally shredded?
I thought that records had to be maintained for 7 years, in case there would be an enquiry from HMRC. Or is that simply something for the little folk to worry about?
Complain about this comment
Be still my bleeding heart for those MP's who are said to be 'traumatised', one day after returning to Westminster from a twelve week holiday.
Hopefully, many of these MP's will be wiped out at the General Election.
In fact, all of those who were not 'purer than pure' regarding their expenses should get the chop, if (big if) voters can stop being tribal about their politics for once.
It is probably the only way that we English are going to be able to recast the political system in England into something that is appropriate for the modern era.
PS. Contrast and compare 'trauma' - I bumped into a former colleague yesterday and he told me that out of our small team of five people, two have been made redundant, one because of repeated sickness due to stress and another (a freelancer) refused to extend his contract, again because of stress.
The team manager, who was the person I spoke to, only survives because he 'volunteers' to take on extra work.
This, I might add, is from a small team who worked in a multi-national company that is one of the most successful and profitable businesses in the world - even now.
Complain about this comment
233. At 1:45pm on 13 Oct 2009, EricJT wrote:
"I hope Mr Robinson will be providing a full reply to the comment no 196, at 12:56pm on 13 Oct 2009, from FruitMonster."
...not if he's got his gag on today!
Surely this is the same issue - freedom of public information and who decides what is in the public interest or not.
Complain about this comment
How can it be right to fiddle the mortgage but wrong to fiddle the expenses for cleaning and gardening? Can anything ever be straightforward with our current batch of MPs?
Why could the verdict not have been the previous system was flawed and open to abuse, which many MPs took advantage of, but ultimately they broke no rules and therefore a line could be drawn under this sorry episode and anyone who breaches the rules of the new expenses system would face instant dismal from the House of Commons from now on.
Story over and the MPs could get back to real politics that affect people and country.
Complain about this comment
"writingsonthewall wrote:
I don't think sagamix is being politically biased (unlike yourself) but like many of us we're all sitting in our smug self-satisfaction that we were all right all along and that MP's are basically 'top end benefit cheats' who clearly think they are above the rules and expectations that are placed upon the rest of us."
You don't think that Sagamix is politically biased? You must be new here! Saga claims to be a floating voter yet constantly slates the Tory party and Cameron especially for being Toffs but yet loves Harman!
It is interesting that you call them "benefit cheats" because what makes them benefit cheats is that they claim benefits to which they are not entitled.
The vast majority of MPs didn't cheat the system, however there are a few exceptions including a couple of MPs claiming for mortgages which they had already paid off and MPs claiming their main home was one they rarely stayed at in order to claim expenses on the home where they spent the majority of their time.
The majority of MPs entered expense claims which were entirely within the rules of the system, even if the general public would consider to be excessive.
The problem was that the rules were too vague to be useful.
Complain about this comment
Ref 231 and IR35 - a stupid piece of tax legislation brought in by one Gordon Brown and easily avoided. The proper answer? IR35 was introduced because by maximising dividends and minimising salary, National Insurance can be perfectly legally avoided. NI can be avoided in this way, because it is only levied on "earned income" and "unearned income" (e.g. dividends) are exempt. The correct solution is to scrap National Insurance altogether - it is income tax by another name and a con.. Lump NI in with income tax and you will have a fairer system - trouble for politicians is that you would also have a more transparent system and people would see exactly how much income tax they are truly paying!
Complain about this comment
writingsonthewall 232
The thing is, the duck island (and, indeed, clearing out the moat), wrong and stupid though it was, is seen by the public as less bad than serial "flipping" by a cabinet minister in order to build up a property portfolio. It's not me saying that, it's the public at large - I am merely reporting the fact. The reason why the public see one as being worse than the other is that duck-island man was put on notice the day the story emerged, while serial-flipper man is still in his job.
As I said, the Conservatives are rather less damaged by the affair, because they took the right action, and did it quickly. On the other hand, Labour are still badly damaged by the expenses scandal, because they didn't act, and in many cases still haven't acted. The public perception of Labour is that they are dangling on the end of the rope, trying to justfy themselves, smearing and propagandising in the hope of distracting attention away from their own failure to act.
You may not like it, but many will see your post as part of the smear, propagandise and distract operation.
Complain about this comment
Oooops. Looks like someone didn't lock the cupboard properly. Those skeletons are coming back out to play.
Here we are again and it's all about Legality vs Morality.
I'm not surprised MPs are upset, they wanted to get this mess resolved, they all voted for Thomas to do the work. Unfortunately, due to the vast complexity of it all, Thomas had to make some decisions and in my book, he made the right ones. However, from the legality of it, the MPs are probably right in their views of it all. However, from the world outside Westminster, it comes down to the morality of it all and how we perceive our MPs.
The only reason this can be considered legal is because the system was wrong in the first place, after all what's really illegal in a corrupt system? There's the problem because once again, we're in the "It was all within the rules" territory, a very boring argument right now but it's the argument they have and legally you can't argue with it.
Any normal person would know the difference between making use of expenses and abusing the system to the extreme but many MPs clearly can't see the boundary lines that regular people can.
I wish I could have expenses, but I don't and where most normal people get no access to benefits, here we have MPs with probably the largest expense system available to them moaning and whining that a cap has been placed on them and it has been accounted for retrospectively.
They've abused their expenses, wasted our money on their selfishness and now there's an uproar because they've been asked to pay some money back. They should pay it back and I'm glad this has come out. There's no sympathy out there for them and where Gordon just pays money back, at least we have David saying "Pay up or you're out of the Tories".
They wanted this and now that they've been given an answer they didn't want, it's time to have a big argument so that justice is determined by our corrupt MPs who want to get away with it.
In their position, as representatives of the people, their compasses should be magnetised towards morality, in their position they should uphold the morals, ethics and values of the people and the country they represent but it appears that more often than not the compass is magnetised towards a direction created by the MPs themselves.
I have no sympathy for the MPs. As has been stated, the average person in this country has to keep tax records for years where HMRC can come to you with queries relating to years back where past mistakes need to be rectified.
The average person in this country suffers many burdens on a daily basis, having to make truly difficult choices and all we get is MPs complaining that they have to pay money back because they've spent years abusing their power, position, status and expenses. This only deepens my disgust towards them, so as someone has already said, let's leak the list out of all those complaining and out of that list, who's threatening to take the legal action.
As far as I'm concerned: Abuse of the system is equivalent to Treason against this country, the punishment for Treason is severe and so too should the punishment against our MPs. Therefore, if you compare the punishments people received for Treason against what our MPs are currently experiencing, I say they're getting off lightly. If I was in charge, I'd be seeking more severe punishments but apparently the people aren't MP enough to be included in the argument because we side on Morality over Legality.
Complain about this comment
#238 A law firm can stop parliament being reported. What is going on. Is this the action of the Supreme Court, if so we can do without it.
Complain about this comment
I suspect that if MPs found guilty of fraud had been immediately prosecuted the protest by MPs now would have been a lot more muted.
Gordon Brown's reluctance to prosecute errant MPs is just aggravating the situation because taxpayers want to see that MPs who commit a crime are not above the law.
By not pressing forward with legal action, it reinforces the view that he condones their actions and his own.This does nothing to advance his party's election position as they must now be pretty close to being unelectable on his watch.
Using the "Nelsonian Eye" to ignore the actions of errant MPs just demonstrates that he is not the man to lead the nation and is something that the voters will be focusing on when the election finally arrives.
Complain about this comment
242. At 2:02pm on 13 Oct 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
"This, I might add, is from a small team who worked in a multi-national company that is one of the most successful and profitable businesses in the world - even now."
All thanks to the self exploitation of the workers involved. The next step in increasing the profitablility - slavery!
Complain about this comment
"writingsonthewall wrote:
219. At 1:32pm on 13 Oct 2009, greatHayemaker wrote:
"Now I know this makes you wrathful, that someone should take as mcuh as they are allowed while remaining within the rules. But it is exactly the same as I do when I select my company car, I take the best one I am able within the allowance set. What I do not do is take a lower priced one, then take the difference to spend as I see fit. The 2nd is a crime, the first is just normal good sense."
.....or wasteful - why take a bigger and more powerful car than your needs require? (assuming it's the price differential)"
He didn't say that the car was bigger or more powerful, it might be that the more expensive car includes a sat nav (which means that he doesn't have to buy a sat nav with his only money) or has a CD player rather than a tape deck.
