MP's expenses released

[MadduckUK]

when he went crazy or in the pic?

[CaseyV9]

But how is paying MP's mortgages covered in the expenses?
And some on a second Home? When you think of all the people who cannot even afford there own mortgages and MPs make the poor pay for theirs.

It doen't make sense. It's just plain corrupt. They should be paid a wage like every worker. And the expenses should purley be paid for work related stuff. Compared to most people they are living in luxury. Well above what they probably need to live comfortably.

[Tzarbo]

What still bafles me though out of the whole thing is the amount that are still employed. Surely those that have payed back the money are admitting thier guilt? And despite what expences have been passed, luxurys were against the rules of the expences.

No, you see, this is the whole point.

They were, for the most part, within the rules. The issue is that the rules were made by the MPs themselves, and MPs were milking the rules for all they could get.

In the cases so far fraud has not been committed. The law has not been broken. The rules, even, have not been broken.

The rules need changing and MPs have shown themselves to be greedy pigs with their snouts in a trough they made. This is bad.

Corrupt though... probably not. It's more a case of people who should be of the highest moral standing showing themselves to be the type who will not wait a heartbeat to throw the spirit of the rules away, and act to the letter of the rules, to milk the system.

Things may change, but at the moment, you will not see the Flying Squad taking MPs down the slammer.

[santa claus]

when he went crazy or in the pic?

In the pic . I liked him though. He was mad .

[TAKTAK]

Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Nah, he should be shadow secretary...


i'll get my own coat...

[MadduckUK]

I liked him though. He was mad .

i think it was being mad that made him crazy

[CaseyV9]

Ask Martin Bell And Micheal White

[Andy3536]

No, you see, this is the whole point.

They were, for the most part, within the rules. The issue is that the rules were made by the MPs themselves, and MPs were milking the rules for all they could get.

In the cases so far fraud has not been committed. The law has not been broken. The rules, even, have not been broken.

The rules need changing and MPs have shown themselves to be greedy pigs with their snouts in a trough they made. This is bad.

Corrupt though... probably not. It's more a case of people who should be of the highest moral standing showing themselves to be the type who will not wait a heartbeat to throw the spirit of the rules away, and act to the letter of the rules, to milk the system.

Things may change, but at the moment, you will not see the Flying Squad taking MPs down the slammer.

So claiming £800 a month for a mortgage already paid isn't fruad?

And according to Charles brandrith on the one show the rules do say that the ridiculous luxury items claimed shouldn't have to some extent. Although maintenance on the homes and food to £400 are aloud. Not sure it say's anything about cleaning moats or adding mock tudor beams, or gardening though.

I really looking foward to seeing the daily mails private prosecutions taking some of these ****s down.

[TAKTAK]

Morley still hasn't been able to leave his house yet, so he's decided to go on holiday for a few days...

I wonder who's paying for that

[Butuz]

No, not really,.

Ya rly

(sorry couldn't resist)

If your boss said "photocopier needs a new toner cartridge. Nip down to Office World and buy one" you wouldn't expect to pay for it out of your own salary, would you?"

No - I'd say, allow me a few working days to get three seperate quotes. I'd then pick the best quote and submit it to finance (for the boss to eventually sign). Might take a week or two (or four). Apparently because I spend public money I have to make sure I get best value. This means I have to waste countless hours getting quotes from companies I 'know' won't offer me "best value" just to tick political boxes, when in actual fact my professional judgement would have got us the best value quote in under an hour from just one company (after I beat the ***t out of their prices, of course).

If he said "you need to go to the New York office for a week on business", you'd expect to be able to claim the flights and hotels, and if you're like me, you'd expect to be able to claim the cost of eating out while there. So should MPs.

The slight difference being - if went to my boss and said I need to spend a few weeks per year in new york, I wan't you to either buy me a nice condo, or just pay 10% of my new york mortgage, pay all my living costs including wine every night and caviar every morning for breakfast, and I want a 60" plasma TV and SKY+ HD with all the porn channels - I'd get my P45 sharpish. I have to justify everything based on what benefit it actually brings to the company - tell me Saracen - what benefit does cat/dog food bring to the houses of parliament?

And out of interest Saracen - you pay your own money to eat at lunch time (from the canteen, or whatever) and you would also pay your own money to eat in the evening, be it the cheapest Tesco value pie and chips, or the nearest 5 star resteraunt. Why exactly should your food be paid for when your away on business, when at all other times you would be paying for it??

That's the problem. The expenses SYSTEM has been used to supplement income, and many of them have ended up treating it like an entitlement, rather than as a way to reimburse genuine expenses incurred.

Salary is supposed to be remuneration for your time and expertise in doing the job. Expenses are supposed to reimburse you for costs you necessarily incur in doing it, if you pay for them yourself. Sadly, that's not the way it's been run, and that, IMHO, is why people are so angry.

Whilst giving MPs a pay rise to £90k would have caused a stink, it'd be nothing like the stink this scandal has caused, by paying them (in round figures) £65k in salary, and topping it up to £90k (or whatever) using expenses as a back door pay rise.

No argument there!

Butuz

[MadduckUK]

tell me Saracen - what benefit does cat/dog food bring to the houses of parliament?

Jacqui Smith gets gets her nutrients and keeps her glossy coat

[Saracen]

Oi, stop lording it. You were right, that should be enough .

Too good an opportunity for an "I told you so". I mean, a chance like this is a once-in-a-lifetime type of thing.

Spot on. Next election I will be voting Saracen

Oh Dear Lord , please no. Anything but that. I might just win, and think what that would do to my reputation.

On two grounds:-

1) What have I done to you you to deserve a fate like that?

2) In the rather unlikely event that I might just win and end up running things, then you'd really have something to moan about?

