Mp's expenses

[NickP]

So 4 British MP's have been charged over the expenses scandal, the captain of the English  football team has been sacked because of his private life and replaced by someone who was banned for dodging a drugs test. What was the quote? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, I think that needs rewriting. Any bets on the MP's getting off scott free?

[PaulT]

[quote user="NickP"]

 Any bets on the MP's getting off scott free?

[/quote] Of course they will - they are claiming Parliamentary Privelege (I kid you not). The privelege of MPs to screw those who voted for them and those who did not. Paul

[woolybanana]

Only four? Something wrong there

[Joe]

I have just seen on the 6.00 news a reporter said it was HER that started the system for MP's to claim what they are claiming.Any views on this?

[Quillan]

I have to say I despair of it all. It seems a total of £1.2M has to be repaid and it cost something like £1.6M to check all the expense sheets. If all this was bought by private prosecution and they are found guilty, which they are, then they would pay the prosecution expenses. So I think they should all be made to pay back double.

As somebody has already said "only 4", I think they should prosecute all those asked to pay money back as by default they are just as guilty.

[nounours]

Its only four because they allegedly have done something criminal which can be proved.  One claimed money for a mortgage that did not exist, one claimed overnight stays when driven home and the others made claims for false expenses supported by dodgy invoices. The rubbish being traded out by the media about 7 year jail terms is just fantasy, a community order or suspended sentence would be the maximum anyone would get for a first offence

Apparently claiming that you live all the time in one house when you don't really just to maximise your expenses is not a criminal offence and so many have not been prosecuted.

The whole thing is a farce, Legg, whilst receiving £160k on top of his gold plated pension, has proved to have led a team of incompetents who re-wrote the rules as they went along and a  lot of the facts and figures in his report are just wrong.  Its not been widely reported that 44 of the 75 MPs that were ordered by Legg to repay expenses and appealed against the order to a retired judge have the orders overturned or reduced.

[AnOther]

Citing parliamentary privelege as a defence, good God, they still don't get it do they [:'(]

[Gardian]

Whilst sympathetic to the 'hang em, flog em' view, I rather feel that it's a sideshow.

Whether 4, or 6, or 8 of them end up being prosecuted, and then whether they get off or not, is to me an irrelevence. There are undoubtedly dozens more who would have been fired by any of the organisations that any of us ever worked for. It was called gross misconduct, wasn't it? Most of those have fallen on their own swords and either been de-selected, voluntarily stood-down, or (best) will be summarily dismissed by their electorate in a few months time.

The State will try to exact it's revenge on these 4 and may or may not be successful. What matters, is that they and all the others above, will have lost all credibility & standing. What's more, they'll have lost the one thing that drives most of them ................ power.

Believe me, I came across one or two much earlier in my life & some of these people (not all, I'll accept) would do anything to climb that greasy pole.

What interests me is where some of these people are in a couple of years time. I fear that more than a few will be better off than you or me!!      

[Clarkkent]

[quote user="Joe"]I have just seen on the 6.00 news a reporter said it was HER that started the system for MP's to claim what they are claiming.Any views on this?[/quote]

I assume by HER you mean Margaret Thatcher. If I recall correctly, Mrs Thatcher vetoed a pay rise for MPs because she believed it would not be popular. However, it was decided that extending and relaxing the rules associated with MPs' expenses would effectively give them the income considered appropriate. Each administration following hers has followed the same practice.

Until now ...

 

[Weedon]

Spare a thought for our heroic MP's.  The brave ones who visit our soldiers in Afghanistan receive a medal for just turning up there for a photo shoot, soldiers have to serve a 6 month duty there to get a medal.

[AnOther]

[quote user="Clarkkent"]

[quote user="Joe"]I have just seen on the 6.00 news a reporter said it was HER that started the system for MP's to claim what they are claiming.Any views on this?[/quote]

I assume by HER you mean Margaret Thatcher. If I recall correctly, Mrs Thatcher vetoed a pay rise for MPs because she believed it would not be popular. However, it was decided that extending and relaxing the rules associated with MPs' expenses would effectively give them the income considered appropriate. Each administration following hers has followed the same practice.