It could also mean that the more expensive car is better for his personal needs e.g. has space in the back for the kids when he goes out on weekends.
I don't have a car allowance but when I am on an over-night stay as part of work I tend to make the most of my food allowance, yes I could order a couple of rounds of toast and a glass of water (and I am sure that you do because you don't want to be wasteful) but I prefer to order a nice steak and chips.
""Why would we expect anyone to do anything different?"
I was in this position and I took the cheaper smaller car (Fiat) as I did not need a big one (Ford)."
You are an inspiration to us all, I think the government should build a statue in your honour.
Complain about this comment
235 writingsonthewall
And there you go again. See my 247.
By the way, if your snide little remark at the end of your post is meant to suggest that I am a paid Tory activist then I can assure you, you are well wide of the mark. I am not even a Tory member, and I am certainly not paid by anyone to do this. I'm actually rather annoyed at your suggestion that I might be paid to post. It seems to me to be another smear designed to distract from the mess the government has allowed itself to get into.
Complain about this comment
241. At 2:02pm on 13 Oct 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:
.....
"I rather thought the point was that Tony Blair's expense claims had been "accidentally shredded"."
....
Oh really.
Not beyond suspicion but beyond my knowledge!
The wormholes are being discovered in the [antique] woodwork. Where are the worms?
What expenses can the President of The European Union claim?
N.
Complain about this comment
245. At 2:03pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
I don't think slating the Tories is a sign of political bias. Anyone who is older than 30 has good reason to dislike the Tories no matter what their allegance should be.
As for the rest of what you said:
Yes - taking benefits to which you are not entitled is a benefit cheat I believe.
If you look at my earlier piece I have made it quite clear why they are all "in this together" because I don't recall any MP's blowing the gaffe on this when all of them knew it was going on - or perhaps you are saying that because I was merely lookout on the burgulary then I did not participate in the crime - M'lud.
Many have scorned the behaviour of their colleagues but every one was after the event
Don't forget who wrote those rules.....it seems not only did they abuse the system they put in but the failed in their job too!! because those great minds couldn't even arrange a working, non-corruptable expenses system.
.....or are they playing fools in order to avoid responsibility?
Complain about this comment
Too much party politics on here! This is about Parliament (albeit stuffed with politicians).
The place needs a radical overhaul i.e. pay, terms, expenses, responsibility, the number of MP, relationship with the "Lords" (or whatever "that place" should truly be called) but whom should we entrust this matter with?
Complain about this comment
Members of Parliament are responsible for their own claims NOBODY else, not the fees office,not their accountant, not their mother, just them.
The Green Book they ALL have to refer to clearly states that expenses to be claimed have to have been incurred "Wholey,Necessarily and Exclusively in the performance of their Parliamentary duties". Clearly most have not complied with this and should pay up or expect a knock on the door from the Police under the Fraud Act. It simple really, you tried it on with OUR (taxpayers) money and you have been caught out. Anyone other than MP's behaving like this with taxpayers money would have a criminal record by now.
Complain about this comment
For goodness sake this is like a never ending circle that nobody ever breaks. One side says Camerons expenses are wrong another says Browns are not in order. Who cares this is peanuts. Today we see the pound plummet and the outside markets losing faith in our economy because of our increasing debt and all the media cares about is MPs expenses. They must be laughing themselves silly in the EU where this sort of money is wasted everyday. While Britain sinks its people and media worry about MPs expenses.
Any sensible organisation would say nearly all the MPs claimed too much and if they did not, they knew about it. Therefore impose a fine right across the board, draw a line under it, bring in new rules and for goodness sake lets move on.
We cannot get rid of all our MPs because they know how Parliament works and it would take new or independent MPs too long to get up to speed. Plus nothing would ever get passed in the way of legislation because they would never all agree. We need decisive Government now if we are ever to rise from this mess. This greed has run through all our society, that is why we are in the mess we are. Keeping this story of MPs expenses alive is both corrosive and damaging to our future.
Honestly I do believe the British obsession about the weather has been replaced by MPs expenses.
Complain about this comment
247. At 2:07pm on 13 Oct 2009, jrperry wrote:
"The thing is, the duck island (and, indeed, clearing out the moat), wrong and stupid though it was, is seen by the public as less bad than serial "flipping" by a cabinet minister in order to build up a property portfolio. It's not me saying that, it's the public at large - I am merely reporting the fact."
My god - you sound like Sky news with that unfounded rubbish. When and where did you meet 'the public' to ask them this?
This may be the case in whichever Tory stronghold you live in but I can assure you that the oppulence of spending as much as a small car on a house for your ducks is not popular amongst the millions who earn less than 18k a year (yes they do exist).
"You may not like it, but many will see your post as part of the smear, propagandise and distract operation."
Of who exactly? I am slating all MP's of all parties where as you are trying to say - oh but not all of them.
Don't talk about what is damaging when the entire respect of politics has gone down the toilet - a feat only achieveable by the collective efforts of all parties.
While you're out "gathering public opinion" this afternoon - perhaps you could ask them what they think about politicans in general and why more people don't bother to vote than vote for the 'winning' party. An answer which I am sure will help you understand the feeling of politicans.
Complain about this comment
AlphaPhantom
"As far as I'm concerned: Abuse of the system is equivalent to Treason against this country, the punishment for Treason is severe and so too should the punishment against our MPs."
Wow - and I thought I was harsh, I had better up my game...
Complain about this comment
Even St Trinians came over as more orderly and sane than the Westminster village.
Off they go again. These honourable people elected to do good work but obsessed by greed and selfishness Anyone who even whispers they aren't happy about their payback should be sacked.
Perhaps we can have a list of those who have passed the honesty test with A* or A They can be safely elected again.
Then we should have those who didn't pass A or A* but got a B. Not perfect but still good enough.
The next list should be those who think they have a a genuine grievance.
The jury is out but if it wasn't genuine then off they should go.
I can't consider the next grade to be good enough to be MP's so bye bye. Off you go. You all know who you are.
After three months paid holiday it's time to get back to work. How much paid time has already been spent on expenses instead of looking after the country? After three months most of them haven't even been missed. That says everything.
There again everything is in drift at the moment so how's about starting on the Quangos or Local Government the Lords and even the MEP's
The MP's expenses are only the tip of the iceberg.
Complain about this comment
Are our laws and regulations becoming too complicated, opaque, confusing and even contradictory?
If parliament, governments and MPs could not make and implement a clear and working expense claim system, what chances that the same people can make laws that are concise and appropriate?
MPs should remember that they are the most senior and visible public servants of the country. How and what they do and don't do set examples.
I hope the expense-saga will deter those who go into politics for a comfortable egolistic life, a good secure pension and a few quids of extra money from expenses. Unfortunate, it will not deter those who are prepare to sale the country's interest and assets for more substantial persona and family gains, during or after office.
Complain about this comment
Foobs
'Never saw any of that kind of behaviour between Blairites and Brownites did we? Never briefed against each other, never bullied anyone into not standing against Gordon in the bloodless coup?'
I'm sorry I missed the bit where I pinned my Labour colours to the mast! I wouldn't vote for any of 'em!
Complain about this comment
Nick,
MP's have forgotten that it is our taxpayers money they were getting.
Some more than others.....!
Xxxxx
Complain about this comment
I'm still puzzled about the expenses paid to Sir Peter Viggers.
According to the Telegraph, "It was unclear whether he received money specifically for the duck island. A fees officer scrawled “not allowable” next to it."
That seemed a reasonable assessment of whether a duck house was an expenses wholly or necessarily incurred as a result of exercising the role of MP.
Made me laugh at the time. Like some of the moat cleaning stuff.
I still haven't worked out how Balls and Cooper can live in a house from which they go to work and from which their children go to school, but it's a "second home".
Does anybody seriously believe they would relocate back to their "main home", should they lose ministerial incomes - but still be MPs - next year?
Far as I can see, there's not a big demand for "high-flying economists" in Castleford, so I rather fancy they'll stick around the London house.
So why do we pay to help them to buy their London pad?
If I tried a trick like that, I'm not sure that HMRC would pat me on the shoulder. I know what my employer would do...
Complain about this comment
252. At 2:15pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE
Despite the ambuguity in the example - why do you need a sat nav - what's wrong with reading a MAP!!!! .
Your reasoning is exactly why the planet is doomed.
