Jump to content

MP's Expenses and Political Apathy.


Quillan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Particularly so when one considers the Damien Green affair.

Still, I suppose that's where NuLab style egalitarianism leads....................

"To each according to his blind loyalty: for each, according to his second home."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The starting point in this scandal was that MPs thought that the electorate would not like them giving themselves another pay rise (why I wonder?) and agreed amongst themselves that they could use their ‘expenses’ as a replacement pay rise. How lacking in scruples was that?

The scandal has a number of characteristics in common with other financial scandals whether in the public or private sector, which illustrate poor financial management and control.

1. An unclear policy

Much has been made by many MPs trying to mitigate their disgraceful behaviour by claiming that the expenses policy and regime was unclear. Certainly by what has been reported in the press, the fees office seemed to have a high degree of discretion in how much for example of a £2,300 plasma TV would be reimbursed. They also had policies which weren't communicated eg. that they would normally pay no more than £750 for a TV. But if that was the case why didn't they write it in and communicate it? Why did the John Lewis list only eke out into the public domain by chance last year? This can only have increased confusion and inconsistency in the application of the policy, such as it was.

2. A weak finance function

Most MPs are a pretty forthright lot. I suspect many of them can be fairly intimidating to administrative staff in the fees office. It does seem that the sarcastic and patronising correspondence from MPs to fees office staff that has come to light may have placed pressure on the fees office to pay claims which they might not otherwise have done. Apparently, there was also a fair bit of bullying going on.

3. Management override

A powerful management team or CEO in any organisation can often get their own way (Fred Goodwin, Victor Blank etc. come to mind). In this case the fees office seem not to have been supported by anyone in the House of Commons. Indeed two of the three main political parties consistently voted against greater disclosure and even for their own exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000!

4. Unclear reporting lines

On top of all this the reporting lines for the fees office were somewhat unclear and incestuous. If there's no one at the "board" level with accountability then those at the board level have greater leeway to abuse the system. In the Commons, the most important person is the Speaker and it is his responsibility to safeguard the reputation of the House. His failure to do so and his mocking of those seeking it would be a dismissible offence in most organisations.

5. A misunderstanding of the ethos

Most people would understand clearly that expense claims are for costs incurred so that you aren't out of pocket in performing duties for your employer. Was it really beyond MPs to understand this? Or was it even stated anywhere? Or was it as a concept overridden by daily sloppy practice in the organisation? Who was the guardian of financial prudence in the House?

When you get one of these issues arising it's a cause for concern, but when you get all five it's a disaster waiting to happen.

So what next? Well, in most organisations an issue like this would be dealt with quickly to produce an effective solution which have broad support. The measure of the House, the Speaker and the party leaders will now be how quickly they can produce a solution which meets the publics expectation for common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thoughts, Renaud.

* These expenses were effectively tax free, i.e. not paid out of net income that the rest of us have to do, and so was worth (then 40% and now) 50% more than a salary increase.

* As the rules were not written clearly, most MPs would not know what other MPs were claiming.  Those that claimed very little must be feeling horrified about their fellow brethen who abused the system.

* Those that did not claim should be rewarded.

* As they were getting £400 per month for food and had their mortgages on their "second" homes paid, what were they spending their salaries on?  (My local MP was claiming £90 per month for his laundry/dry cleaning.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup - since he was responsible for the Fees (Expenses) Office  he had to go.

But, I do wonder if the guilty MPs think that 'Joe Public'  will believe that everything was his fault ? 

 On the same news broadcast on the BBC there was the sanctimonious Nick Clegg, who was in the forefront of removing Martin, telling how his second house profits would go back to the taxpayer. He claimed that the house, and the wall for his rose garden claimed as an expense, was for the taxpayer's benefit !  

I wonder when he made that decision ?  And just how gullible his constituents will be ?

Another crook !

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Cathy"]

 

* As the rules were not written clearly, most MPs would not know what other MPs were claiming.  Those that claimed very little must be feeling horrified about their fellow brethen who abused the system.

[/quote]

More like horrified to find that they could/should have claimed even more [6]

How many MP's are known not to have ripped the ar5e out of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching him read his statement in the house yesterday the man looked and sounded barely literate [:'(]

First time in 300 years a speaker has been unseated I believe, yet another fine achievement for 'new labour' to chalk up then.

Actually I now realise that I misunderstood the significance of him calling 'Order, order' every few moments, he wasn't calling for order in the house at all but 'orders' for MP's perks [:D][:D][:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gluestick"]

The damned place cost us enough to build!

 

[/quote]

Now come on Gluestick. After you've spent all your dosh on free prescriptions for all, free residential homecare for the elderly and you don't have a need to charge university top-up fees, you have to get the money for your creature comforts from somewhere.  [:P]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 As some have claimed for furniture for second homes and then moved it to other homes ....I now wonder if houses in France Spain and elsewhere have been kitted out at the taxpayers expense...Or homes in the sun  "Flipped " with their homes within the Westminster commuter belt ...Can they have a home outside the UK as their primary residence and a second home in the UK  within the rules ? .The more you read what they have done the more you wonder what else they got up to .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Benjamin"][quote user="Russethouse"] I still can't believe the Speaker - he must be on a different planet......[:@][/quote]


http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE54A0X920090519


This should make you, and the rest of us, feel better.  [:P]

[/quote]

I have been at RHS Chelsea all day (great as usual) and heard this in my daughters car as I was picked up from the station......rounded off the day nicely........[:D][:D][:D]

He was just not doing a good job and if we are going to have reform regarding the expenses then its correct he should go.

As regards the MPs comunication with the fees office, unless the MPs can be civil in their communication their returns should be returned to them until they learn how to communicate in a proper manner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some food for thought:

 

This is unbelievable, but true! 

 

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600
employees and has the following employee statistics.

29 have been accused of spouse abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud


9 have been accused of writing bad cheques


17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses


3 have done time for assault


71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit


14 have been arrested on drug-related charges


8 have been arrested for shoplifting

 

21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

 

84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year


Which organisation is this ..................................?

 

 

 

 


It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that

cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

 

And just to top all that they probably have the best corporate pension scheme in the country!! [Www]


Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="ebaynut"]

Here's some food for thought:

 

This is unbelievable, but true! 

 

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600
employees and has the following employee statistics.

29 have been accused of spouse abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud


9 have been accused of writing bad cheques


17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses


3 have done time for assault


71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit


14 have been arrested on drug-related charges


8 have been arrested for shoplifting

 

21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

 

84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year


Which organisation is this ..................................?

 

 

 

 


It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that

cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

 

And just to top all that they probably have the best corporate pension scheme in the country!! [Www]


[/quote]

 

Sadly while near the truth you have recycled an urban myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Benjamin Disraeli - Queen Victoria's favourite politician - in order to make some serious money, indulged in wild speculation (The Victorian equivalent of Northern Rock shares?) and it all went pear shaped.

He faced debtor's prison: a convenient institution it might make some sense to restore!

His major creditor, passed away rather suddenly: and Disraeli sneakily made up to his widow: and subesquently married her!

And as the beneficiary to the man's estate, could not then sue her husband (The new one!) for the debt.

For a number of years, I have realised the Genus politician is somewhat different to the rest of us.............

[blink]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gluestick"]

For a number of years, I have realised the Genus politician is somewhat different to the rest of us.............

[blink]

 

[/quote]

As in devious, sneaky, ammoral, immoral, cunning, lieing, cheating, conniving, thieving.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Frederick"]

  Well... regardless of what fiddles they have been up to it seems the Police are now NOT going to investigate any of it.....I thought the Queen was the only one who could not be prosicuted in the UK....now add PMs . one more big fiddle ..

[/quote]

Do you have a link to that conclusion Frederick, because the last UK press report I saw stated the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve;

I fear you omitted the odd descriptor or two from you most comprehensive catalogue.

Self-Serving; Duplicious; Complacent; Pompous: Overbearing; Smug; Sententious; Bombastic; Hypocritical....................

To name but a few!

[:D]

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...