[Saracen]

So claiming £800 a month for a mortgage already paid isn't fruad?

Surprisingly, it might not be, no. And note I said might not be.

If you are to charge, let alone convict, you need a specific charge, "fraud" being catch-all description rather than a specific offence .... or at least, it was last time I looked.

The offences to which it refers all involve an element of dishonesty. And that, generally, requires an element of intent, that is, that the accused intended to make the claim. The problem is, the prosecutors have to prove that. So the question is .... can they? If, for instance, the individual simply carried on filling in forms as they had been for ages, or submitting regular photocopies, or had them prepared by staff and just signed them, then it might just be mistake. And if it's "mistake", then the element of dishonesty required for a fraud conviction would be absent.

So, if prosecutors don't feel reasonably sure they can prove the elements they need to prove to establish fraud, they're not likely to even charge him.

However much we, an outraged public, might regard the notion that it was a "mistake" as ludicrous, righteous indignation won't (or shouldn't, anyway) secure a conviction. And if it doesn't, then it wasn't fraud.

[Saracen]

But how is paying MP's mortgages covered in the expenses?
And some on a second Home? When you think of all the people who cannot even afford there own mortgages and MPs make the poor pay for theirs.

It doen't make sense. It's just plain corrupt. They should be paid a wage like every worker. And the expenses should purley be paid for work related stuff. Compared to most people they are living in luxury. Well above what they probably need to live comfortably.

Well, the "mortgage" thing is a bit misleading. It's ONLY available on the second home, for a start. So MPs own homes aren't, in theory anyway, taxpayer subsidised at all .... other than via a public-purse paying MPs salary.

So the allowance relates to second homes. And the second homes are, in theory, required because the MP needs two homes - one near Parliament, and one in their constituency. So given that they have to live in two places, they shouldn't need to foot the bill for the place only needed because they spend so much time in London.

And even then, it's the interest element of the mortgage that was paid. The capital element is not claimable. So the taxpayer isn't buying the second home for the MP, but merely paying the cost of financing. The MP pays the bit that actually buys the place personally.

And it may well be, if we did the sums, that funding it that way works out cheaper than paying for a rented property, and very likely cheaper than staying in hotels.

The problem, of course, is that on a repayment mortgage, in the early years, the vast bulk of the mortgage payment is interest and very little capital. That reverses over the duration of the mortgage. The second problem is that the MP can designate which home is "second". So they can do up one place, switch the designation, and do up the other one. Then sell the first one, buy a new place, and get taxpayer help to do that one up too. Moreover, they'll get help with the cost of legal fees on buying, get stamp duty on the transaction paid for them, and even get exempted from Capital Gains Tax when they sell. That deal is a property developer's dream scenario.


Oh, and I sense a degree of resentment at the fact that MPs are paid what most people would regard as damn good money, i.e. about £67k a year. But compare that to NHS hospital Chief Execs being paid £170k and MPs start to look distinctly underpaid. And then when you see council leaders on £200K and more, well ......

And I'm not making those figures up.

[Saracen]

The slight difference being - if went to my boss and said I need to spend a few weeks per year in new york, I wan't you to either buy me a nice condo, or just pay 10% of my new york mortgage, pay all my living costs including wine every night and caviar every morning for breakfast, and I want a 60" plasma TV and SKY+ HD with all the porn channels - I'd get my P45 sharpish. I have to justify everything based on what benefit it actually brings to the company - tell me Saracen - what benefit does cat/dog food bring to the houses of parliament?

Where on earth do you get the idea that I think cat or dog food is a valid expense for an MP? I'm NOT suggesting that I think everything these muppets have been claiming for is justified. But by the same token, just because some things aren't justified, that doesn't mean none of it is.

Personally, if I'm asked to go on a business trip, I expect the firm to pick up the costs of going on it .... or I'm not going. And I don't expect to eat like royalty, but I don't expect to survive on dry bread and milk either.

And out of interest Saracen - you pay your own money to eat at lunch time (from the canteen, or whatever) and you would also pay your own money to eat in the evening, be it the cheapest Tesco value pie and chips, or the nearest 5 star resteraunt. Why exactly should your food be paid for when your away on business, when at all other times you would be paying for it??

I have a "regular" place of work, a base. If I'm at that base, I get to buy my own food. If I'm sent away from that base, and incur costs as a result, I expect to get them paid for me.

As for evening meals, if I'm at home, I have access to a kitchen and all the bits and pieces necessary to cook myself (or my family and myself) a meal. If I'm away, I don't have access to that. So if I want a reasonable hot dinner, the odds are I'm going to end up in a restaurant and there is therefore a cost attached to that that I ONLY incur because I'm away on business. If I opt for a Tesco pie, or fish and chips, I get reimbursed for that fish and chips. But I'm not going to exist on a three week trip eating fish and chips every night. I expect decent, healthy food.

So I expect an expense account dinner in a reasonable restaurant, subject to a reasonable limit on expenditure. But whatever that bill comes to, subject to that limit, my claim is what I paid out. Not more, and not less.

Sometimes, though, it'll be a fairly large sum, because sometimes, the only restaurant available, or practical, is the hotel restaurant, and they frequently aren't cheap. But if I've done a long day, I'm not going to spend ages hunting down the cheapest eatery in order to save a few quid. I don't spend extravagant sums for the sake of it, but sometimes, it happens.

But in any event, it's still all about reimbursement for costs ONLY incurred because the company wanted me to go on a trip. And as I said, if they won't pay that, well, that's fine with me. Get someone else to go.

[Tzarbo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8052709.stm

Hmmm, seems it's worse than even the mess it was a few days ago.

It's the fuzz!

I take it all back, they will all be hanged. Probably in the electric chair.