No need to alter MP perks.

After listening to Nadine Dories MP on Today yesterday morning, I think the best thing that could be done to protect the mental health of MPs is for the Commons to publish MPs' expenses in full now. That at least would take the sting from the Telegraph's story because there would no longer be the corrosive steady drip-drip.

A media feeding frenzy would follow, hopefully galvanising Gordon Brown in to deep systemic reforms. The right Speaker needs to be chosen too, where his or her natural authority makes them the second most powerful person in the land after the PM.

Regards, Chris

Information is power, & for democracy to flourish it must rest with the people.



Until all details of MP expenses are published ordinary people won't trust MPs.

quote:

Until all details of MP expenses are published ordinary people won't trust MPs.

When all the details are published then it can stop.

Of course it is open to Parliament to publish the details before the Telegraph does.

Interestingly last year Parliament declined to allow for the details to be published, but the scamdal has been investigated and it has taken an external push to MPs to get what should be public knowledge [because they are spending our tax money as our servants] into the public domain.

Far less damage would have been done had MPs had the honesty and courage to do this last year without an external push.

The result would have been the forshortening of a number of political careers, but I suspect the casualty rate will be higher with the pressure for reform coming from outside Parliament than it might have been had the MPs been responsible and brave enough to do this themselves ...

[LP 12 comments to appear elsewhere].

ATB from George

Of course when all the details are published then we shall know which MPs are blameless as well, and can happily then make informed choices about who would be worthy of re-election at a General Election ...

Thus the process must be completed, and as soon as reasonably possibile ...

I am still of the view the expenses system does not need altering, but merely be subjected to regular public scrutiny [through press reporting permitted by unfettered freedom of information legislation], as I suggested earlier. If the rules are followed in spirit as well as in letter, then the system seems reasonable to me. To be caught out not regarding the use of the public purse with due care would then become something that MPs would not do for fear of deselection by their Parties, or rejection at elections.

ATB from George

I think the expenses DOES need sorting out after all these people are on £64.000 a year when most honest and hard working folk`s are earning half or less than that. take my mrs for instance, she work`s in central london for local government/trading standard`s has to pay for the train/tube ticket out of her own pocket which is £6000 + a year so get`s less than half of their pay. So them needing expenses, extra income is a complete load of BOLLOCK`S. A driver at my place of employment in rugby actually live`s in lincolnshire so he tramp`s in the truck mon to fri to save money, when they told him he could not night out he complained about the distance from work to home and was promptly told you knew where the job was hard luck, so you can guess what i would tell the greedy M.P`S. Welcome to the real world.

quote:

They can make peace with the Almighty at the gate of Heaven, I am sure.

I'm not so sure, like a Naim Hi-Line, the after-life is directional. I don't think many MPs will be going in the direction assumed. Moreover, where most of them will go no second home is required and they'll have no need to claim for heating.

Very dry ROTF

Chris

I shall follow the lead of our 'Great Leader'....
Never read what went before and say what you think.......
As there is 'No such thing as Society' each to their own.... so 'Hoodies/Bankers/MPs' are simply pursueing the message.

Now where is the shotgun and fast car - time to go into the 'other banking business' (credit to, I think Woody Allen)

quote:

take my mrs for instance, she work`s in central london for local government/trading standard`s has to pay for the train/tube ticket out of her own pocket which is £6000 + a year so get`s less than half of their pay. So them needing expenses, extra income is a complete load of BOLLOCK`S.

Your missus works until midnight and catches the first train home at 05:30 in the morning does she?

Or perhaps she does a decent days work and catches the train home at about six o'clock.

I don't think your comparison stands even superficial scrutiny.

Cheers

Don

"None of the above."

I have been wanting this for years together with a compulsory vote (but a way to do this so were not into fascist territory).

For every person who does not want to vote because it makes no difference - perfect.

But what do we do when we have "50% None of the above" ?

What I love about the MP expenses is it does fulfill the "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" mantra they have been using while removing our civil liberties and squandering billions on ID cards that will reduce them further and have no effect on real criminals.

So "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" then let's make the freedom of information act stronger should anyone be able to request any information - NO I want my privacy (can you imagine the amount of spam/junk mail - or other people going through your work/medical/tax records).

Freedom / Privacy /Security must work together but the operations of these must be totally open. And when laws are introduced they should be done in consideration not knee jerk, and have defined boundaries (Why were anti terrorism laws used to snoop on people putting out the wrong recycling), or arresting pensioners at Labour party conferences etc.

And one I discovered - If a police officer tells you to "Shut up" or "Keep quiet" if you don't and "theoretically that could include saying OK in respones" then you can be arrested.

