Jump to content

MP's Expenses and Political Apathy.


Quillan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I guess you would have to have had your head in the sand not to know about MP's Expenses at the moment. I have a question, as it seems that the are all 'at it' (i.e. not restricted to any particular political party) does the panel think that more voters will be in a state of apathy when it comes to the next election than at the previous general election and have UK politicians in general lost touch with those they serve?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can't help being a bit surprised that people don't seem to be storming Parliament or picketing their MPs' houses or whatever.

As Britain has never had a revolution, I reckon that the time's now right to have one.

In fact, if there was a Revolutionary Fund, I'd probably be willing to contribute something towards it [I]

Let the heads RRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It's the likes of Hazel Blears who make me cross, if she can't see that using the rules to claim the MPs allowance for a second home at the same time somehow fulfilling the criteria for the Inland Revenue to treat it as a first home thus avoiding tax on the sale of the property is morally bankrupt she shouldn't be a politician.

Don't any of them have the wit to ask themselves how these claims will look to the public before making them ? Or indeed if the claims are genuinely required for them to carry out their duties: asking if there could be a claim for plastering over artex ? Get a life........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering because I was thinking about election turnouts over the years. I found an interesting chart HERE which shows that only 61% that were registered to vote turned out at the last election (2005) which is slightly more than the previous one in 2001 when only about 59% bothered. I then looked on the www.statistics.gov.uk website that says 37M people are registered to vote. There are about 12M people under the age of 18 and the population of the the UK is about 60M. So therefore 60 - 12 = 48, 48 - 37 = 11M people (around 13%) who are eligible to vote but can't even be bothered to go and register.  This then gets us down to how many people actually voted by using the figures above which works out at about 22.5M, not a lot. Now I know statistics can be made to say what you want but I didn't have an agenda when I looked these up, I was just interested. Even allowing for a 10% error or even 15% it does not make good reading.

This then made me think about something Tony Benn (not my most favorite of men) said about 15 years ago which was basically that politicians have forgotten that they are there to represent the people (hence my 'serve' comment) and in doing so have created a state of apathy amongst those eligible to vote.

Bringing this up to the current day I then wondered that while many are struggling in the UK and are trimming their budgets and then see these 'people' having been ripping them blind over the last god knows how many years (I'm sure this expenses thing is not new) they just got to the point where they think 'fudge it I just can't be bothered with them anymore or politics come to that'.

I also watched The Politics Show at lunchtime today with the leader of the BNP party (what an idiot!) in respect to the coming local and Euro elections. I was wondering if we might see a backlash like in the French general election (two elections back I think) when in the first round a lot of people voted ultra right to send the government a message or perhaps they just won't bother to vote at all?

Personally I am pretty livid about these expenses claims and its made me think that if I was back in the UK how I would vote if indeed I would bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Honeydo and it's worth remembering that 2008 marked the 14th year in succession that auditors for the EU parliament refused to sign off their accounts, THIS from 2007 [:'(]

Getting back to our own mendacious grasping lot, if you take the time to read the Green Book you'll quickly realise that the claims of 'being within the rules' are patent nonsense, I quote:

"When making claims against parliamentary allowances, Members must adhere to these principles.

The principles are:

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.

The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious."

Case proven I think [:'(]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Quillan"]

This then made me think about something Tony Benn (not my most favorite of men) said about 15 years ago which was basically that politicians have forgotten that they are there to represent the people (hence my 'serve' comment) and in doing so have created a state of apathy amongst those eligible to vote.

[/quote]

Blair was an accomplished, probably compulsive liar even before power corrupted him further.  His own example must have encouraged less venal MP's to use the expenses system to their own profit.

While living at 10 Downing Street, Blair re-mortgaged his Sedgefield constituency family home for far more than it was worth at the time (did a friendly banker get a knighthood?) and claimed all the hugely increased interest payments on his parliamentary expenses.  The capital raised was used (it is alleged) to finance the purchase of other properties which he or his wife could subsequently let out or sell to his considerable profit. 

No wonder he didn't want to give up No. 10 to Gordon.  He had found the taxpayer funded fringe benefits easy and immensely profitable to exploit and not easy to let go.

