MPs' pay, expenses and all that.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life has announced it plans to bring forward its inquiry into MPs' expenses. More here.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
The blog for the afternoon news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
Subscribe to PM
You can stay up to date with PM via these feeds.
PM Feed(RSS)
PM Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Listen to PM
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~41~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Like wot I already have said...
Coming soon to a Pay-as-you-??? tv channel.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Electric Blue - The Home Secretary Diaries
Complain about this comment
I dared to use the word "dirty" last week that was modified, I wonder if this week it is close enough to the truth to get through
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
4 young men shared a house in Outwood, a village in Surrey. There was a pub just across the green. We decided we didn't need a TV. We received several letters from the licensing authority demanding that we let them know if we didn't need a license. You wouldn't expect to have to inform all the other service providers (phone, gas electicity) that you didn't want their services so how dare the BBC be so demanding. We refused to answer the requests and eventually they sent round two men one dark evening. They asked 'Do you have a TV?' I answered 'No' A box was marked on a form and they left. Now what was the point of that and how much did it cost to pay two men to work unsocial hours to perform that function. Perhaps if the BBC were less arrogant and asked nicely for a response, not arrogant and demanding, they might get more co-operation.
Complain about this comment
Thunderbird
Really? I wonder if that's why the thought police removed my comment yesterday...that's ridiculous!
Do they want a blog or a Parish Magazine?
(Bum)
Complain about this comment
I think TV licensing should handle MP's expenses.
Complain about this comment
With regard to MPs' pay & expenses, without doubt & to set a real example, every aspect of "their" income package should be "frozen" until such time as we, the public taxpayers who fund their over generous packages, can see not only a real improvement in the UK economy, but a real effort to save money in the various government department, i.e., real accountability.
Also, why can we not have some form of public/taxpayer ACTUAL representation, on the committee that decides how much they should be paid & when or even if, afterall it is "our" money!?
Likewise, there should also be public/taxpayer representation on Select Committee hearings so as to ensure that the real questions are not only asked BUT answered too.
Finally & this has to be for the future, anyone wishing to take any form of public duty involving taxpayers money in whatever form & where there is to be some form of remuneration, they have to understand that there are not simply moral obligations, but legal & financial obligations too & that failure in service has financial & legal implications too.
No more of this current nonsense of huge rewards for failure!
Complain about this comment
MIC, thats for your support, however your semi-covert use of the word "bum" may have reduced our rights to the moral high ground
Complain about this comment
TB
Damn, and I thought I'd snuck it in without anyone noticing!
Actually it's an acronym for Blogger Under Moderation, that's why they left it.
Complain about this comment
Professional (and highly selective) umbrage talking or 'moderation' is a practised art.
The very latest in this black art sees any attempt at robust discussion being closed down, regardless of how badly one may have been treated or spoken to, via a ‘we do not tolerate our staff’ being verbally harangued’. Any questioning seeking a justification is defined as a ‘harangue’.
Talking of which, I am very concerned for Eddie Mair in his seeking after truth on PM. He doesn’t except the usual pap and codswallop doled out by the great and the good, which is the norm elsewhere. This will not be tolerated by sycophants incorporated and the schedules may soon be declared as ‘needing a freshen up’ with some 'new voices'.
Beware friends in high places Ed.
Complain about this comment
For the last thirty years we have watched how the political class has risen to become what they are all (almost without exception) today. Full time graduate trained political professionals. They work in very few industries, almost certainly none that involve actual labour, or worse they are part of a family tradition of destiny in politics. There lives therefore are in a bubble, so they have not seen anything wrong with taking huge expenses. They don't see anything wrong in paying their kids out of taxpayers money while they are in university. They don't see a problem in claiming for homes a few miles from their workplace etc etc...
The answer, well it isn't to vote in a change that acts the same, the answer is to vote but tell them what we think. Go to the polls next time and spoil your paper. Lets give them something to worry about, power without authority.
Complain about this comment
oh, spoilyourballot, that doesn't work: they don't count spoiled ballots, they just claim that fewer people are voting and give out postal ballots and don't even bother to count them or check who is using them.
Complain about this comment
Power without authority...... Isn't that the EU ?
Complain about this comment
If it was the MP watching the "Pay per view" channel would they have got away with it?
Complain about this comment
One of the points that keeps striking me about this debate (in general, I mean - not here on the Blog) is that people keep talking about the need to increase MPs' pay ... Frankly, I'd be more than happy to be paid over 60k pounds a year for the privilege of representing your constituency, indeed I'd be prepared to stump up what little cash I had for that honour.