I discovered this after I made a complaint when I saw excessive force being used by a police officer to a person objecting to there ticketing a bike (not theirs) that was (from what I saw legally parked), missed the middle of the argument but saw a female office slam a guy in suit against a wall (hard) then 6 oficers jump out of a van, what happened made me put in an official complaint. The response I got was - she arrested him for answering back, he walked away - so she used appropriate force!
Yes we are in a police state

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

take my mrs for instance, she work`s in central london for local government/trading standard`s has to pay for the train/tube ticket out of her own pocket which is £6000 + a year so get`s less than half of their pay. So them needing expenses, extra income is a complete load of BOLLOCK`S.

Your missus works until midnight and catches the first train home at 05:30 in the morning does she?

Or perhaps she does a decent days work and catches the train home at about six o'clock.

I don't think your comparison stands even superficial scrutiny.

Cheers

Don

15 hour day`s mostly, and i would not call what half of they do work

quote:

Your missus ...

That sounds like a version of Tory MP Andrew MacKay & his "they're jealous ..." BS Don.

Nine cabinet members used taxpayers' money to pay for personal accountancy advice

I'm grateful a newspaper of The Daily Telegraphs calibre is published!

quote:

I'm grateful a newspaper of The Daily Telegraphs calibre is published!

So am I. ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by Stuart M:
"None of the above."
....

But what do we do when we have "50% None of the above" ?

Answered already in an early post from me ...

Posted Mon 11 May 2009 19:59 by GFFJ

"None of the above."

If the "None of the aboves" formed the largest single block of votes than all the candidates selected by their sponsering parties would be rejected and a new election of a different set of candidates should be sprung following deselection of the existing crew and selection of a new collection more worth voting for.

Quite easy and a perfectly respectable way of clearing away rubbish from the party lists of candidates.

ATB from George

quote:

15 hour day`s mostly, and i would not call what half of they do work

Well it takes time to fill in all those expenses forms.

I was unaware that the information drip-fed by the Telegraph was going to make it into the public domain anyway. Somehow, I doubt that it would have had the full tree-shaking impact of the last few days.

A salary of £64k sounds like a lot to me, but putting it delicately, I bet this would be a low figure for many of the people posting on here. In a normal mixed outgoings (kids, cars, mortgage) household, £64k would struggle to allow for, say, a Naim 500 system.

I was looking at the breakdown of expenses on the BBC news site and a good 30% were claiming £23083 in second home allowance, obviously the maximum allowable. You can imagine the new boy rolling up at Westminster and being introduced to how it all works. Salary £64k, plus, plus. It’s hardly surprising that so many would go with the flow.

If most MP’s are the self-serving bunch of freeloaders that they now appear to be, then my own faith in the fundamental decency of people is being shaken. Yes, they were taking more than the salary, yes it needs to be more consistent and open. For sure there are some arrogant individuals who need to understand they serve rather than rule. But it was always this way.

The troubling part is that we now look likely to turf out anyone who claimed anything now defined as unacceptable (must admit some of it is pretty hard to swallow) and replace them with . . . well it could be some semi-retired broadcasters who don’t really need the money darling.

If the prevalence of apparent corruption was indicative that the type of person interested in office differs from the rest of humanity, then we will merely turn them over for a fresh bunch of spongers. Reality is surely that most people are motivated by a desire to do good and be respected.

The stuffy tory who was mocked for saying that people were envious of him was probably partially right. The fact is that we need, even in a recession, to accept that some people get paid quite a lot of money for short term contract jobs that have suited our country for rather a long time. To suit our requirement for transparency in all things (was this part Naim’s fault?) we need the figures to be available for scrutiny.

Mind you, there does seem to be an awful lot of MPs. Do we need quite such a large system in such straightened times? Or would that mean us all going passive?

Alastair

quote:

I was unaware that the information drip-fed by the Telegraph was going to make it into the public domain anyway.

Not true!
The information to be published (after months of obstruction by the House of Commons authority)
will have much crucial information removed, most importantly which properties MPs claims relate to.

quote:

The stuffy tory who was mocked for saying that people were envious of him was probably partially right.

I don't think so. I see the public anger being due to the inequity of their situation compared to MPs,
& the perfectly reasonable question of how they got their pile.

We have learned MPs claimed for maintenance of moats & swimming pools, mortgage interest payments after the mortgages had been paid off, duck islands, etc., while many people can't afford basics such as heating, food, etc.
All MPs had to sign a declaration with every claim to the effect that

"I confirm that I incurred these costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily to enable me to stay overnight away from my only or main home for the purpose of performing my duties as a Member of Parliament."

These MPs are clearly untrustworthy & corrupt.

CORRECT

quote:

The troubling part is that we now look likely to turf out anyone who claimed anything now defined as unacceptable

Doesn't trouble me - get rid of them, I say. It's good to have a high turn-over of MPs, it's damage limitation IMHO - not sure why they should be given a large pension either.

