Jump to content

MPs' expenses

????

By ????
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted

Firstly, we are not exactly talking about huge sums of money here.


Secondly, if there is an expenses system which allows politicians to make these claims, then of course they are going to use it. This sort of thing has become the norm, they've probably come to consider it as part of their package. The system is to blame, IMO.


What would seem fair to me would be a flat rate, perhaps depending on the distance of their constituency from Westminster. Or perhaps parliament should take on a block of serviced apartments in London, and eliminate second home expenses altogether.

Brendan

Brendan

Posted
Posted

What about people in public office behaving with the integrity which befits their station?


But that clearly doesn?t apply anymore. These are partisan individuals out to make a buck and further their careers. This is a good thing apparently. They are merely reflecting the greed based society that the last few generations have so wisely built for us. People can?t be expected to be honourable when they are competing and looking out for number one. Competition and selfishness are what make the brave new world we live in great. It functions so well after all.


So that is where we are, an incestuous group career politicians looking out for their own, running the country. Basically the type of self-centred shitehawks you would hire to run a sales office of some sorts.


So perhaps we should treat them as such. Give them performance related pay. If they do their jobs properly and deliver to the public what it needs/wants they can get an extra couple of grand to spend on a new motorbike or Thatcher look-alike dominatrix. If not, sack them.

Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted

For most of these cases, I don't think it's an issue of integrity. It's a case of the job offering benefits which the public don't consider to be fair.


Would you expect the MPs to return part of their salary because it's more than they need? Do you expect Gordon Brown to rent out some spare room at number 10 and return the proceeds to the public purse?

david_carnell

david_carnell

Posted
Posted

The problem began because successive governments were too scared to say "actually, for a high pressure job, with little security and a large amounts of power we get paid less than a headmaster and it's not really on" and refrained from direct salary increases so they began abusing the expenses system as a means of topping up their salaries.


I think it is entirely reasonable for MPs to receive a second-home allowance. I want my MP to be in London representing my views and not stuck in some provincial constituency. They are not student nurses and should not be made to sleep in some sort of dormitory where all the MPs live away from home. I mean, really?!


What is clearly not acceptable, morally, is the duplicitousness in telling parliament one thing and the tax-man another in order to maximise income.


However, the rest of these claims seem hardly to be in the realm of fantasy. 87p for a bath plug? And your problem is what? That MPs shouldn't wash? That 87p is too much for a bath plug? Or that such a paltry amount should just be absorbed by the MP personally? Where is the line drawn for that? ?1? ?2? ?10? The chances are it was submitted on a receipt for a load of home improvement stuff as opposed to a single purchase.


Secondly, expenses are not means tested. Just because you, or in some cases your partner, happen to be stinking rich doesn't mean you are not entitled to, or should not claim, the due amount. How would you feel if your expenses claim involved seeing how much was in your current account that month? "Oh, sorry Mrs Jones, you've got more than ?500 in your account so you can pay for that hotel on a business trip yourself". Ridiculous.


The system is broken but nothing is so pathetic to watch than the British public in one of its brief outbursts of moral indignation.

Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
I'm pretty much in agreement with DC. Of course they should receive the expenses necessary for their job, and when I hear about most of these expenses, I just think... "so what"? The system needs changing for sure - but I would have thought that provisions for second homes were essential in many/most cases.
snorky

snorky

Posted
Posted

Its a diversion people


The media are deciding your opinions for you. A pavlovian snap of the fingers and there we go, a rampaging mob, foaming at the mouth in their desite to burn out a clown hostel, lay flowers and publicly grieve on the baby Diana/Jade Goodys grave, drive out suspected paedophiles blah blah blah


focus on the trite and ignore the important

woofmarkthedog

woofmarkthedog

Posted
Posted

No it's our attention span really, "we" are groomed to live our lives in half hour episodes so we can't hope to focus on the BIG picture. All these "news" episodes are like eating at a buffet everyday, eventually it all tastes the same, merging into one bland but constant serving.



Kind of.......



W**F


*examines coated tongue in the mirror....pulls down eye lid....counts grey hairs....again...sigh*

woofmarkthedog

woofmarkthedog

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If only the right sort of people could be

> attracted into politics in the first place.

>

> Maybe we just don't pay them enough.

>

> Italy, for example, pays one of the highest

> salaries - and they seem to be a pretty honest

> lot.


Ohh i did a lttle wee when I laughed so hard ....



V.Funny



W**F

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

Does anyone have any 'favourite claims' so far?


My top three:

Oliver Letwin's claim to replace a leaking pipe under his tennis court.

'Dave' Willetts (Tory Skills minister) who claimed for a handyman to change his light bulbs.


And.. in first place.. John 'Bulimia' Prescott, claiming ?3200 on food.. plus another 6 on mock-tudor panelling.


Worth every penny.

Asset

Asset

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If only the right sort of people could be

> attracted into politics in the first place.

>

> Maybe we just don't pay them enough.

>

> Italy, for example, pays one of the highest

> salaries - and they seem to be a pretty honest

> lot.




Your tongue was in your cheek when you made that last comment wasn't it?

Marmora Man

Marmora Man

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If only the right sort of people could be

> attracted into politics in the first place.

>

> Maybe we just don't pay them enough.

>

> Italy, for example, pays one of the highest

> salaries - and they seem to be a pretty honest

> lot.


I assume this was an ironic comment - Silvio Berlusconi anyone? In my expereince of Italy (now nearly 15 years out of date so - of course - it may have changed radically) there were two clear systems:


1. The written law & regulations


2. The way things are really done around here - which inevitably required the payment of cash to someone - sometimnes an official to turn a blind eye, somethimes to a "friend" who clould ensure all sorts of actions and / or blind eyes. In Naples this was rum by the Commorra, an organisation you wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of. Payments ranged from a few lira to a street urchin to "guard" your parked car to anything you liked to ensure your house was built, extensions approved, immigrant workforce granted permits and / or not deported, overdue taxes left unpaid, and so on.


I've refrained from entering this debate - a plague on all their houses being my immediate response.


To an extent I agree with DC - MPs are relatively underpaid, should be allowed appropriate expenses and we shouldn't complain. However, all systems are susceptible to games playing and that is what has happened. So a better, simpler and well audited system is required.


I'd suggest that Parliament adopt the system used by any of the top companies - and get a major accountancy firm to administer it - as an additional encouragements to get it right MPs expenses should also be liable to occasional HMRC audits, as private sector companies are and their expense claims should be made public.

SteveT

SteveT

Posted
Posted

When I had employment which re-imbursed expenses I had to account for every penny before repayment was made.


How can they justify 'flipping' homes to maximize expenses on the most costly of their abodes?


Has any forumista found a job with such lavish expenses?


They are allowed to claim under ?250 without question and amazingly there are soooo many claims of ?249, it's purely coincidental obviously.

dukesdenver

dukesdenver

Posted
Posted

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it is entirely reasonable for MPs to

> receive a second-home allowance. I want my MP to

> be in London representing my views and not stuck

> in some provincial constituency. They are not

> student nurses and should not be made to sleep in

> some sort of dormitory where all the MPs live away

> from home. I mean, really?!


I don't think anyone is advocating 'dormitories', but it wouldn't be much of a hardship for an MP to spend a few nights each week in a serviced apartment or similar, would it? Assuming it was theirs for most of the year and they could keep stuff there and personalise it etc.


Of course MPs should be allowed to claim reasonable expenses, but attempting to claim ?8865 for a Bang & Olufsen television is really taking the p**s.

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
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...