We are, sadly, now a nation obsessed with money and, as they say, understand the value of nothing.
On a happier note, with the South Downs National Park getting the go ahead, perhaps stressed out Southerners will now don their walking boots and enjoy themselves in healthy appreciation of nature. And it will cost them nowt.
Complain about this comment
No, Stewart, they wouldn't, because they aren't allowed under expenses. Which was the main point of the matter (though Jacqui Smith might disagree).
Complain about this comment
As our MP's have given so much power over to the EU, so that 805 of our laws are made in Brussels, why should they get a pay rise. They gave the powers away, they should be getting an 80% pay cut
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I can see there are people on this blog who I would much rather have as my rep up there in the palace of varieties.
Most of the contributions are very intelligent observations.
I just hope that politicians read these blogs and really, for once listen and take responsibility.
For myself, I believe politicians already get adiquatly remunerated in their basic salary. The vast majority of the people they ask to vote for them come election time, can't even relate to such wages and only exist when they are dreaming.
Please let us not not replace one corrupt system with another that only seeks to compensate for the moral corruption of the latter. We should have every penny of public money accounted for and then only given if it can be publicly proved that an expense is vital to the job.
Complain about this comment
The point about paying MPs enough is to ensure that they come from any background, not just a background which can afford to be an MP without being paid which restricts the posts to those with independent wealth.
that is, however, quite an old fashoined argument which sems to have morphed into one about keeping pace with middle class professionals (head teachers, doctors etc.) in the public sector which seems reasonable to me. In fact a public sector banding system which paid according to repsonsibility, training etc. seems like a sensible idea and would stop the appearance of favouritism as pay bands would rise or fall, not individual jobs. As teachers and nurses got paid more, so would civil servants and MPs, pay freezes could equally apply to all.
This issue around expenses is a bit crazy. Should they get less? Should it be put in their wages? No, a sensible and reasonable expenses account should exist and MPs should submit receipts to it like everyone else. And if they do wrong, they should be punished like everyone else. the problem is that until now some MPs have felt they can use their expenses for whatever they like. Enforce the rules, mke people accoutable for their expense claims and this will all die down without increases in salaries or anything else expensive needing to happen.
Complain about this comment
Good Morning, I listened to the end of the PM programme yesterday. I believe I heard either in that programme or in the 6 'o clock news that MP's total expenditure last year was 93 million. Perhaps I misheard and it was 9.3 million. If it was the former then each MP claims £143.962 each year, if the latter it works out at £14,396 per MP per year. I would be grateful if the BBC could check the exact figure. I also note that it was suggested that an MP's salary should be increased to £15,000 with no expences. If that were the case then MP's will receive more money if their average expences are only £14.396 at the moment. Such an arrangment would leave MP's better off in real terms.
Best regards villagebee
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the solution to MP's expenses is strikingly simple. The pension allowance is, I think, £92 per week for a couple. And in these times of job-losses and redundancies, the job-seekers allowance is £94 a week. Now we know as a matter of fact that this sum is enough to support a couple and a household, because our MP's have told us, and are content that the sum is adequate as a state benefit. This amount would include the cost of optional items that should not feature on any MP's expenses claim, so, we could cap MP's expenses claim at, say, £85 per week. Then we could await a public explanation from our MP's as to why they cannot survive on an amount that they demand that the poorest members of our society can supposedly live on. So, there is a simple and just solution. Tie MP's expenses to state benefits, and make them payable through the same agencies. After all, these people insist that they are accountable, don't they? So what better way than be subjected to the same rate of poverty and shabby treatment?
Complain about this comment
What is most appalling is that when someone offers details of expenses to the media, our servants' greatest concern is to catch the whistleblower, not to repent of their misdeeds. Perhaps with the prospect of losing the next election becoming ever greater, milkmaid Smith is determined to milk the system as much as possible. Mind you, I object to people trying to sell this information for thousands of pounds; it should long have been in the public domain.
Villagebee (21) Yes, I made the calculation based on GBP 93M. and someone said they get GBP 20,000 toward running an office. I'm sure many plumbers would be glad of that kind of money towards running their offices; I bet HMRC wouldn't even allow it against tax liability. There was a big fuss about MPs' pay some years ago, when they claimed they had to pay for various services out of their salaries. Now they get 3x the national average wage and as much in expenses as their limited consciences will allow.
Tired of hearing "I've done nothing wrong," "Lessons will be learned" and "This is unacceptable."
Complain about this comment
Does anyone know what the maximum housing benefit is for Westminster council?