Until now ...

[/quote]Err...that would be just the current Nu Labour shower then so Maggie gets the blame for them failing to change it under their stewardship does she [blink]

Ignoring the fringe and the loonies The Commons is comprised of 349 Labour MP's, 193 Conservative, and 63 Lib Dems so one can't help wondering if that majority might have had something to that failure.

I can't believe that anyone could honestly still offer or accept excuses blaming an administration which fell from power 13 years ago, at what point does it become their responsibility !

[Clarkkent]

[quote user="AnOther"]

Err...that would be just the current Nu Labour shower then so Maggie gets the blame for them failing to change it under their stewardship does she [blink]

[/quote]

No Maggie does not get the blame for the current administration's failure to change the system. Nor does she get the blame for John Major's failure either.

I was pointing out the point at which the rot set in. Thatcher's fudge has been repeated by her successors. They (including her) are all jointly responsible (along with the miscreants themselves) for this mess. Parliament needs wholesale reform to drag it out of the 19th century. I doubt any present or potential administration will have the bottle to do it properly.

[Russethouse]

 Sorry but I think that's rubbish - anyone with a grain of common sense and moral fibre would know that falsifying invoices or claiming for a duck house or manure or claiming a mortgage when it had ended or renting a house from yourself, were not within the spirit of the rules, it's up to the individual to take personal  responsibility and if we can't expect our MPs to do that what chance is there is persuading those with a criminal or irresponsible bent in the rest of society ?

[nounours]

[quote user="Russethouse"] Sorry but I think that's rubbish - anyone with a grain of common sense and moral fibre would know that falsifying invoices or claiming for a duck house or manure or claiming a mortgage when it had ended or renting a house from yourself, were not within the spirit of the rules, it's up to the individual to take personal  responsibility and if we can't expect our MPs to do that what chance is there is persuading those with a criminal or irresponsible bent in the rest of society ?[/quote]

Which bit is rubbish?  Of course they knew that doing all those things, well maybe not falsifying invoices, was not normal practice outside of Westminster, but it had been the norm since Thatcher gave it the green light in her bid to cover up an MPs pay rise.  Remember all these claims had been rubber stamped and approved by the Claims office, so who wrote their rule book? I just find it amusing that journalists are getting hot underr the collar about this, a case of righteous indignation or green with envy!!

[Chancer]

And of course no-one outside of parliament fiddles their expenses, especially journalists [Www]

[nounours]

[quote user="Weedon"]Spare a thought for our heroic MP's.  The brave ones who visit our soldiers in Afghanistan receive a medal for just turning up there for a photo shoot, soldiers have to serve a 6 month duty there to get a medal.[/quote]

That is not true,  If you had bothered to look for the source and read it  rather than replicating inaccurate gossip from ex- pat forums you would know that MPs or ministers who just visit a war zone do not get a medal.

What this is referring to is special scheme called the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (AFPS).  A number of MPs have received the medals at ceremonies as a reward for 10 years' or more membership of the AFPS  which allows politicians to spend around 22 days a year with the military to show support. 

You'll be telling us Cameron wants gay black people  from Uganda to be given political assylum next[Www].   Bet that bit of news caused the Kent and Sussex A&E department to call in extra staff for a major emergency after hundreds in the area choked on their cornflakes[:D]

[Russethouse]

Its rubbish, dear nounours, because in many cases surely their own sense (if they had any) should have told them that the expenses were there to facilitate them having a second home in their constituency or in London whichever was appropriate, and this was broadly so they could do a better job for their constituents.Not for them to have some sort of jolly.

Its no good politicians telling us how to act if they do not set some kind of example

How can manuring roses benefit anyone, or renting a room from yourself, or falsifying invoices ? Legitimate expenses are one thing, 'flipping' or in one case a married couple claiming for both houses is another.

 I know what would happen to us if we were caught doing such a thing.

As for the claims office they too were woeful, but there have been reports of pressure being put, the whole lot needs a spring clean which I sincerely hope it gets.

 

[Quillan]

One of the things that's puts us humans (allegedly) above the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to reason and tell the difference between right and wrong. The latter is the most important part of bringing up your children.

Sure Thatcher changed the rules on what MP's could and could not claim for but I don't believe for one minute that she intended for the changes to become an open season on cheating the system. The problem lays with those that run and administer the system just as much as it does with those that abuse it. OK if you really want to blame Thatcher then you can equally blame the current government for not changing it when they got in to power, its not as if they have not had plenty of time to get to grips with it. That incidentally is why I disagreed with the forcing from office of the previous speaker. I think the government and many MP's thought that by effectively sacking him the problem would go way. Unfortunately taking one rotten apple out of a barrel of rotting apples does not fix the problem and neither will it go away.

These people are only human, they saw a chance and they took it and you can't tell me that they didn't at least know that morally what they were doing was wrong. Now they have been caught and both those that allowed these ridiculous claims to go through and those that fiddled their expenses should now pay the price and be made an example of. In many cases these people have made claims for things they didn't have or do or have claimed for things that has nothing to do with their job. There will always be a little bit of fiddling, as an employee I have used company petrol to go shopping etc at the weekend but I wouldn't expect or even try to put petrol receipts in for say a touring holiday in Scotland. Likewise as an employer I have allowed people to get away with some minor things (and told never to do it again or they were out the door) but anyone seriously abusing or defrauding the system were instantly sacked (I have only ever had to do this once I might add) and were lucky that I didn't consider prosecution, they never got a reference either. My main concern was that if they could be that deceitful over expenses what other things were they up to that I didn't know about.

If you are in public office then you are in the spotlight and you should set an example. If I had my way they would all be sacked and not only pay back what they have effectively stolen but the expenses incurred during the investigation.

[nounours]

Certainly agree with your last paragraph Mr Q[:)]  I am not blaming Thatcher for anything (did I really write that???) It is a fact that the lax system of expenses started when she was in office and has obviously been carried on by succesive Parliaments all trying to kid us that MPs don't get paid much.

The problem is that if UK MPs pay is cut in real terms and those who represent constituencies away from the capital are disadvantaged to the point where it becomes that you can only be an MP if you can afford to be one, ie going back to the landowner and rich MPs of previous centuries, those in the UK might not get a proper representation or the best people in the job.

[Russethouse]

 I think there is much to be said for having properties owned by the government that are specifically for MPs, either in a constituency or probably better, in London.....

[Tricia]

Or make do with a B&B as someone suggested on a radio phonein today (can't imagine that happening  [:D] )

Expenses claims go on in many professions but always need to be monitored regularly. This obviously wasn't being done for the MPs - not that it excuses what they were doing.

Someone I worked with was suspended (temporarily) for fiddling his expenses. But it wasn't treated as a criminal offence.

[Gardian]

I remember one of my former bosses saying to me when I first joined the company:

"During our time together, you and I may occasionally have a conversation about whether you should have incurred this or that expense that you're claiming for, or whether you should have spent as much as you're claiming. That's fine. But let's never a conversation about whether you actually spent it - if we ever do, you're dead meat." 

Clear and unequivocal.

[Weedon]

[quote user="nounours"]

[quote user="Weedon"]Spare a thought for our heroic MP's.  The brave ones who visit our soldiers in Afghanistan receive a medal for just turning up there for a photo shoot, soldiers have to serve a 6 month duty there to get a medal.[/quote]

That is not true,  If you had bothered to look for the source and read it  rather than replicating inaccurate gossip from ex- pat forums you would know that MPs or ministers who just visit a war zone do not get a medal.

What this is referring to is special scheme called the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (AFPS).  A number of MPs have received the medals at ceremonies as a reward for 10 years' or more membership of the AFPS  which allows politicians to spend around 22 days a year with the military to show support. 