Totally agree we don't need lots of MPs, Euro-MPs, Council Leaders, devolved MPs ...... but then again if we didn't who'd ride on the Gravy train.

ATB Rotf

quote:

You can imagine the new boy rolling up at Westminster and being introduced to how it all works. Salary £64k, plus, plus. It’s hardly surprising that so many would go with the flow.

Well said. I think it was even more clear than that. The new boy was TOLD that expenses up to c.£24k were PART OF HIS SALARY and despite the statement "I confirm that I incurred these costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily to enable me to stay overnight away from my only or main home for the purpose of performing my duties as a Member of Parliament." he was TOLD to claim it.

I detect an awful lot of hysterical jealousy on this forum, fuelled by the Telegraph. Gives a glimps of anarchy, IMHO. Not much different to a lynch mob. Sad really.

£64k is s decent salary and £24k a reasonable amount to arrange a second home or lodgings up in London. Inevitably there will be many others (ie not MPs) getting less than this, tough! Put yourself (or the missus) up for Parliament. There should be few vacancies soon. Equally, as indicated by Alastair, there are many on this forum no doubt eraning more - £64k isn't exactly earth-shattering!

If anybody is suspected of breaking the LETTER of the law surrounding MP's expenses, they should be investigated and if appropriate, prosecuted.

If somebody wants to spell out the SPIRIT of the law as (NOW) required by their party, or society, (eg Brown or Cameron), fine - SPELL IT OUT NOW- and give MPs the opportunity to comply retrospectively (ie pay back).

Cheers

Don

Abstracted from my local MP's web-site

I have therefore claimed a total of £6,873.87 out of an available allowance of almost £100,000.00 over 4 years.
Once the receipts have been published, if any constituent would like me to explain any individual purchase I am more than willing to do so. I have never claimed any money from any allowance without accompanying paperwork.
My view on the current system of MP’s expenses is one of total exasperation. Like many people, MP’s work long hours and most do it for the right reasons. We need total transparency in how MP’s are rewarded.”

I agree with him. For this reason and many others, I will be voting for him next time round, even if it turns out that his £6,873.87 includes the odd Kit-kat or duck house.

Cheers

Don

Heaven help the general population of the UK if the current trend for retrospective legislation as being applied to MP’s expenses is applied to the population in general.

eg the introduction of traffic monitoring by camera and checking of number plates etc enables the authorities (whoever they are) to monitor driving speeds. If at some point in future it is decided that the new speed limit is to be 50 mph then drivers recorded of driving faster than 50mph in the previous period of time will be prosecuted.

I am not impressed with the way that some of the MPs have behaved re expenses – however I do have some sympathy for those that were given the all clear to claim when they investigated the legitimacy of the claim and are now finding that the “court of public opinion” has judged them to be at fault and are now being punished.

quote:

Heaven help the general population of the UK if the current trend for retrospective legislation as being applied to MP’s expenses is applied to the population in general.

What is being applied is not retrospective legislation but rather the cool light of day on a rather dark, rather grubby little secret, which without the Telegraph's worthy intervention would likely as not - if the MPs had had their way - have remained a secret, in part if not whole, indefinately.

Nothing could be healthier. Some MPs have somehow managed to employ the conscience and common sense and made the most admirably well controlled claims for expenses.

The fact the some have got it right really rather puts a question mark over the judgement of those who have not.

If none had got it right the situation would be much simpler ...

ATB from Goerge

quote:

... he was TOLD to claim it.

So if an MP is told to break the law that's OK?
I can't help but wonder if MPs would jump off a cliff if so instructed!
Would you commit an illegal or immoral act if someone told you it was OK Don?
Brings to mind the 'electrocution' experiments by Stanley Milgram.
Perhaps this is a way forward - prospective MPs are 'told' "you should commit this crime (or immoral act),
it's OK" by a person in apparent authority.
Only those that 'refuse' pass the test & are considered to have the moral fibre required for public office.

quote:

... retrospective legislation ...

This is no such thing. MPs trousering vast sums in expenses for frivolous items such as mote/swimming pool maintenance, mock Tudor beams, duck islands etc. has become public knowledge,
despite their best efforts to keep it quiet.
MPs have claimed for these things whilst declaring ...
I confirm that I incurred these costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily to enable me to stay overnight away from my only or main home for the purpose of performing my duties as a Member of Parliament.
... & it is this that this has bought them into disrepute,
along with clear cases of fraud such as claiming for paid-off & non-existent mortgages.

Let us remember these MPs have authority over issues like taking us to war.
Is it wise to give that sort of power to people who can't differentiate between right & wrong?

quote:

So if an MP is told to break the law that's OK?

errr...the whole point is that in most cases they aren't breaking the law. The rest of your point is therefore irrelevant.

As I said before, those who have broken the letter of the law, should be prosecuted.

Cheers

Don