"I don't have a car allowance but when I am on an over-night stay as part of work I tend to make the most of my food allowance, yes I could order a couple of rounds of toast and a glass of water (and I am sure that you do because you don't want to be wasteful) but I prefer to order a nice steak and chips."
Don't you realise that steak (and meat) is one of the biggest contributers to carbon emmissions? I'm not objecting to meat eating but you're implying you will indulge simply because it's there.
GREED mate - that's all it is - pure GREED and waste.
....and clearly not the best reader either...
"It could also mean that the more expensive car is better for his personal needs e.g. has space in the back for the kids when he goes out on weekends."
....as I said earlier - if we all used this logic then we would all be driving articulated lorries for the 5 times a lifetime when we move house - to save on having to hire a removal van.
"You are an inspiration to us all, I think the government should build a statue in your honour."
...they would, but wasteful people would complain it was a waste of money.
Isn't it great living in the biggest hypocriscy in the world.
Complain about this comment
writingsonthewall wrote:
If you look at my earlier piece I have made it quite clear why they are all "in this together" because I don't recall any MP's blowing the gaffe on this when all of them knew it was going on - or perhaps you are saying that because I was merely lookout on the burgulary then I did not participate in the crime - M'lud."
The only thing that ALL MPs are guilty of is having a very lax expenses system, some MPs abused it but that doesn't mean that all MPs are guilty of abuse or even turning a blind eye to abuse.
If your company had an expense policy that was so badly defined that it was open to abuse would you consider yourself to be a thief because someone else abused the policy the policy? As I have stated before the vast majority of MPs didn't abuse the policy and I expect that most were totally unaware that other MPs were claiming for mortgages on properties that they owned outright.
"Many have scorned the behaviour of their colleagues but every one was after the event"
I seriously doubt that the culprits who were abusing the policy boasted about it openly so I expect the majority of MPs didn't know about the abuse. True, they also didn't blow the whistle about the lax expenses system but that is a totally different thing.
Complain about this comment
THE RAGE
The parliamentary ruling mob
Have all enjoyed a cushy job
The taxes paid by you and me
Helped these scoundrels live for free
They tried to stop us finding out
What their expenses were about
Somehow they think that we are fools
By claiming, “It’s within the rules”
Such claims alas just will not wash,
They’ve lived like royals on our dosh
It’s not the dosh that we want back,
We want them ALL to get the sack
That’s not all, for we want more,
We want them in a court of law
Some of them it seems are frauds,
Both in the Commons and the Lords
Flipping homes to dodge the tax
Has got up the electorates backs
Porno films and cleaning moats
Is really sticking in our throats
Don’t think because they haven’t claimed
They’re innocent and can’t be blamed
Not speaking out what some were getting
Is simply aiding and abetting
Their secrets out they’ve lost control
We want them jailed or on the dole
Parliament’s no sacred cow.
BRING ON THE ELECTION NOW !!
Complain about this comment
38. At 09:48am on 13 Oct 2009, balancedthought wrote:
I repeat
Cameron etc.
=============
I am very right wing, and I have repeatedly pointed out that Cameron is and has exploited the expenses scandal to a far greater extent than many others.
I personally think that the whole Political System, not just here, but in Europe as well, needs a modern day Cromwell to sort it out, albeit, I hope by non-violent means. I have, for some time, urged people to vote against their sitting MP, regardless of Party, as we all know this is not a Party Political issue. IF we all voted to oust the sitting MP, we would still remove Labour as a Government, as they have the most MPs, we may end up with a hung parliament, but, in my view that would be a better result in the long term. I would even hope that if this idea began to take root, we may find that a reform party of some sort is willing to put up candidates. Quite simply, given the number of advisors and consultants on the Government payroll it is absurd to claim that removing the experienced MPs would damage the country, and given what havoc the experienced ones have caused, it also rings hollow.
Turf them all out.
=======================
Complain about this comment
#196 FruitMonster
Nick I think that FruitMonster is right, how about some beer instead of the usual froth?
Toxic waste dumped in the Ivory Coast:
Appears that the blogosphere won the battle against a company using an injunction to silence Parliament,
The Minton Report can be obtained from a link within the article
Complain about this comment
258. At 2:29pm on 13 Oct 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:
"We cannot get rid of all our MPs because they know how Parliament works and it would take new or independent MPs too long to get up to speed. Plus nothing would ever get passed in the way of legislation because they would never all agree. We need decisive Government now if we are ever to rise from this mess. This greed has run through all our society, that is why we are in the mess we are. Keeping this story of MPs expenses alive is both corrosive and damaging to our future."
Susan, I find this very odd reasoning.
Are you saying we must stick with the current system because they know the system? This is how contractors ensure their contract is renewed (by making sure the system is so complicated no-one else can follow or understand it)
Are you also saying that agreement is tantemount in politics and that decisiveness is key?
Hilter, Stalin, Pol pot - all pretty decisive.
You cannot remove the greed from the country by sweeping the matter under the carpet. How can we expect our bankers to be morally aware when our leaders are not marked by the same pen?
I do agree a line needs to be drawn under it - but it's the MP's who keep redrawing that line and continuing the problem - don't you remember that this whole thing was delayed because they tried to prevent the FOI request in the first place?
They could have settled this matter with an apology and an immediate re-imbursement of the monies. Still now we have talk of MP's who will probably refuse to pay - extending the political crisis further.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad to see the MPs getting some of their own medicine! MPs were quick to make the pensions industry review past pension transfer cases using standards that had not even been dreamt up when advice was given (using retrospecive legislation!) I do think it is unfair to apply today's standards to past circumstances but sometimes it is the only way to demonstrate fairness. In the same way that it was not a client's fault that they were missold a pension, it is not our fault that MPs have had (and still have) such a lax system for recording expenses. I really hope it hurts them but the expenses they are talking about paying back are tiny in comparison to what they have claimed. My message to MPs: Pay up then shut up!
Complain about this comment
"I can assure you that the oppulence of spending as much as a small car on a house for your ducks" Writings...
It was £1,600. That's a VERY small car. Or a very old one.
Lot's of MPs on both sides have come out of this very badly which is why the concentration by some on this BB on Cameron's mortgage reeks of party politics.
The duck house, mortgages that didn't actually exist, silk cushions, moat cleaning, mock tudor beams...lots of examples that are odious even judged by the rules as MPs interpreted them at the time.
Right now I can't think of a more foul smelling stench than that surrounding Jacqui Smith who has as much as been accused of lying about how often she stayed at her sister's and is made only to say 'sorry' and not pay anything back. At least Uddin, Lord Paul, Morley & Chater might face prosecution and Moran had to pay back the £22,000. Smith has got off free. Probably one of the most lucrative apologies in recent times.
Complain about this comment
53. At 09:58am on 13 Oct 2009, endangered_species wrote:
I am going to stick my head over the parapet here. For once I agree with Nick Robinson. It is fundamentally unfair to retrospectively apply rules that did not exist. Like it or not, these MPs made gardening and cleaning claims for five years that were approved and paid. They had no opportunity to change or alter their behaviour or expenditure. It is unjust to now ask for that cash back.
===================
Can I quote you on that when I write to complain to Messers Cameron and Brown that altering the Retirement age for people in their 50s is a 'retrospective change to the rules'
Complain about this comment
I think the following cartoon from the Times has captured the feelings over expenses, certainly from the MP’s point of view:
Back off, or the duck gets it.
Complain about this comment
#254. At 2:20pm on 13 Oct 2009, NixinKome wrote:
241. At 2:02pm on 13 Oct 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:
.....
"I rather thought the point was that Tony Blair's expense claims had been "accidentally shredded"."
....
Oh really.
NixinKome,
This was across the media. I found one source (Telegraph - which seems to have been pretty accurate about the whole of the MP expenses scandal) as a point of reference.
"It has now emerged that some of Blair’s files covering claims for Myrobella, his constituency home, were destroyed by Commons officials after they rejected The Sunday Times’s FOI request in January 2005 to see his claims for £43,029 of public money covering a three-year period.
The shredding of the files has emerged in documents from the protracted legal battle over MPs’ expenses. So far the efforts by the Commons authorities to block disclosure have run up legal bills likely to cost the taxpayer about £150,000."
Not sure whether you want to dig around a bit more to refute my comments. I'm not that interested.
It always seemed to me, as soon as MP expense management details were exposed, that there was absolutely no attempt to align their claims with the HMRC regulations that apply to normal companies and individuals.