Presumably the outcome for this will be based on avoiding further embarrassment, with general allowances (for meals, accomodation etc) rather than re-imbursement of expenses receipts.
You will let us know when the BBC has finished its system of letting us all access your expenses claims, won't you?
Complain about this comment
BR 22 - your logic is flawed. Someone claiming jobseeker's allowance doesn't have to pay for a secretary or travel abroadon business. Expenses for the office of an MP are neccessary and important so that being poor is not a barrier to becoming an MP as it was at the turn of the previous century.
The problem is that they abuse the system and this should be dealt with as it would be anywhere else.
VH 23 - this guy os not a whistle blower, he's an entrepreneur with greed and cash on his mind. There is already a review of this issue planned. Bringing it forward by 6 months seems to me to be of little benefit. Stopping the drip drip erosion of confidence could equally be dealt with by people stopping leaking this stuff and waiting for it to come out in the appropriate enquiry.
My fear is that this is a deliberate attempt to discredit particular MPs with party political motives. Even if it is simple greed it is of no benefit to anyone.
In the week of the G20 meeting hear in London, why on earth are we talking about MP expenses?
Complain about this comment
PTB25 - this guy's an entrepreneur with greed and cash on his mind. The greed of MPs and the cash (ours) they swindle from us. I don't approve of the monetary aspect of this leak. Stopping the drip drip erosion of confidence could best be dealt with by MPs stopping leeching public funds and living in the appropriate manner. as I said on another thread, they should be paid hourly at minimum wage, thereby ensuring that minimum wage is adequate and that they are not in it for the money. I heard yesterday of a building worker who has no work, and is only entitled to GBP 30 per week because he has 2 adult children living at home. He faces repossession because the lender was prepared to accept interest only (200 per month) and obviously 30 per week won't cover that.
'My fear is that this is a deliberate attempt to discredit particular MPs with party political motives.'
Name an MP without party political motives. Oh, yes, Martin Bell.
Complain about this comment
philtblog @ 25, the staff, and travel for the MP, are readily separated from the "main expenses", and indeed have been so in the table produced yesterday in my newspaper, along with the amount for a second home. So those are not part of what are classed "main expenses": they are expenses that are directly related to doing the job, and they can easily be kept apart.
The objection is to the (larger in every case) "main expenses" and the fact that we don't know what that means. Somehow the feeling that if one's salary is a minimum of 60k one ought to pay for one's own takeaway supper, or TV, or shoes, or whatever else *because everyone needs these things, not just MPs*, is unmistakeable. It is hard not to resent somebody with a salary of that size claiming a bathplug as an expense of the job: the sheer mean pettiness of it is horrible to see. Why the blue thundering blazes should the public purse pay for an MP's mistress to travel first class on a train? Or buy an MP a pergola for the garden? Or any one of dozens of other examples of this sort of "expense" that has been noticed in the past ten years?
I don't really care who it was who made some dosh by dobbing them in; it really doesn't matter. What matters is that the whistle has been blown on a lot of what if it were done by an ordinary mortal in an ordinary job taking money for it out of the petty cash tin would be called "petty theft". The emphasis needs to be kept firmly on the word "theft", and the word "petty" might be less important.
What proportion of the UKP93,000,000 claimed in expenses last year was for things that someone dratted well ought to get for him- or herself, is the question we are left with. Even if it is only one per cent, it is still UKP930,000, which is a *lot* of money to most of us!
Complain about this comment
Expenses and a'that... [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
And a' that!
;-)
Complain about this comment
VH 26 - Not Mps with party political motives, voters such as media moguls and civil servants who canundermine our democracy by leaking material and publicising it out of all proportion. Their party political motives, which they're entitled to, begun to erode our rights as voters when they use non-news in this way.
CG 27 - I take your point about 'main' vs other expenses. My point was only that some expenses are important for the reasons I mentioned. that does not equate to carte blanche and clearly we have a right to know about this.
But I reiterate - there was already an enquiry scheduled to look into this. What differnce does it make if we find out in 6 months or 12? The only motives for leaking and publicising this early are to make a quick buck you didn't earn or the more sinister one of subverting the political process in however small a way. The CD will be worth nothing when the review is complete and the results publicised so he has to sell it quick.
And the result for the rest of us is a diversion away from more important news nad the erosion of trust which we hear about. Of course they shouldn't get away with misusing public monies and of course the review should be followed by punishments. It is this action now and its media coverage that so frustrates me. Are news is dictated by £10 movies and £300k leaks for cash. Don't dignify this with the term whistleblowing, this is greed.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS