Jacqui Smith:

[Gluestick]

I wonder what are your views?

The Home Secretary's spouse has apparently and allegedly claimed on her parliamentary expense account for renting blue movies.

Now, all apart from any comment upon Ms Smith's married life and her intimate relationship with her spouse, other than to say "Strange........!", if that is, she knew nothing about this and her spouse was engaged on shall we say, a solo effort,  a number of issues flow from this latest revelation.

One presumes that as a Cabinet Minister, Home Secretary, and a Privy Councillor, Ms Smith has little time to spend ploughing through her expenses and must, therefore, rely upoon her Parliamentary Assistant to pursue this task.

I'm sure many of us have been saddled with the onerous task of auditing expenses claims: apart from the odd laugh (In terms of sheer brass neck possessed of the claimant!), it is an onerous and thankless task; however one that must be done.

In this case, unfortunately for Ms. Smith that is her spouse! And as the law of the land stands, she enjoys, legally, what is called Vicarious Liability: i.e. one suffers Vicarious Liability for the acts of one's servants (Employees are servants, legally) when they undertake work on the master's (Employers) behalf.

Now if Ms Smith, or indeed any other MP voluntarily admitted to the apposite parliamentary organ responsible for disburing cash gainst expenses claims, "Sorry! A mistake arose; I have incorrectly claimed for something which is not allowed within the aegis of the agreement and regulations.", then such would be a highly laudable action and worthy of praise.

However, to apologise after the event of discovery and subsequently expect to be forgiven is no good: imagine if this route was adopted by burglars, muggers and murderers!

As Home Secretary the electors, surely are entitled to expect a very high level of probity and example setting. Yet, Ms Smith is already under investigation for her expenses claims relating to her sister's house!

When matters come to malfeasance, I am a black and white sort of fellow: comes from far too many years dealing with financial matters and the Inland Revenue I expect: but perhaps, as an accountant often involved in Forensic work and chasing the odd embezellor, I have a simplistic perspective!

If a person takes what they are clearly not entitled to take then this is theft.

Where Public Finance be concerned then the rectitude necessary is amplified many times: as any member of Cipfa (Charted Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) would assure you: compliance issues in public finance areas are strict and very demanding. As are reporting criteria.

Perhaps of equal interest is Ms Smith's stated stance on such as Lap Dancing Clubs and Prostitution and the degradation and exploitation of women.

Commendable.

However on this evidence it would seem the reality is is yet again a case of "Do as I say: rather than as my family does."

Yet early this morning, the PM stated that "Ms Smith has my complete confidence, blah, blah, blah..........."

All of which reassures me that our current genre of politicians could not care a stuff for the long suffering electors and their problems: they have become insulated from reality and view us simply with complete contempt: a necessary evil that must be patronised slightly, each five years, as an irritation to be endured before they get back to fighting their turn at the trough.

Neatly ignoring, of course, that we mugs are paying for it all!

 

[Stan Streason]

Unless anyone can tell me differently and I have missed it (entirely probable) the BBC website stated that Ms Smith has claimed for "adult" films.  In my reading of this, all this means is that they were certificate 18.

Whilst all blue movies are cert 18 not all cert 18 movies are blue.

[Gluestick]

It is alleged one was called Raw Meat 3: probably carrying our research on abbatoirs for her colleagues at Defra...................

Probably, Stan, one cannot expect the Blair-Brown Broadcasting Corporation to sully the great NuLab reputation............

[Www]

[velcorin]

I don't tend to follow UK news too carefully, except that which impacts on our business. However this strikes me as bizarre, and smells very much like a press witch hunt. It seems a former member of her staff touted the story around the tabloids, the Mail stumped up the most cash (pity she wasn't a immigrant, single parent as well[Www]). This story interested me, after Chirac and his EUR 106,000 weekly personal food bill while mayor of Paris, which has been under official investigation for 12 years[:D]. She got 10 quid.

Claims such as these, like my Corporate Card and portable are automated, in that they are sent direct to the Fimance Dept, not to the user. Strictly speaking she didn't make a claim at all, but lax checking paid them. Don't know about Civil Service procedures, but that's how my Expenses work here in France, Germany and the UK. Her husband was an idiot, but she wasn't dishonest. Guilty of bad taste in men maybe?[:)]

Anyone starting to see parallels with the press hounding in the last days of the last Tory administration? Cash for questions, Hamilton, Lord Archer, Mellor, etc. Methinks the press barons are after blood, and payback from whoever they promote into government. Cynical, moi?