That offends me.
I don't care whether it's a Prime Minister, an MP, a salesman, or a cleaner, the tax laws should apply to everybody.
No sure whather, "Sorry, gov, I accidentally shredded stuff" would help you if you had to discuss potential tax liabilities with the HMRC people. I've never met someone it helped.
Complain about this comment
writingsonthewall 259
There doesn't seem to be much point in reponding to your posts. You seem to be in transmit-only mode.
Complain about this comment
"writingsonthewall wrote:
247. At 2:07pm on 13 Oct 2009, jrperry wrote:
"The thing is, the duck island (and, indeed, clearing out the moat), wrong and stupid though it was, is seen by the public as less bad than serial "flipping" by a cabinet minister in order to build up a property portfolio. It's not me saying that, it's the public at large - I am merely reporting the fact."
My god - you sound like Sky news with that unfounded rubbish. When and where did you meet 'the public' to ask them this?"
I haven't exactly spoken to the public but I would imagine that if you asked many people what was worse the third most important person in the government claiming that her main home is her sister's spare room in order to claim over 100K on the house where her family lives after turning down free use of a Ministerial home or a MP that the majority of the population wouldn't have heard of claiming for cleaning his moat or building a duck house they would say the same thing.
Scandals are always more powerful when the people involved are higher up in the corridors of power.
Complain about this comment
263#
Didnt say you did Pops, just trying to play a part in ensuring balance, thats all. Just reminding all that both sides of the political divide contain those who are equally guilty.
As I've posted elsewhere, on several occasions, I have grave doubts that Cameron is going to be the leader this country needs. I would not be in the slightest bit surprised, but would be very disappointed for New Labour to score a fourth general election victory. I try to be as politically agnostic as I possibly can be.
But in the interests of balance, I find the NL crowing and finger pointing odious. Its not all about Camerons mortgage and Tory duckhouses. Given the goldfish like memories of most of the voting public, for these things to be constantly at the forefront when evasion of capital gains tax and continuing to claim for non existant mortgages and serial flippery have gone on is somewhat disingenuous.
No NL slur on you intended. If you felt one, I apologise, that was not the purpose.
Complain about this comment
#258 Susan-Croft
QUite right! One wonders just who is actually keeping it going - but no prizes for guessing why.
As you say, there are far too many things of far greater urgency now. I'd even be prepared to overlook the 'gagging' issue and the Libyan connection if someone, somewhere would show some political courage and get on with the day job. However, if our MPs in any sense reflect the attitudes of some posters on this blog, then it is perhaps unrealistic to expect them to do more than try to score minor party-political points with various levels of personal abuse thrown in. (And I apply that to ALL parts of the political spectrum).
Complain about this comment
60. At 10:10am on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
Camerons only "crime" is claiming for a mortgage on a house when he could actually afford to meet the mortgage payments without expensing it.
===========
My take on this is that the real crime was when MPs produced a law that excluded them from its jurisdiction. No one working away from home, and many of us do, except MPs, can claim for second homes, TVs, Gardeners etc. Cameron is doing a Blair (he claimed he was Heir to Blair) and is implying that he, and the Tories will be whiter than white, they aren't, although I have to admit that when compared to Labour, they may appears so, it doesn't mean he should get away with it. One definition of 'Corruption' is 'not right behaviour' - I am having difficulty finding more than half a dozen MPs who couldn't be labelled corrupt on this issue.
Complain about this comment
If MPs can be subject to retrospective rules, what's to stop them applying the same to us the electorate in future laws?
Bad bad move, which should be fought in the interests of democracy and freedom.
Complain about this comment
What an absolute shambles, a classic how to make a mountain out of a molehill.
I am draw back to the soundbite taken out of Ann Widdecombes's response when expenses first came to light - beware the danger of a hairy shirt competition. Her addition to the debate is actually the most sensible contribution I have heard in any of the discussion in the media.
Well the hairy shirt has rubbed all the skin of and is now chaffing something awful.
Imposing arbitrary rules retrospectively is manifestly unfair and fairness is a trait we as a nation should hold on to. The old rules were unfit for purpose and manifestly open to abuse and needed changing but they are what they are and it was not sensible or fair to do what Leg has done, whatever his reasoning - it is plain wrong.
MPs are stuck betwen Scylla and Charbydis, again, damned for being dishonest if they pay up and damned for being dishonest if they don't (and even those who are completely untouched by the affair damned by association). The classic no win scenario.
The tiny minority of truly dishonest and unworthy MPs have been unmasked already and most duly despatched by their respective parties or fallen on their swords.
The whole reaction to this affair is being blow out of all proportions and has been appallingly badly handled by all parties anxious to provide a sop to the daily headlines and the seeming imperative to provide responses instantly to any story.
The method by which these letters were distributed was appallingly badly handled, it almost appeared petty and vindictive.
The party leaders are predictable in their responses saying what they think the media/public want to hear. The almost dictatorial "pay-up" or you will be fired ultimatum is not very appealing quality.
If the party leaders had heeded Miss Widdecombe's warning early then they could have avoided all this.
Complain about this comment
258 Susan-Croft
'We cannot get rid of all our MPs because they know how Parliament works'
I think we're all beginning to understand how Parliament 'works'.
Complain about this comment
266#
So, your shirt is particularly hairy then, WOTW? Commute in sack-cloth and ashes do we?
All ambition and aspiration is theft?
Complain about this comment
#258, Susan-Croft wrote:
"For goodness sake this is like a never ending circle that nobody ever breaks. One side says Camerons expenses are wrong another says Browns are not in order. Who cares this is peanuts. Today we see the pound plummet and the outside markets losing faith in our economy because of our increasing debt and all the media cares about is MPs expenses. They must be laughing themselves silly in the EU where this sort of money is wasted everyday."
I rather agree. Brussels is a cenripetal money machine for those involved. And that's really sad.
Real life is hard. I like the idea that UK politicians are well rewarded for doing a good job. I doubt that many politicians have actually trawled through all the legislation that spouts over the general population.
MPs may say, well, there are too many areas to worry about, how can I possibly read all that stuff.
I say - ordinary folk live in that worryingly complex world and it's b hard to keep up. So if you, as an MP, don't know the detail of laws you pass, then just slow it down.
Even if there were a single law or regulation every day, that would be a big improvement.
So you - my elected MP - would have the chance to think about it.
And I, as a concerned citizen, could read what it was you approved today.
The expenses stuff is rediculous. There was a clear statement about payments being wholly and justifiably in support of the MPs execution of their roles. I can't spot any relationship to garden furniture or the type of lampshade, or kitchen equipment, that is of any benefit to the way a person engages with the electorate.
Pound? Wasn't it G. Brown who said that a falling exchange rate reflected a failing economy? Is that bloke still around?
Any idea what he's doing now?
Complain about this comment
267. At 2:46pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE
That's naieve and incorrect. As I understand it all MP's were given the 'nod and the wink' from the fees office about the use of expenses.
They all knew - all of them - and some have even had the audacity to criticise others after the Telegraph unveiled the scam. I haven't heard a single MP come out and say that they were not aware of other skimming the system.
If I knew the expenses system was being fiddled at work I would at least formally let my superior know - I don't care if he then ignores it but it will be a record that I made the complaint which covers me for later repercussions.
Which MP's voiced their concerns about the system?
Your argument for 'not boasting' doesn't really fit in with the make-up of MP's who generally tend to be 'big mouth boasters'.
Didn't you see Alan Duncan on "Have I got news for you" before the scandal came out?
Seemed like boasting about expenses was not something restricted to Westminster.
....and what about the whips and the party leaders - are you saying they don't know what their own staff claim?
Does your boss know what you claim (or can do spot checks)? Mine does and can.
Complain about this comment
273. At 2:56pm on 13 Oct 2009, AndyC555 wrote:
"It was £1,600. That's a VERY small car. Or a very old one."
Autotrader has over 33,000 cars for sale for less than £2000.
If you want a new one I believe the Tato is in this price range.
I agree however that there are no 'good guys' in this affair - Labour, Liberal or Tory they are all tarred with the same brush.
It feels good to exact some prejudice on them for a change, it makes a change to them exacting it on 'single mothers', 'ferrel children', 'benefit cheats', 'anarchists', 'run-down estates' etc.
Complain about this comment
Oh how I wish Lord Hutton had had the 'common sense' shown by Sir Thomas Legg. Lord Hutton gave Blair the answer he demanded irrespective of the facts.
