UKC

Bits and pieces of the MP's expenses keep getting released in the media, and if I was to claim for such things as they have I'd either get sacked by my employer of get done for fraud.

Surely some of our MP's expenses sail close to the line of fraud?

In reply to The Lemming:

What is wrong with six grand for your brother to clean your flat?

In reply to woolsack: Nothing, if six grands worth of work was done.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
and declared to the tax man.

In reply to The Lemming: To be fair though, if your company offered you an exceedingly generous expenses settlement, would you not take advantage of it?

In reply to The Lemming:

No, they're not all 'bent' or at least it's staggeringly improbable.

If you think of their expenses as part and parcel of their pay deal (as they are in many other jobs, some having much better perks) then where's the scandal?

jk

In reply to Jon Dittman:

That is the problem in a nutshell isn't it?

In reply to The Lemming:

We are assured that all such expense claims were made "within the rules"...problem is (1) the rules were (are) so lax as to be practically worthless and (2) they were set and enforced by the MPs themselves (or their agents).

It incenses me whenever I hear some MP (of whatever colour) insisting that they were all OK because they were within the rules - it doesn;t make it ethical. For example (not that mine work this way) but let's say I am allowed £50 a day for an evening meal when I am away on business...I get taken out to dinner by a client....within the rules I could still claim, but would that be ethical/moral - of course not!

So, when are the MPs going to put themselves on trial before the "court of public opinion" (c.f. Harriet Harman)?

In reply to The Lemming: These bastards should be setting an example. It seems they're all sailing very close to the wind. If I claimed a penny more than I was entitled to, I'd be down the road.

In reply to jkarran:

The scandal is that they are claiming for "expenses" which, for the rest of us, are day to day living and household expenses.

I see that Prescott has got through two loo seats in two years. With a fat @rse like his I suppose that is hardly surprising.

In reply to Nic:

..and another thing: how did Gordon Brown pay around £6,600 for 26 months of cleaning? That's over £250 a month? A month! I pay about £100 for two substantial properties, one in London (I assume his second home is in Scotland)

In reply to woolsack: Let's try and introduce some facts to this discussion.

Brown paid his brother (an EDF lobbyist BTW) for using his brother's cleaner - his brother organised and paid the cleaner who they shared for two properties, so Brown was repaying his brother what he owed him.

In answer to the OP - no they are not all bent (some are), it is that the rules on expenses are absolutely scandalous.

It is far from unusual for politicians to be able to claim for a second home or to have a second home provided for them by the state - if you think about it it isn't so stupid that MPs need somewhere in both their constituency and London. Where it becomes ridiculous is them making profits (which aren't shared by the State), legally "fiddling" the system and claiming for everyday expenses eg food. The rules are so lax eg until recently no requirement for receipts etc that they are open to abuse.

Furthermore there is clearly a culture within Westminster that the allowances are top-ups to salaries which is clearly unacceptable.

In reply to mypyrex:


So (presumably) your pay deal is that you get paid (what is effectively) cash and your household expenses get paid from that.

Their deal is they get paid some cash and they can claim their living expenses.

It seems pretty simple to me and I appear to be completely unable to feel indignant about it. So some of them are getting 10+ times what I do... so what, I could try harder for a better job if that bothered me rather than wanting to see others dragged down to my level.

jk

In reply to MJH:


yes, that's noted - but can you figure out how he clocked up £6,600 worth?

In reply to Nic:

About £60 a week in London, probably only two or three hours work.

In reply to Nic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/08/mandelson-expenses

There's something wrong with the rules.

Mandelson was able to claim nearly £3k for what he calls "essential maintenance" on his constituency home.

How many other jobs include an allowance for maintenance on your house?

In reply to Nic:

It's shocking when the chancellor of the exchequer doesn't share the benefits of the low paid, black economy

In reply to MJH:

Got to look out for the old boys, whato...

In reply to MJH:
In that case they should have the bare minimum perhaps some kind of halls of residence should be built for MPs?

In reply to The Lemming: I think the answer has to be yes. Have to say if i was David Cameron i'd be jumping on this one and saying if the tories get in to power they would abolish ministers expenses.

MP's get a good living wage (far better than most honest working folk anyway)and we all have to foot our living expenses out of our wages so why shouldn't they!

If i have to live close to work then i have to pay for my house not my employer, otherwise i commute!!

In reply to superfurrymonkey:

What, more single parent families?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

ha ha, nice try - but my rates, paid against proper invoices, are £10 an hour in London and £8 in the country...comfortably above the minimum wage which I understand is £5.73 an hour.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
Large enough for families then but not properties that they are allowed to keep and then sell when they are done as politicians.

In reply to jkarran:

Like you I do not believe there is any real scandal here.

I suspect that now it's all out in the open and will from now on be published, MPs will sort it out as self eveidently it is in their own interest to do so.

This is what happend in Scotland where every Scottish Mp's expenses are published and available on the internet.