[Frederick]

  Her husband apart from looking after the children is paid £40,000 a year as her parliamentry assistant .....As he works from home and does her allowance claims for her and it was a cold winter...She claimed  £1000 for a fireplace and coal and for 2  widescreen TV's at over £1,100...claims for over £116.000  in additional costs allowance is  taking the piss.....

[Quillan]

[quote user="velcorin"]

Anyone starting to see parallels with the press hounding in the last days of the last Tory administration? Cash for questions, Hamilton, Lord Archer, Mellor, etc. Methinks the press barons are after blood, and payback from whoever they promote into government. Cynical, moi?

[/quote]

Funny enough that's exactly what ran through my mind when I first heard about this or more to the point how Labour bayed for blood when these events took place. Mind you I can understand anyone getting wound up about a person having sex wearing a Chelsea football strip [:P]

On a more serious note surely this is a fraudulent expenses claim. Now when I worked for other people we had to account for every penny of our expenses and we had a lot to claim. If we made a fraudulent claim, accidental or not, we received an official reprimand and a note made on our personnel file. Not checking our expenses before submission was not an excuse so we always checked and double checked our expenses before submitting them. Personally I can't see any difference between how we were treated and a government minister or PM even. In fact I would say they should be harder on them as its the tax payers money they are stealing (and I mean stealing) they need to be 'whiter than white' and set a good example.

I don't know if this type of thing is a female Labour trait or just a Labour trait especially after watching Harman the other day on PM Questions. Screaming like a banshee across the floor when Haig had ago about some of the government's decisions to spend out of trouble. She screamed at him"what has your party done, nothing" well excuse me the Tories are not in power so they can't do anything. Makes you wonder if the government are loosing the plot.

Then of course the Dumfries Building Society fiasco has reared its head with allegedly false claims about how big its debt is and no contact between the chairman and Darling, something a bit dodgy going on there I think. Makes me glad I am here and not there.

I loved the bit on C4 News last week after the brick was thrown through that chaps window and the suggestion some 'expert' gave that Law and Order will break down and the heads of the Banks will be hunted down by 'lynch mobs' of savers who will take terrible, physical revenge. Well you have to laugh really about the whole thing else you would be looking for a number six bus to throw yourself under.

[Frederick]

    A crowd of  silver haired savers  advancing down the road smacking down zimmer frames and swinging  a noose would frighten me !

[Benjamin]

[quote user="Frederick"]

    A crowd of  silver haired savers  advancing down the road smacking down zimmer frames and swinging  a noose would frighten me !

[/quote]

Oh sh1t!!!!!!!!!!! Who's leaked our plan then?

[Quillan]

The reason he came up with this is because of older people and in particular those that saved money and bought shares to supplement their old age pension. Now of course their shares have dramatically dropped in value (and they get little or no dividends) and their savings gain little or no interest so their standard of living has dropped.

I thought perhaps somebody would like to rewrite Powell's famous Rivers of Blood speech , I was thinking that the first line can stay as it is "The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils", and just change the coloured bit to bankers. In fact I quite like the first line, its something perhaps modern politicians have forgotten.

[velcorin]

Quillan. You don't submit "Expense Claims" as such. Everything goes on a Corporate Credit Card, or on an automated e-billing system, which all goes direct to Finance, I send receipts direct Finance, they match them off, if there are any queries they contact me. It is a recent development for us, but it seems to work well, but relies on the checkers picking up mismatches or omissions on receipts. The full amount on my various bills is deducted from my salary, and they refund what is deemed business expenses.

NB If you want to see something seriously dodgy here have a look at EdF's Accounts. EdF is responsible for decomissioning nuclear plants in France, not the Government. In the UK the Government has spent £100 billion decommissioning 8 plants, about the same as RWE spent in Germany, so EdF needs to set aside about EUR 800-900 billion (nearly the same as the GDP of France[:-))]). To date they have EUR 5 billion, and will be decommissioning 2 plants per year for the next 25 years as from next year[:-))]. And the pension provision is, literally, non-existant. Or we could look at the "revolving credit" arrangements, think of them as open ended loans, a bit like a UK credit card. Christine Lagarde wants to ban them, but can't. They know there are 56million loans, but nobody knows how much in total. Guesses go from EUR 400billion to EUR 800billion, ie more than UK total unsecured lending.

Personally I prefer the French method of handling bad news. If you don't think you'll like the answer, don't ask the question. That way everyone stays happy and ignorant[:D].