By the way, there's nothing new in these revelations - Private Eye was reporting the abuse of trust at least 5 years ago

Even if they clean up some of the abuses, there will almost certainly still be different treatment for MP's than for ordinary, wealth creating British taxpayers and business people.  Did you know that the MP's tax free mileage allowance for using a private car on parliamentary business is greatly in excess of the amount the taxman will allow an ordinary taxpayer for business mileage?  I bet that won't be changed.

Patrick

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been following this debacle closely, I do find it strange that not one of the usual gaggle of experts and talking heads has bothered to posit the perspective and perhaps rhetorical question "Are MP's actually worth £60K per annum, even without their expenses?"

Well, personally I would say no.

I listened to the poison midget Jack "The Lad" Straw last week, trying - and failing - to justify why MPs needed to attend their constituencies for "Surgeries": and therefore needed second homes etc etc etc.

Yeah right! Cabinet Ministers at senior level having the time outside their smoke filled rooms and external consultancies (and of course watching porn movies) to actually listen to their electors!

Let's face it, in the majority, the reason an MP's constituency is critical, is to try and ensure re-election! Thus once again, self comes to the fore.

As they did on Iraq: and have again clearly over the Ghurkas................................

When parliament changed and dispensed with late night sittings, part of the justification for some local accommodation all but vanished.

They are to a man and woman with very few exceptions a bunch of self-serving devious lying cheating amoral and thoroughly venal incompetent wasters: and would, I suggest, be hard pushed to gain useful real employment outside estate agency or flipping burgers.

Those who do do: those who can't teach: and those who can't even stretch to this become politicians!

(Apols in advance to all the good teachers on this forum: I didn't write the first bit of the old saw.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comment about Strasbourg 'fiddles' is very relevant, and do not forget the things that the French state pays for - like past presidents' mistresses and love children. The difference is that in Britain it is possible for a national paper like the Telegraph to publish details, whereas in many other countries (including France) such goings-on can be concealed behind press privacy laws. Only the likes of Le Canard Enchainé can hint at what goes on, before it too is muzzled.

Of course, the fact that politicians are 'at it' worldwide doesn't excuse the Westminster MPs, but it does put it into context. As does Stephen Fry's comment that this bourgeois obsession with expenses doesn't affect the things that politicians really get seriously wrong, and result in other people being killed.

One answer is to have a better system for remuneration of MPs, with a salary more related to that of a director of a large corporation, for example, and a tighter expenses policy. MPs and normal taxpayers should enjoy similar rules. In order to do my job properly it is necessary to have a second home (on the same basis as most MPs demand a second home), but this has to be funded totally by ourselves, not through 'expenses' - tax relief for myself, and for my local MP, would be far more equitable.

Not all MPs are guilty. One good example is Norman Baker, who has campaigned for a long time against the Westminster expenses regime, and makes his own expense details available for everybody to examine and query - though on his web site this campaign is given no greater prominence than constituency issues. Not suprisingly, he has been called a 'rentaquote MP' and other insults by no less than the Speaker, a person who is supposed to maintain silence and neutrality and not become publicly involved in such issues - but as the Speaker seems to be one of the main offenders, it shows the depths to which this system has sunk.

It's a far bigger problem than the 'creative' claims that we have all made in the past.

Edit: as one who has estate agents, teachers and civil servants - as well as local politicians - among my close family and friends I find the post above somewhat offensive and typical of the sort of rants that occur all the time in expat circles. Perhaps the author would like to be a bit more constructive and let us know what would work better. But as a member of another hated profession I suppose I would think like that.

And it certainly will not make me apathetic at voting time. Quite the contrary, in fact. Although I would count my local sitting MP as one of the better members of his party, he was exposed in yesterday's Telegraph piece about the shadow cabinet (though there was nothing we hadn't heard about already) and he, and his fellow candidates, will have to answer a lot of questions on integrity before I will consider voting for any.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Will"]

One answer is to have a better system for remuneration of MPs, with a salary more related to that of a director of a large corporation, for example, and a tighter expenses policy.