You'll be telling us Cameron wants gay black people  from Uganda to be given political assylum next[Www].   Bet that bit of news caused the Kent and Sussex A&E department to call in extra staff for a major emergency after hundreds in the area choked on their cornflakes[:D]

[/quote]

I accept that I did put into one sentence the qualifying procedure for receiving a medal but I fail to see where I was incorrect in anything that was written. Of course I don't know for sure but I don't imagine the MP's are in any danger for the brief time they are in Afghanistan.  Why a medal and not a certificate, if they have to receive anything at all.

Rest assured though that I shall not be telling you about gay black Ugandan's but thanks for the info, I shall bear that in mind next time I have cornflakes!

[DerekJ]

[quote user="Gardian"]

I remember one of my former bosses saying to me when I first joined the company:

"During our time together, you and I may occasionally have a conversation about whether you should have incurred this or that expense that you're claiming for, or whether you should have spent as much as you're claiming. That's fine. But let's never a conversation about whether you actually spent it - if we ever do, you're dead meat." 

Clear and unequivocal.

[/quote]

Exactly.  Making a claim for an expense you actually incurred (rightly or wrongly) is one thing. Claiming for an expense you never incurred is another. How can it be classed as anything but criminal?

[Quillan]

[quote user="nounours"]

Certainly agree with your last paragraph Mr Q[:)]  I am not blaming Thatcher for anything (did I really write that???) It is a fact that the lax system of expenses started when she was in office and has obviously been carried on by succesive Parliaments all trying to kid us that MPs don't get paid much.

The problem is that if UK MPs pay is cut in real terms and those who represent constituencies away from the capital are disadvantaged to the point where it becomes that you can only be an MP if you can afford to be one, ie going back to the landowner and rich MPs of previous centuries, those in the UK might not get a proper representation or the best people in the job.

[/quote]

Now we are getting down possibly the the real problem. Being a full time MP to my mind is like being a nurse, policeman etc,bit like having a calling and lets face I doubt many of us here would actually like to be a MP. To that end there is no reason why they should be out of pocket and not receive a decent wage, the problem is what do you call a decent wage. I would like to quote from Parliamentary website.

"The current annual salary for an MP is £64,766. In addition, MPs receive allowances to cover the costs of running an office and employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency."

On top of this minsters get the extra salaries as follows.:

Prime Minister £132,923 - Cabinet Minister £79,754 - Lord Chancellor £79,754 - Government Chief Whip£ 79,754 - Minister of State £41,370 - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State £31,401 - Solicitor General £69,491 - Advocate General£ 69,491 - Government Deputy Chief Whip £41,370 - Government Whip £26,624 - Assistant Government Whip £26,624 - Leader of the Opposition £73,617 - Opposition Chief Whip £41,370 - Deputy Opposition Chief Whip £26,624 - Speaker £79,754 - Chairman of Ways and Means (Deputy Speaker) £41,370 - First Deputy Chairman of Ways & Means (Deputy Speaker) £36,360 - Second Deputy Chairman of Ways & Means (Deputy Speaker) 36,360 -

Office‐holders in House of Lords (No parliamentary salary)

Lord Speaker £108,253 - Cabinet Minister £108,253 - Minister of State £84,524 - Parliamentary Under Secretary £73,617 - Attorney General £113,248 - Advocate General £98,307 - Government Chief Whip £84,524 - Government Deputy Chief Whip £73,617 - Government Whip £68,074 - Leader of the Opposition 73,617 - Opposition Chief Whip £68,074 - Chairman of Committees £84,524 - Principal Deputy Chairman £79,076

The opposition also get allowances which are worked out on a fixed amount plus something for every 200 votes for them cast, its actually quite complicated.

So it seems to me that money, by many people standards is not bad. One could argue that people holding senior government positions don't get anywhere near as much as they would earn in private business. My argument to that would be that they know what they are getting in to and if they don't like it then resign and get a job in the private sector. The other side of the argument might be that if you give them a 'decent' wage then they wouldn't need expenses and there would not be any fiddling. So lets give them £100k a year each, free two bed accommodation in London (they could have bought the old County Hall, would have been ideal) and a free UK wide travel pass.