Lord Legg had audited these expense claims against the regulations written down and not in line with the Fee Office interpretations. The 'Rules' which MPs are claiming have been changed always insisted that any expenses are to be entirely for the purpose of performing the Parliamentary duties - Gardening and Cleaning do not fall into this category and should have been totally excluded - MPs do not need to have a second home with gardens to perform their duties. Sir Thomas has been generous.
On the question of second home allowances he cannot comment as they were given in line with regulations - totally flawed when drafted and subject to the most appalling abuse. Hence Jacqui Smith gets off scot free with probably in excess of £100,000 of unjustified expenses.
The Public will not accept future rules that allow MPs to make a profit on their second homes - renting should be the order of the day.
Any MP who can factually dispute Sir Thomas Legg's findings has a case, but if they continue to bleat about Natural Justice/"He has changed the Rules" they need to have their names publicised for a public shaming.
Complain about this comment
279
Fubar
Re finger pointing and crowing
I'm reminded of the following entry in Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary...
Deny, Hurl back the allegation!
ps
No apology required!
Complain about this comment
Oh still my heart! Oh joy be unconfined! What sounds delightful issue from my wireless set? They are the bleats and whines of all those little MP piggies caught fiddling their expenses and being told to hand their booty back. Well done, Sir Tom. Lay it on till the spivs are writhing on the floor. Nothing like having to hand the spondoolies back when you've spent them - to make you wriggle. What further delights await us? A few MP suicides? Bankruptcies. Divorces? Prison sentences? Goody, goody!! I can't wait for the first attempts to wriggle out of paying - and the flood of further revelations that will bring. This should get rid of most of the more corrupt members. What a cleaning of the Augean stables! Goodbye, you crooks.
Complain about this comment
writingsonthewall @ 251
You suggest that the next step in increasing the profitablility of this multi-national company is slavery.
In fact, the next step in increasing their profitability, in a relentless drive to the bottom in terms of costs, is to move large parts of the business to places such as Vietnam and the Philippines because in those terms, even India is 'too expensive'.
MP's even on a basic of £60K and nothing else, would still be in an enviable position compared to the vast majority of the working population.
Complain about this comment
277. At 3:00pm on 13 Oct 2009, jrperry wrote:
"There doesn't seem to be much point in reponding to your posts. You seem to be in transmit-only mode."
...so what have you said apart from 'the Tories have come off better than Labour in all this according to public opinion'?
If you can provide proof then I shall happily engage - but the reality is you have tried to defend the indefensible with an attempted 'grading' of the various breaches - somehow saying that 'Duck island' and 'Moat master' are somehow different to 'pixie house flipper' and 'Moran money maker'.
If you are not smply blinded by party loyalty then I cannot see anything which suggests you have reasoned why there is a difference.
....or did I miss the part where you justified the actions.
Remember, if you're in court on a charge you cannot get off by saying 'other people behave much worse than me sometimes'.
....still I suppose I'm being naeive in thinking that the law is for all and not just for the majority...
Complain about this comment
#268 igiveup2
A pity Sir Arthur Sullivan is no longer with us to set it to music! Just like something out of 'Iolanthe' of 'The Mikado'. LOL
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it is time to give MPs some bonuses, both positive and negative.
Let's set their salaries higher; e.g. 100,000 (or whatever anyone else suggests). BUT they are only paid the same percentage of that as the voter turn out in their constituency.
As so many of us are fed up with all of them, no-votes would actually count for something. Perhaps that would concentrate their minds on actually representing the public rather than lining their pockets.
Then sort out the expenses/allowances with detailed specifics. (no gardening, cleaning, duck houses et al)
Complain about this comment
278. At 3:01pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
"I haven't exactly spoken to the public but I would imagine...."
There you have it folks - say no more.
Complain about this comment
One might like to ask these 'outraged' MPs how often they 'taxed people more than they said they would in their manifesto'?
Clearly, we might all like to ask for a refund.
Only one small problem.
We might put the Exchequer into the hands of the receivers.
Please tell these spoiled, pampered, financially parasitic expense claimers to take the good larruping like men and women, since at least 50% of them probably believe in the return of corporal punishment, even if only 25% of them believe in the return of capital punishment.
I suspect that publicly flogging 50% of them would satisfy 75% of the electorate.
So we won't need any public hangings on College Green, will we??
Complain about this comment
At 09:14am on 13 Oct 2009, REDRAG1 wrote:
I noticed that Newsnight did a large piece on the expenses scandal last night. The Labour Party sent two MP's to give over the parties view of developments. The Conservative Party refused to send any one....the Conservative Parties silence speaks a thousand words.
Noticed Cameron said that anyone who didn'y pay expenses cannot stand for them. Does this threat come from the same stable as "If any MP is found of any wrongdoing whatsoever he will be sacked from the Conservative Party"...up to date not a single MP has been sacked by Mr Cameron..Actions speak louder than words David.
http://redrag1.blogspot.com/
===
You are Derek Draper and I claim my £5.
Complain about this comment
255 Writinsonthewall
"Anyone over 30 has good reason to dislike the Tories no matter what their allegiance should be".
Ironic that you should pick the worst twelve years of government that we are currently living through in terms of sheer inepitude, lying and cheating and posturing in my 72 years and yet choose to talk about the Tories. You must live in a world of your own where some distant memory comes back to haunt you from perhaps Churchill, Eden, MacMillan, Heath, Thatcher or Major. You left out some of the Labour "stars" Atlee (so would I), Wilson, Callaghan, Blair and Brown as people it would be possible to dislike.
For me the fact is that 2009 is where we are now, and in 2010 we will be in a very different place. Hopefully.
Complain about this comment
282. At 3:09pm on 13 Oct 2009, ChrisCornwall wrote:
"If MPs can be subject to retrospective rules, what's to stop them applying the same to us the electorate in future laws?"
....constitution perhaps?
Don't forget there were rules, they decided to interpret them differently. This might have been an acceptable excuse if it wasn't for the fact that they hadn't written them in the first place!!
Complain about this comment
Do we have a full list of everyone that received a letter yet?
Who will publish this list?
Complain about this comment
GH Maker @ 219
Cameron has purchased a property which allows him to claim the full limit
exactly - the point was to generate a claim for the maximum allowance - looks like we agree on this one
and of course it was Within The Rules ... we agree on that too
Complain about this comment
24. At 09:30am on 13 Oct 2009, balancedthought wrote:
Conedia
But why do you think David Cameron is making so much noise on this. It is because people will have their attention drawn to his record on expenses and him claiming for duplicate expenses that he does not have. He has massive personal wealth but still he is using the system to claim money from us to make himself richer.
===
Do you think that MPs' expenses should be means tested?
What do you make of Clive Woodward (Multi-millionaire, Labour) and his mortgage claims then?
"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."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5292955/MPs-expenses-Shaun-Woodward-millionaire-minister-received-100000-to-help-pay-mortgage.html
Complain about this comment
They deliberately create these rules, so ambiguously, they could be 'interpreted' by the MPs to be exactly what they wanted them to be. It's not against the law to barge in front of an old woman in the bus queue - but it certainly is against the 'spirit' of good manners - that is unless you are an unthinking blunderhound who thinks only of oneself. The rules haven't changed only the interpretation and that's the point - it was OK for the MPs to bend their own rules to suit their greed and so now it's OK for us to have a representative that interprets the rules a different way.
If they'd had clear guidelines and a strict Fees office, they wouldn't have had this cash in the first place - pay it back with interest.
Complain about this comment
38. At 09:48am on 13 Oct 2009, balancedthought
What view do you have on Shaun Woodward (Multi-millionaire, Labour) and his excessive mortgage claims?
Complain about this comment
285. At 3:18pm on 13 Oct 2009, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
"So, your shirt is particularly hairy then, WOTW? Commute in sack-cloth and ashes do we?
All ambition and aspiration is theft?"
Nope - on a bike - when I could well afford congestion charge and my workplace provides parking for me to drive - 18 miles return journey.
Is your opinion that greed and ambition and aspiration are one and the same thing?
What is aspiration if it's not blindly idolising those who have accumulated more than the rest without ever asking how they did it and what pact with the devil did they have to make - oh and of course the classic reasoning of 'he has - so who doesn't'.
My aspiration is not at the cost of others and it revolves around improving lives and not just my own.