[/quote]

Will, I don't know what level of renumeration you are thinking of? However, in my view, very few MPs appear to have any particular skill or ability and carry very little responsibility. They aren't measured on what they deliver and I suspect very few would survive for long in senior positions in large (sucessful) corporations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering if having an outside auditing body deal with MP's expenses is such a good idea. Would I be right in thinking that currently being in house MP's expenses are viewable (if you only knew where to look) under the Freedom of Information act? If they get an outside company like KPMG (as an off the top of my head example) won't they then become none disclosable (privacy and all that) because they are accountants?

Isn't Blair a 'silk', I doubt he would even get to be a barrister if he was so thick, doesn't make it right of course but to say they are not intelligent enough to get an outside job is a bit far fetched. They would have to be clever to come up with all the ideas to get these dubious payments approved in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="puzzled"]If the US can manage adequatley with 435 congressmen serving 306 million people,  then why does the UK need 646 to look after the interests [Www] of less than 60 million?[/quote]

But the USA can't.

Each state has its own legislature with an upper and a lower house. The American constitution effectively pushes the action of government to the lowest possible level. There are thousands of elected representatives.

Congress only deals with matters concerning the federation and external affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gluestick"]

Those who do do: those who can't teach: and those who can't even stretch to this become politicians!

[/quote]

"Those who can, do, those who can't, teach."

George Bernard Shaw, in a supplement to "Man and Superman" entitled "Maxims for Revolutionists". It was never intended to be taken seriously.

"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" Lord Acton.

Who was it that said of the press: "Power without responsibility. The prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, Google lists over 37,000,000 for this reference!

And also BTW, in his famous Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln didn't say" Government of the People, by the Government for the general benefit of the Government" either...........................

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Those who can, do, those who can't, teach."

When I began teaching and was working really hard with kids whose parents had even less interest than their children did in success I used to find this stupid remark so hurtful that it reduced me to tears. Later, I just found it deeply offensive, now I find it simply tiresome.

At any rate it is well off topic here.

Hoddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt in my mind that by the weekend there will be a joint all party statement announcing the disolution of the present Parliament to give the electorate the opportunity of reiterating their complete faith in our present elected representatives and it is expected that all candidates will be returned unopposed.  [:-))]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Woolly that it would be better if MPs had second jobs so they had experience of the world outside Westminster.

The sad thing about Nulab was the abysmal level of talent from which they had to choose ministers. Hence their lack of managerial abilities and dismal performance.

Geoff Hoon is rumoured to soon be off to Europe as a commissioner - sadly that is the best Gordon can offer. Still as said above the EU gives far better scope for fiddlers.

From now on MPs expenses are going to be open for checking so the immediate problem is over. I just wish that there had been more moral leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Hoddy"]

"Those who can, do, those who can't, teach."

When I began teaching and was working really hard with kids whose parents had even less interest than their children did in success I used to find this stupid remark so hurtful that it reduced me to tears. Later, I just found it deeply offensive, now I find it simply tiresome.

At any rate it is well off topic here.

Hoddy

[/quote]

When I left 'industry' to start teaching, I met the previous Personnel Manager from the outfit. He made the same comment and I responded by saying 'and those who can do neither become Personnel Managers'.

I thought it was quite witty at the time.

I never regretted the decision - especially as the Co. in question were taken over by asset-strippers who robbed the pension fund something rotten. I think I'm due for 1s 6d a month from it when I'm 65.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="ErnieY"][quote user="Patmobile"]Did you know that the MP's tax free mileage allowance for using a private car on parliamentary business is greatly in excess of the amount the taxman will allow an ordinary taxpayer for business mileage?[/quote]Actually that isn't so, at least not according to the House of Commons Fact Sheet

[/quote]

Well, what do you know? They changed it!  I was wrong.

Patrick 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT TORY MPs WILL PAY BACK

Michael Gove - £17,000 for furniture

Oliver Letwin - £2,000 for pipes under tennis court

Andrew Lansley - £2,600 for home improvements

Alan Duncan - £5,000 gardening bill

David Cameron - £680 home repair bill

George Osborne - £440.62 chauffeur bill

Francis Maude and Chris Grayling will not repay disputed second home allowances but will stop claiming them

 

 

 Micheal Gove must be thrilled - not !
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...