In reply to DougG:

Not only that, but it's effectively a tax fiddle as well (and no one seems to have picked up on this) - i.e. if I want to pay £1,000 to maintain my house, now I have to earn £2,000, given that (thanks to those miserable green-eyed backters in charge) I will be paying 50% tax. Joe MP only has to "earn" (I use the word *very* loosely) £1,000...

In reply to superfurrymonkey: That is precisely what some countries do (Sweden IIRC).

In reply to Mike Highbury: The reality is that most MPs families don't live in their London residence as their main/family residence is often in their constituencies (or in the case of Shaun Woodward - Oxfordshire). An MP doesn't spend all his/her time in London.

(Obviously that is different for London/SE MPs).

In reply to MJH:
MP's in commuter belt scam.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3382401.ece

In reply to The Lemming:

some of this i find like school yard tales, he paid his brother some money, he charged something extra (but forget to mention they have already refunded the money) He claimed for something he's not allowed (which was subsequently spotted and he wasn't reimbursed for).

I find the second home thing sickening. and feel that they are working away from home so deserve to be housed but why should they get to buy a second home. I feel that they should get a rented flat and live in it. If its grungy move somewhere else or heaven forbid clean it. I'm wonderinf if after the olypics they should use the athletes village as MPs accomodation. and each flat relates to either a job eg home secretary or a constitunacy. If you don't like it pay for your own pad.

In reply to The Lemming: well most of the Tories are but then they went to public school....

In reply to mypyrex:

One for each cheek?

In reply to superfurrymonkey:

not halls , parliment owned properties, companies do it so why not parliment.

so parliment provides the in london home , and owns the assets and keeps the capital gains.

MP's dont have to pay elec, gas or council tax in their provided home and subsistance is provided on senior civil service rates based on actual receibts to set limits lunch £5 main meal £25 misc £3 per 24 hr period.

In reply to woolsack:


Well not really. If I am away on business, I have about £25 to spend on an evening meal. I don't therefore go to McDonalds because I feel a moral duty to spend as little as possible.

None of the MPs so far have broken the rules. It is just the rules that are perhaps a bit too lax. But if my company offered me a package like that, I would take it - just as the MPs have.

In reply to Jon Dittman:

I think that's missing the point - would you claim the £25 even though you had only spent £20 (say you fancied the fish rather than the steak)?

In reply to woolsack:
Like it

Unless he's got a loo in each Jag

In reply to The Lemming: If almost anybody else tried to get away with their excesses they would be in prison for a very long time. However, they do it within rules they wrote for themselves, which are different to the rules they write for us.

They are totally corrupt and self centred.

In reply to Nic:

In the charities and voluntary sectors, even if your mum makes you sandwiches you claim your allowance

In reply to tatty112:


Yes, but MPS have 2 places of work, Westminster and their constituencies. It is not reasonable to ask someone to work in 2 places and have 2 houses out of their own pockets. If you go away on business you would expect your company to pay.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Not the one's we work for you don't! Many have some of the most draconian expenses systems known to man! It causes no end of anguish as to what can be claimed.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

OK, and how might that fit with any reasonable definition of "incurred"...let alone the "wholly, necesarily and exclusively" bit?

In reply to MJH:

But you're not a member of staff, are you?

In reply to Nic:

It doesn't but the people I spoke about also make their own rules (albeit with weak management committee oversight) and have a similar sense of entitlement

In reply to Mike Highbury: No, but we see what members of staff have to do...

In reply to MJH:

Obviously you are right and I have no argument with what you say but I also speak from fairly broad experience

In reply to Monk:

That's why there should be properties in London owned and maintained by the state for the use of MP's for the duration of their career which seems a perfectly logical solution to a situation open to abuse.

In reply to superfurrymonkey:

MPs living in a Council House...? Well, you never know...

In reply to The Lemming:
Are all of our MP's bent?

"Camp Freddie. Everyone in the world is bent"

In reply to superfurrymonkey:

I have no problem with that solution at all. Not sure how much cheaper it would actually work out, but seems workable and controllable.

In reply to Daithi O Murachu:


Effectively 'grace and favour' accommodation for every MP. Seems reasonable.

In reply to captain paranoia:

The advantage of a 'Halls of Residence' is that it could be secured (a la Downing Street).

The downside is that, if you can get past the security, you can hit many MPs at once...

In reply to captain paranoia:

A bit like the houses of parliament then...

In reply to Monk:


Yeah, but they're never there...

In reply to captain paranoia:

That's not true - they check in for 5 minutes so they can claim their daily allowance (oh, hang on...that's the House of Lords...)

In reply to Mike Highbury:

<chuckles>

Didn't somebody claim 14k for a wetroom?

In reply to captain paranoia:


sorry i think you made a mistake and mixed up two sentences.
what was the downside again?

In reply to Nic:

Perfectly put, thanks for saving me typing.

In reply to The Lemming:

The obvious answer to MPs spending money on second homes, is that they have to rent - and the rent has to be assessed to be fair - and that the landlord can have no connection with the MP except in this specific instance.

So no expenses for doing up a home, just a flat-rate rent payment. You could cap that, too, so, if the MP chooses to rent a property at above a set limit, they have to pay the difference.