I am always fascinated by people who feel that they cannot have success without acting in a selfish manner. Still, I suppose with MP's for role models maybe that's where we get it from.
I'm no saint, but at least I am trying and not filling my boots with weak excuses to justify what I know is selfish behaviour. You may have taught yourself that liberty comes before equality - but when I decide my liberty is to take your property without asking - your philosphy fails you.
Maybe if the country as ruled by those who make the biggest sacrifices for it rather than those who obtained control the largest pieces of it then we wouldn't have a political system which is corrupt and a financial system which has gone the same way.
I'd vote for any MP who discards his expensive suit, dumps his car and lives in a tent - because he's the sort of person who cares about things greater than his own selfish desires
Hopefully the new independents might provide such a person.
Complain about this comment
#282:
"If MPs can be subject to retrospective rules, what's to stop them applying the same to us the electorate in future laws?"
No, no, no. These rules are not retrospective. The rules were perfectly clear all along (see my earlier post at #49). The only thing that's retrospective is a decision that the rules should be enforced.
Complain about this comment
writingsonthewall 271
You knew precisely what I was referring to in my post. We need a Government that will be working together to get legislation through Parliament to start getting us out of this financial mess. Not Independents who will spend all their time doing deals to try to come to some agreement.
I had already said a fine should be paid by all MPs right across the board and new rules put in place from now on. This would have been the solution any reasonable organisation would have come up with from day 1. I found your mention of decisive Government as Hilter, Stalin etc quite strange. Those to my knowledge are totalitarian Governments and when I last looked we still had a vote. Have you thought what Independent candidates may throw up. People now are very radical in their thoughts because the media has stirred them up on subjects which will not help us to deal with this financial crisis. The economy should be our main focus and all other matters should be resolved quickly to accommodate this. A divided Country now will be the last nail in our coffin as a Country.
Complain about this comment
Never seen such passion before in politicians, they are angry, they are infuriated in fact, displaying an outrage I never thought possible for or rather mild, (always laughing in the face of our adversity) whip lashed MP's.
At last they are in full fight mode, they are determined, they really are showing a tough side previously unseen.
Pity it is in defence of their greed.
Complain about this comment
302#
Thats not what he said. And its not what you are implying. And you KNOW that.
Complain about this comment
292. At 3:40pm on 13 Oct 2009, JohnConstable
Isn't that just the truth.
"The defenders" as I now call them forget that whilst defending the expenses that MP's get an above average UK salary. This is surpassed by ministers and party seniors - oh and of course they have second jobs too (but not the kind you or I might have, working nights in the local 24hr garage or the local pub)
I think what this does show is the idiocy of MP's and the gullability of voters.
MP's should have simpy 'fessed up' and come quietly and none of this would be still going.
Voters need to look at their pay packet and think before they jump to the defence of the parlimentarians.
It's so dated to still behave in that victorian way and 'doth your cap to your betters' simply because they have a top hat and you don't.
Complain about this comment
where was Browns moral compass when he was making his expense claim?
Complain about this comment
53. At 09:58am on 13 Oct 2009, endangered_species wrote:
I am going to stick my head over the parapet here. For once I agree with Nick Robinson. It is fundamentally unfair to retrospectively apply rules that did not exist. Like it or not, these MPs made gardening and cleaning claims for five years that were approved and paid. They had no opportunity to change or alter their behaviour or expenditure. It is unjust to now ask for that cash back.
===
'Fraid not. MPs are responsible for making sure their claims are above reproach. They can't shift the blame onto the Fees Office. Here are the relevant parts from The Green Book:
Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage
of the resources being claimed.
Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was
necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could
properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member
carrying out his or her parliamentary duties. Claims cannot
relate to party political activity of any sort, nor must any claim
provide a benefit to a party political organisation.
It is not permissible for a Member to claim under any
parliamentary allowance for anything that the Member is
claiming from any other source.
Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give
the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial
benefit to themselves or anyone else.
Members are committed to openness about what expenditure
has been incurred and for what purposes.
Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses
incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the
administration of claims is delegated by them to others.
Complain about this comment
"writingsonthewall wrote:
267. At 2:46pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE
That's naieve and incorrect. As I understand it all MP's were given the 'nod and the wink' from the fees office about the use of expenses."
I might not be putting my point across too well, but what I mean is that there was no reason for MPs to actually "cheat" the system as the rules were so lax that you could claim the maximum expenses back without even trying any dodgy accounting.
"They all knew - all of them - and some have even had the audacity to criticise others after the Telegraph unveiled the scam. I haven't heard a single MP come out and say that they were not aware of other skimming the system."
Very few MPs actually skimmed the system, the majority of claims WERE entirely within the rules (because the rules were so vague). Under the rules it was perfectly fine to claim for cleaners, and gardeners and to hire your wife/husband/children and probably even pets as your PA/researcher.
IMO the big story with the expenses scandal is that the rules were so lax that MPs could claim for dog food, porn and Sky Sports without the fees office asking them what they were playing at! Or that MPs would even think that adding a duck house to their lake was something that could be added to their expense form.
"If I knew the expenses system was being fiddled at work I would at least formally let my superior know - I don't care if he then ignores it but it will be a record that I made the complaint which covers me for later repercussions."
My point is that I doubt the majority of MPs realised that the expense system WAS being fiddled it was so lax. We have MPs reporting that they checked with the fees office before making claims only to be told to go ahead! Most of the claims were within the rules - which seemed to be much a case of "don't ask - don't tell"
"Didn't you see Alan Duncan on "Have I got news for you" before the scandal came out?"
I didn't see it but I can imagine what it was like
"....and what about the whips and the party leaders - are you saying they don't know what their own staff claim?
Does your boss know what you claim (or can do spot checks)? Mine does and can."
Our expense procedure is that apart from mileage every expense needs a receipt and needs to be justified, this needs to be signed off by my boss and then is checked by our accounts team. From what I understand the Fees office spent more time giving advice on how to bump up the MP's expense forms and very little actually checking that they were fair.
Complain about this comment
Just had a look at red rag blog, what a load s**t!!!
Complain about this comment
306#
OK. Interesting. Will come back to it tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
295. At 3:42pm on 13 Oct 2009, nottoonear wrote:
"Let's set their salaries higher; e.g. 100,000 (or whatever anyone else suggests). BUT they are only paid the same percentage of that as the voter turn out in their constituency."
I like it....
You could have your starting salary based on the population - i.e. 1 million people = 100,00 a year.
This would mean the MP's who were elected in thh bigger constituencies would have the extra difficulty reflected in their job.
Complain about this comment
Andy-in-France 280
I could not agree more.
I tell you though Andy, if we do not start learning from the past, that this kind of divided politics does not work, we will never climb this debt mountain that is facing the UK.
Complain about this comment
52 Fubar Saunders
#You cant have one rule for one, where it becomes a resignation matter and not for the others.
#Dont you see thats what got us/them into this mess in the first place?
=======================================================
You should tell that to that pillar of virtue Jonathan Cook [7]
thats if you can get through thick skin.
# [7] Brown should set an example to other MP's and resign over this - but he won't because despite the pious Presbyterian sound bites, he is actually a selfish, false and vile individual.
How sorry should we feel for Jonathan, what a doughnut!.
Complain about this comment
All of this is a vote loser. Well in my house it is. What will MP's do out in the real world?
More jobs with expenses I guess
Complain about this comment
299. At 3:46pm on 13 Oct 2009, majorroadaheadagain2
I didn't choose to talk about tories - I was defending the accusation made against another that they were politically biased.
Don't try and make out I'm some sort of Labour stooge - because you would be wrong.
You can take your pick - ineptitude of Thatchers Government, Wilsons, Atlee's, Blairs - all the same to me.
The reason it's all the same is because our troubles are not caused by these characters but merely assisted. How many times did you hear the phrase 'systemic problems' in the last 2 years and yet no-one has ever questioned the system.
Your hopes for 2010 are forlorn I'm afraid because reshuffling the political pack won't make a jot of difference.
It's the game we're playing that's the problem - but you (that's the public) are too afraid to change it for fear of the unknown...
Complain about this comment
301. At 3:46pm on 13 Oct 2009, StrongholdBarricades wrote:
"Do we have a full list of everyone that received a letter yet?"
I shall wager you 50p of the Queens sterling that at least 50% claim they have not received the letter due to the postal strike.
Care to take me up on that strongholdbarricades?