[Gluestick]

[quote user="velcorin"]

Quillan. You don't submit "Expense Claims" as such. Everything goes on a Corporate Credit Card, or on an automated e-billing system, which all goes direct to Finance, I send receipts direct Finance, they match them off, if there are any queries they contact me. It is a recent development for us, but it seems to work well, but relies on the checkers picking up mismatches or omissions on receipts. The full amount on my various bills is deducted from my salary, and they refund what is deemed business expenses.

[/quote]

Surely, depends on the organisation and their system?

In the case of Parliament in the UK, MPs most certainly do submit a claim form, with supporting invoices and bills and receipts: and apparently Timms completed the form and Smith signed it: according to the Times.

More interestingly, whilst the Mail shows a copy of what it alleges is the actual media bill, the bill does not specifically state the titles of the films rented, thus the specific information has to have come from elsewhere: probably the online service provider.

 

[powerdesal]

I may be wrong but I seem to remember Mrs Timneys (sp) expenses claim showing TWO washing machines !!!! Why two (Zanussi and an Ariston I think), His & Hers Washing machines ????

I get my expenses paid after production of genuine receipts ( train tickets, air tickets, taxis etc), no receipt = no payment, that seems fair to me, I lost a receipt once, my own fault, so tough, stood the loss - as it should be.

Its all a scam. The taxpayers are a necessary evil to be tolerated as long as they continue to foot the bills.

IMHO its not just Labour MPs (although they seem to be the worst), all MPs appear to have the same contempt for their paymasters.

It would seem that saying someone 'would make a good MP' is a insult somewhat worse than saying someone is a paedophile.

[Gardian]

I'm not going to express any moralistic views over him viewing 'dodgy' films.

However ........., when any MP joins the Government, I would be staggered if they weren't briefed over the need for complete propriety in their public and private life. This would be particularly true for one of the leading ministers of state. So, what happens?  This little lot.  Complete insanity.

Whilst it's a fraudulent claim, it's more a case of just being plain stupid.  The Press smell blood and they'll probably get it.

This all feels like the early death throes of a Government.  It happens every time.  

[Dog]

I think her husband needs an assistant it may stop him watching those sort of films. Could this explain why Miss Smith spends so much time at her sisters house?

He could try the Bernie Eccleston explanation "There's nothing wrong with it, I have been doing it for years and it is quite legal".

 

 

[Kitty]

.... or Max Mosley ...

[Iceni]

For us mere mortals, in order for our expenses to be tax allowable they have to be "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" incurred for our business and I have never worked for any company that did not have rigid rules, rigidly enforced over what I was allowed to claim and be reimbursed e.g. taking my wife on a jolly to Chile, Argentina etc would not be allowed as this would not be defined as "w, n & e". A sort of "don't do as I do, do as I say"

But to paraphrase Leona Helmsley - rules are for the little people who pay my wages and expenses.

John

[hakunamatata]

What possible right can MP's have to claim their Sky subscriptions on their expenses?  There are many people in the UK who would love to have subscriptions to Sky but cannot afford them and yet Jackie Smith and her husband and many others of their ilk are doing just that at OUR expense.  I dont care if it was a blue film or Alice in Wonderland, why should the British taxpayer pay for it?

[DerekJ]

[quote user="hakunamatata"]What possible right can MP's have to claim their Sky subscriptions on their expenses?  There are many people in the UK who would love to have subscriptions to Sky but cannot afford them and yet Jackie Smith and her husband and many others of their ilk are doing just that at OUR expense.  I dont care if it was a blue film or Alice in Wonderland, why should the British taxpayer pay for it?[/quote]

Exactly.

[Quillan]

[quote user="powerdesal"]I may be wrong but I seem to remember Mrs Timneys (sp) expenses claim showing TWO washing machines !!!! Why two (Zanussi and an Ariston I think), His & Hers Washing machines ????

[/quote]

Lets be honest the real problem is not individuals its the system and the lack of morals. I don't think its just the present government I think given a chance they all would be at it. I dread to think what goes on in local councils for instance. I do know from a close source that a local council sent a social worker within the last couple of weeks to a nice part of Africa to visit a child there who has a British passport just to check up on him/her and that the only flight ticket left happened to be first class.

The real bottom line is that people in the UK have been asked to put up with a lot lately especially in the current economic climate. I understand from the media that we are talking about £20 buts its the UK tax payers £20 and what right does she have to claim it on ex's when the unemployed and pensioners are struggling to make ends meet.

In these difficult times they (Government ministers, MP's and Civil Servants - note the word servant) really do have to show a bit of respect for those that put them in power and/or pay their wages. Forget the politics I think GB should come out and say in the media that she is wrong to claim it, that she has been repremanded and he should say sorry to the public for letting it get through in the first place. OK I know its not him personally that signs of the ex's but he is the boss and I was always taught that if you are the boss you are ultimately responsible and the buck really does stop with you. Sadly I think I have more chance of waking up and finding rocking horse manure outside my front door but there you go. Whatever we say here or others say elswhere it will happen again and again and again, we all know it will.[:(]

[Quillan]

[quote user="hakunamatata"]What possible right can MP's have to claim their Sky subscriptions on their expenses?  There are many people in the UK who would love to have subscriptions to Sky but cannot afford them and yet Jackie Smith and her husband and many others of their ilk are doing just that at OUR expense.  I dont care if it was a blue film or Alice in Wonderland, why should the British taxpayer pay for it?[/quote]

She can hardly claim its to keep up with the news or BBC Parliament as they are FTA anyway.

[Dog]

[quote user="Quillan"]

[quote user="hakunamatata"]What possible right can MP's have to claim their Sky subscriptions on their expenses?  There are many people in the UK who would love to have subscriptions to Sky but cannot afford them and yet Jackie Smith and her husband and many others of their ilk are doing just that at OUR expense.  I dont care if it was a blue film or Alice in Wonderland, why should the British taxpayer pay for it?[/quote]

She can hardly claim its to keep up with the news or BBC Parliament as they are FTA anyway.

[/quote]

Free to Air doesn't get the erm you know sort of erm channels that relax MPs after a long day erm debating.

[Frederick]

   This all feels like the early death throes of a Government.  It happens every time.

 

 Guardian you are so right !

There comes a time when people have had enough a couple of terms is about it .then the movement for change starts ...Its started in ernest now .and will continue up to election day... My bets on a hung parliament and that might just be the result the country needs .

[Dog]

What difference will a new lot of politicians make?

 

[Scooby]

[quote user="Iceni"]

For us mere mortals, in order for our expenses to be tax allowable they have to be "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" incurred for our business and I have never worked for any company that did not have rigid rules, rigidly enforced over what I was allowed to claim and be reimbursed e.g. taking my wife on a jolly to Chile, Argentina etc would not be allowed as this would not be defined as "w, n & e". A sort of "don't do as I do, do as I say"

[/quote]

Not expressing any comment on the rights and wrongs of Ms Smith, but the 'wholly, exclusively and necessarily' rule only applies for the purposes of tax relief.  Allowable employee expense claims (in business) are a matter for the company concerned to decide.  Staff entertaining, for example, would not be allowable for tax but the employer would usually settle the tax on any benefit in kind on behalf of the employee.  Conversely, a company may choose not refund the full amount of the tax free mileage rate.  Incidentally, you can take your partner on a business travel in certain circumstances and have tax relief for their expenses.  Even where they don't meet the criteria for tax relief, I know a number of companies who will cover the cost and then pay the tax on behalf of the employee - but the decision to allow / pick up the tab is a commercial one and nothing to do with tax rules. 

The measure of culpability on the part of Ms Smith is by reference to the specific MP expenses rules - not what would qualify for tax relief.  Given the amount involved it does seem like a witch hunt.  Invariably small differences will slip though on expense claims and an amount of that size (in business) probably wouldn't be considered worth the cost of tracking down.  I am with Gardian on this one - sounds like the first ring of the death knoll for NuLab.

[Ron Avery]

Yes so right Gardian, funny that only the Mirror mentioned millionaire tory boy William Hague trousering £62,000 to pay off the mortgage for his second home. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/03/29/millionaire-hague-s-62k-from-us-for-his-2nd-home-115875-21236386/ 

And even The Daily Wail  thought this was worthy of comment, funny none of the Forum UK political correspondents mentioned it[Www]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076370/Top-Tory-William-Hague-flew-Barclays-500-000-Italian-jolly-markets-crashed.html

I wonder whether the hacks are just miffed that they have had their snouts pulled out of their troughs by the cut backs in expenses on the street of shame and are just down right jealous! 

The fact is that they are all at it, Jackie Smith's case is not the worst by any means but she is obviously in the sights of the right wing media, there is another labour MP who has been claiming for a second home whilst living in a cravan but he of course is not the Home Secretary.  Seems odd that all these flexible rules about expenses go back to good old Maggies day, nobody has seen anything wrong with them, until now[blink]