Obviously, you could have several Halls of Residence - or Dens of Iniquity, as they would become known as - and thus fixed costs. Someone has already pointed out the potential security implications of that, however.

The other solution is to build specific halls of residence in a sort of Nuclear Bunker style - underground - somewhere on the outskirts of London, and have a massive initial set-up cost, and provide proper security. And then no more money going direct to the MPs. If they want non-standard furniture and redecoration, that comes out of their wages, same as the rest of us.

Huge set-up cost, and no chance of exploitation or pushing the rules to the limit.

On this subject, I'd be very interested to hear exactly where the Telegraph got this list. Is it the one that was being touted as being on sale for £300,000 a month or so ago?

||-)

In reply to Dominion: Jack Straw is a fraudster. He got his council tax bill and the claimed twice the amount, over several years.

This isn't a matter of interpretation of the rules, he lied. he said his council tax was £so much, when he knew it was half that.

If any other MP is doing the same then I would have the same view.

PS I hope, if the rozzers got to the Telegraph to try and get evidence about the source (although thirsy will think sauce) their lawyers tell the old bill to feck off and try and get a schedule 9 (2) PACE warrant, which they will fail to obtain.

In reply to Anonymous:

Really? So not the case that he got a 50% reduction because it was for a second home, and then noticed at a later point that his PA (or secretary, or whatever) was claiming for the full amount, and then paid the money back before it turned up in the press?


Obviously, all these problems go away if the Country owns the properties, not the MPs.

In reply to Dominion:


Don't let a good rumour/scandal get in the way of facts.

In reply to Dominion: When you get a bil the amount due is traditonally on the bottom right of the page. When you fill in an expenses claim you get the bill, look at the amount due and fill it in on the exes form.

He got the discount because he asked for it, but decided to claim for the full amount. When he signed the expenses form he also made a declaration that the amount claimed was properly due to the best of his knowledge and belief.

How could he have known what to claim if he didn't have the bill and how could he fail to notice the amount on the bill. He did this three years running.

He 'corrected' the mistake yesterday. If he'd made the mistake once and corrected it two days later I'd buy the 'error in good faith'. What will your response be if/when a Tory is pinged for a similar fraud?

In reply to Anonymous:


As I suggested in the OP, I think that all MP's are at it.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

MPs do have a lot of shit to get rid of!

In reply to Anonymous:

It's a fair point.

Do you know for certain that he fills in his own expenses claims, or just hands over things to a member of his staff, and assumes they are competent?

I haven't seen the reports...

In reply to Dominion:

Ought to add, I've had six council Tax bills so far this year, each of them different...

In reply to The Lemming: Isn't it amazing that whenever this matter is raised and a particular MP or Minister is "named and shamed" they say something along the lines that "it was an error". I wonder if that "error" would ever have seen the light of day(through normal accountability checks) had these revelations never been made.

In reply to mypyrex:

I've come to the conclusion that for the most part, the vast majority of MP's are self-serving little sh*ts. They are a bunch of unqualified, egotistical, money grabbing b******* of highly dubious moral fibre. It doesn't help that they appear to be utterley useless at their job.

I can't think of any other 'profession' that is so inherently flawed and overpaid. I was bought up to beleive that people who are in a position of privilage and power should set the benchmark and example for the rest of us to follow. Obviously I was misinformed.

To hear them describing that they made an adminstritive error, or that it was an oversight, is treating the British public like a bunch of idiots, and it patronising in the extreme. At best they are lining their pockets in a way that no-one else would be allowed to on 'expenses', and at worst their claims are fraudulant.

Scumbags!

In reply to all:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/08/mps-expenses-loopholes

In reply to 'Hilda':

Maybe the public en masse should demonstrate it's disgust with the whole situation by boycotting the upcoming European and Local Elections (according to press reports the abuse of power isn't limited to Westminster), and better still the next General Election. That would cause a constitional crisis

In reply to Dominion:

Several (many?) of them employ relatives as assistants on up to £40k a year (presumably to do the submitting of expenses claims?), so when the husband/assistant can't even get the expenses claim right and leave his porn off it you've got to give up in despair really...

In reply to chris j:

Yep, I think that's been one thing that is proposed to be changed and has to be changed - staff have to be provided by the Civil Service.

And with this sort of leakage going on, they - the MPs - would have to be honest.

In reply to The Lemming:

I've come to the conclusion that everything politicians say and do is an absolute disgrace.

I am let down by the leaders of this once fine country, sadly there is no "Great" before Britain anymore but, admittedly, the scum of the earth beating down on our door in calais must see something in it.

In one news article they are refusing gurkhas the right to stay and work here and in the next breath, some scrounging immigrant has beaten and left his wife to die in the back of a car boot. I can barely watch the news these days it gets me so wound up and i am ashamed and bitterly disappointed in what is occuring.

i would like to air my views on the BBC website for more people to see, but it's only allowed if you have politically correct things to say. If you cut to close too the bone, you will be silenced.