Complain about this comment
#148 PortcullisGate
Thanks for info re Standards and Privileges.
Googled and found Dismore/Barron/Mullen/Tipping and Whitehead,
all Labour MP's,who sat "as minders" in the House when
Jacqui Smith uttered her little apology !!!
#185 jrperry
Cameron's problem is not that he shoots from the hip,more
he shoots his mouth !!!
Complain about this comment
53. At 09:58am on 13 Oct 2009, endangered_species wrote:
I am going to stick my head over the parapet here. For once I agree with Nick Robinson. It is fundamentally unfair to retrospectively apply rules that did not exist. Like it or not, these MPs made gardening and cleaning claims for five years that were approved and paid. They had no opportunity to change or alter their behaviour or expenditure. It is unjust to now ask for that cash back.
This sets a dangerous precedent. How will you feel when Gordon Brown announces that last years tax rate was 90% because that seems fair looking at the situation now? Or your car excise duty is tripled for the last five years even though you paid within the rules. Will you pay up the difference meekly? I didn't think so....
===
The government has "form" here.
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/environment/P-O-wades-backdated-rates-controversy/article-483802-detail/article.html
Complain about this comment
303. At 3:52pm on 13 Oct 2009, yellowbelly1959
It's a good point, but really you can count on the fact that 90% of MP's are already richer than the average man meaning they have all claimed for things they didn't really need.
I would means test them - if they need support then they should get it, but for the multi-millionaires it's an absolute outrage.
Don't you wonder why a multi-millionaire wants to be an MP in the first place? Surely he has shown his credentials by amassing a fortune - not the behaviour of someone who unselfish and sharing now is it?
Complain about this comment
"writingsonthewall wrote:
278. At 3:01pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
"I haven't exactly spoken to the public but I would imagine...."
There you have it folks - say no more."
Congratulations on totally ignoring the point I was making.
A certain famous film actress was involved in a shop-lifting incident and it became headline news around the world and yet on a daily basis I expect there are shoplifters who get caught with items worth far more who don't even make the local news.
My guess is that if you did a poll the majority of people wouldn't even remember the name of the MP who claimed for the duck house or the moat. However, more people would remember that Jacqui Smith got the taxpayer to pay for her husband's porn!
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 302
That is distortion of someones post to score political points and that is unaccceptable.
Complain about this comment
Two gems from Labour MP Margaret Moran's website (she was the Luton South MP who claimed a second home allowance for a property in Southampton):
"Q. MM claimed for a seaside home.
A. Untrue. The property is nowhere near the sea; it is a modest terraced house in the middle of Southampton."
JH66: Well, that's all right then.
"Q. The Prime Minister declared her actions “unacceptable”. He must be correct.
A. Neither he nor anyone in the Party sought any explanations or evidence. They relied entirely on media coverage."
JH66: So is she saying that Gordon Brown was incorrect, and that his decisions are driven by the media and not by evidence? Quite a slur. I'm shocked.
Complain about this comment
307. At 4:06pm on 13 Oct 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2
Both you and I have said the same thing and still people don't get it.
They would rather accept the word of proven liars (MP's) than the (as yet unclarified) word of strangers on a blog.
mmmmmm what does that say about really important issues?
Complain about this comment
"the point was to generate a claim for the maximum allowance"
Sagamix, you'll have to explain further. Cameron can only claim the interest on the loan. He has to pay the capital and pay any deposit. In other words, he'll end up paying the full capital cost of the house regardless of how big or small the mortgage. As always with your posts, you allude to some sinister, hidden motive. Do tell us what it is.
Complain about this comment
Legg does have a benchmark to judge MPs expenses claims against.
Its the "Wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of carrying out their duties as an MP" clause that's been mentioned several times already.
Just for fun I have been randomly looking back over the published list of MP claims and running them against that benchmark. It's eye-watering.
I'm not going to list any of them on here, but if you want way to pass 10 minutes or so , do the exercise yourself.
The only comment I make is that Legg is letting them off very lightly!!
Complain about this comment
Who ran the Fees Office?
My recollection is that Mr Speaker did. Is this correct? His position was untenable. So it is little wonder that the staff in that office did his bidding.
Complain about this comment
"writingsonthewall wrote:
I like it....
You could have your starting salary based on the population - i.e. 1 million people = 100,00 a year.
This would mean the MP's who were elected in thh bigger constituencies would have the extra difficulty reflected in their job."
Considering the fact that the population is 60 million and we have over 600 MPs that would mean that the average wage for MPs would be £10,000 a year - doesn't quite work does it?
Complain about this comment
308. At 4:07pm on 13 Oct 2009, Susan-Croft
Susan,
If the Government had done nothing in the last 20 years would we be better or worse off?
I would suggest it's the policy which was 'quickly agreed' by a majority Labour (and before that Tory) Government which assisted in the downfall of the financial system.
It's true we have a vote in this country - but it's merely to satisfy the impression of democracy.
More people didn't vote than voted for the winning party in most general elections - so doesn't that mean the 'no voters' won? Why haven't they been counted?
Why do we only have a choice of 2 (or maybe 3) parties? Strangely it's the same in the US. Rather odd don't you think considering the possibilities. If you look most 'Democratic' countries only have a choice of 2 - massive co-incidence - or ensuring we do what is required of us as voters?
I've got news for you - despite your politics lessons we actually live in a hypocriscy and not a Democracy. The expenses scandal and bankers bonuses and the expected payback from the little man is testament to the political system we have to endure.
I am not afraid of radical independent MP's either - who ever said that 'middle of the road' was right anyway? It seems something many cling to - but never ask why - the answer is simply 'sheep'.
The country is already divided (into the have's and the have not's) - so why would a lot of independents in parliment make any difference?
What we might see is debate - and the questioning of proposals - unlike the 'signing off system' which parliment is under a majority Government.
P.s. A majority Government is under the 'first past the post' system of voting - in some elections more people voted for the loosing party than people voted for the winning one.
Does that sound fair and reasonable?
Complain about this comment
314. At 4:15pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE
10 out of 10 for effort - but you're missing the point.
I can agree many didn't break the rules - but they invented the rules themselves.
If they passed a law tomorrow imposing a 30 mph speed limit in the whole country for everyone - except MP's - would that be acceptable?
Alternatively maybe they didn't maliciously set the rules up badly - in which case they're as thick as two short planks because even Mrs Braithwaite in accounting at work can manage to set up a decent expenses system.
Also the Inland revenue can assist with guidance about what is acceptable and what isn't. As it's quite clear about claiming for mortgage interest - i.e. when you can or when you can't.
Anyway you try to open an escape hatch for them it's closed by their own greed or stupidity.
Don't forget - these numskulls make the laws we have to follow. Do you want your legal system set up by people who couldn't even do a fairly simple, sensible and robust expenses system?
Complain about this comment
318. At 4:19pm on 13 Oct 2009, Susan-Croft
Susan,
Instead of us all clubbing together to tackle this debt mountain - don't you think we should be looking at the reasons for it being created in the first place?
Once you've done that you will realise that there is an endless cycle of selling off public assets to the private sector - amassing the debt - which will continue as long as we have parties who can dictate policy without it being questioned - as Thatcher did in the 80's and Blair / Brown did after that.
Complain about this comment
Cameron shoots from the hip.
He's just been shot in the foot.
Breaking news.
14 Shadow Ministers get Legg demand letters.
That should you quiet for a while,Davie boy !!!
Complain about this comment
#178. At 12:32pm on 13 Oct 2009, worker/of/miracles wrote:
"i have yet to find a member of the public public who believes mps should be allowed to keep the money they have made from false claims,and why the police are not involved with charging them with fraud"
Then you have either not met many people or you have never met anyone who understand what actually happened here (no surprise as the tabloids don't understand either or are playing the populist 'dumb posterior' game), with the possibility (no charges yet) of a few notable exceptions, no one actually broke any law, even the so called 'Flipping of Houses' was within the rules of what could be claimed for - yes the rules stank and still do but that's not the same as being against the law.
Complain about this comment
Personally, I'd rather Brown had doubled or even trebled the salary of every MP but NOT spent hundreds of billions the country didn't have on things that we didn't need or that didn't work.
Could we not agree that UK Plc would be a lot better off if that had happened?
Complain about this comment
326. At 4:31pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE
Haven't you defeated your own argument there?
I might be confused but weren't you saying that Labour have come off better than the Tories in this matter.
However you seem to indicate that more people remember 'Madame Trixie beaver' Smith's offences than Mr Duck island.
However given your shoplifting example maybe this was because Madame Trixie was reported more widely in the partizan press. Thereby proving that the offences are not judged fairly as it's the press who is presenting the cases (as they see fit).
At the end of the day if a thief steals oranges or apples, 100 or 1000 - it's still a crime of theft.
If you start attaching amounts then you will be relasing a lot of minor shoplifters and locking up a lot of bankers.
Complain about this comment
#182. At 12:35pm on 13 Oct 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
"#165:
2 points:
1. Even if you accept that mowing the lawn is an expense "wholly, necessarily, and exclusively" incurred in the performance of parliamentary duties, you don't need to mow a lawn every week throughout the year. I find that between about late October and Late March it only needs mowing a couple of times."
But other aspect of caring for the garden do need to be done, sorry you are either playing 'dumb' or do not have garden, or if you do, more than a lawn!
"2. Why is paying someone else to mow your lawn "wholly, necessarily, and exclusively" incurred in the performance of parliamentary duties?"
Back to the old question of why they need two houses, never mind caring for the garden, whilst one can skimp on house cleaning if you're not living in your 'second' home one can't skimp caring for the garden - unless you're a Green MP and like the 'natural and wild look'!
Complain about this comment
333. At 4:39pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
"Considering the fact that the population is 60 million and we have over 600 MPs that would mean that the average wage for MPs would be £10,000 a year - doesn't quite work does it?"
Are you saying your MP is worth more? I know mine isn't.
I would do the job for free - because the reward is the satisfaction of helping others (which money cannot buy) - however I cannot afford to fight the campaign giants of the major parties.
....and that is why there is no choice at the ballot box.
Complain about this comment
I think that Alex Salmond of the SNP said it very well that when you call in a referee (as the MPs did) then you abide by the referee's decision. Of course, they have the advantage that the sums they've been told to repay are pretty minor--very little in the way of dirty laundry but still the best thing to do is take your raps and get it over with. All this whinging and crying from a lot of MPs is hardly impressive. I seriously doubt it's going to get them any sympathy.
Complain about this comment
Writingsonthewall 321
I dont think of you as a Labour stooge. Try as I might I can't figure out what you are for. I think I know what you are against.
You say "Your hopes for 2010 are forlorn. I'm afraid because reshuffling the political pack wont make a jot of difference. It's the game we're playing that's the problem - but you (that's the public) are too afraid to change it for fear of the unknown".
I am sad that my hopes for 2010 are forlorn. When you get to 72 each year is precious and in reality politics is (as you have described it) just a game. Except in this game people lose their jobs, their homes, and their hopes. In some cases their reasons to go from 72 to 73. Luckily I am a total optimisst, and have a place for politics that has very little to do with my life or the things that are important to me.
So my question to you is simply what is this change that you say we are all afraid of? Could you be specific, so that I can assess in my own mind why I am afraid of it and what it might mean were I to embrace it?
Complain about this comment
Very impressed with Boilerplated. He consistently fails to understand that gardening, cleaning, £400 of food a month and at one time a £250 cash advance without a reason were necessary to execute their job as an MP.
So if they claimed for these it was FRAUD. They should all be prosecuted never mind their party.
Complain about this comment
"Breaking news.
14 Shadow Ministers get Legg demand letters.
That should you quiet for a while,Davie boy !!!" Spinspunspam
"Meanwhile the Conservatives have published details of requests made of the shadow cabinet." From the BBC story.
Note that it's the Conservatives who are publishing this information. Hardly a sign that they're on the run is it?
Labour apologists get ever more desperate in their attempts to make political capital out of this.
Complain about this comment
#19 Got it in one! Mr Cameron likes to play the avenging angel over everybody else whilst keeping quiet on his £20K a year mortgage interest for his second home. It seems that Legg has been more than generous to those investing in property at the expense of the taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
338. At 5:04pm on 13 Oct 2009, Boilerplated
"no one actually broke any law"
For the last time WHO WROTE THAT LAW
It's like when Dad doesn't wash up in the house because "I make the rules around here".
That is known as a dictatorship - or rather a 'Dad-tatorship'
Why do we have laws that prevent us from parking, driving, standing, protesting where we want and yet know laws to prevent the embezzlement of public money.
I would also be careful about whether laws have been broken - look at the case of the Deputy Mayor in London - pleading guilty in court to a crime of misuse of public money I believe following his expenses over-claim.
Complain about this comment
"writingsonthewall wrote:
314. At 4:15pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE
10 out of 10 for effort - but you're missing the point.
I can agree many didn't break the rules - but they invented the rules themselves."
I am not trying to defend them, just saying that there is little we can do with the majority of them as there is technically no wrong doing.
There is a difference between those who took full use of a corrupt system and those who twisted the corrupt system to get further use out of it.
"If they passed a law tomorrow imposing a 30 mph speed limit in the whole country for everyone - except MP's - would that be acceptable?"
It wouldn't be acceptable (but then I don't actually agree with the expenses MPs can claim - I doubt the majority of the population agree either)
Complain about this comment
337. At 5:00pm on 13 Oct 2009, spinspamspun wrote:
Cameron shoots from the hip.
He's just been shot in the foot.
Breaking news.
14 Shadow Ministers get Legg demand letters.
That should you quiet for a while,Davie boy !!!
*****************
Aside from saying that a link to that story (for verification purposes) would be useful, exactly how would that change matters?
It would only mean anything if they didn't pay back what had been requested, in which case DC would need to stand by his pledge to withdraw the whip from them. If they paid everything back without whingeing and bitching about it all (like a lot of Labour MPs are apparently doing, according to reliable sources on the BBC News website, if you want to check my sources) then I don't see the issue as being any different to last week or last month.
Complain about this comment
Every MP should be made to repay.
Any refusal is followed by a police investigation
http://thethunderdragon.co.uk/
Complain about this comment
#283, Whistling_Neil wrote:
"What an absolute shambles, a classic how to make a mountain out of a molehill.
....
MPs are stuck betwen Scylla and Charbydis, again, damned for being dishonest if they pay up and damned for being dishonest if they don't (and even those who are completely untouched by the affair damned by association). The classic no win scenario."
Whistling,
Sad thing is that when you use expressions like that, you probably lose most of the young generation.
They probably think that S & C is a classical variant of S & M.
I rather hoped that Education, Education, Education would have an impact. And make people more inclined to explore areas of a "meet-the- universe-of-understanding/ideas curriculum" they didn't bump up against in school.
Then I realised that children could pass English exams because they'd studied little (predicted) bits of fairly short plays or books without needing to read the whole thing.
It took me years to read all the books about science (as it then was understood), philosophy, economics, languages and on and on, that my old man studied after he left schooling early.
I sometimes wonder how many branches of "intellectual life" the current mob who represent us on a global stage have bothered to wander down.
I grew up knowing that the UK was a collection of islands, from which something rather important had been unleashed. (Some goodish, so baddish relicts.)
But knowing that intellectual capacity did and can still exist. Just check out Nobel Prize winners' list over a decade or two. How many relate to this off-shore patch of land? And how influencial could our - mine and your - children be?
Just tires me out that idiot politicians think they can prescribe a way to deliver "better and measurably-brighter youngsters".
Test 5,000 children who just left school. How many understand how our own language works and is structured? But they assume the chioldren can learn a different language?
Lose a language. Lose a life.
Complain about this comment
"writingsonthewall wrote:
326. At 4:31pm on 13 Oct 2009, Mark_WE
Haven't you defeated your own argument there?
I might be confused but weren't you saying that Labour have come off better than the Tories in this matter."
Nope, I was saying the other way around - the Tories have come off better than Labour, and the reason for that is Labour (as the party of government) are the bigger scalp and a front bencher is always going to be a bigger story than a back bencher.
"However given your shoplifting example maybe this was because Madame Trixie was reported more widely in the partizan press. Thereby proving that the offences are not judged fairly as it's the press who is presenting the cases (as they see fit)."
Jacqui is the bigger story (and not just because of her position) but her crime. She had the right to use a Ministerial appartment but turned it down in order to claim more back from the taxpayer in expenses.
"At the end of the day if a thief steals oranges or apples, 100 or 1000 - it's still a crime of theft."
I agree, however if one thief holds one of the big three positions in government it is a bigger story than if the thief was some chav from an estate somewhere.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS