大象传媒

Nick, what can you say. They just need to do the right thing and stop abusing the system

Well well, aren't hair-shirts in fashion today.

Of course, neither of these proposals will reduce the opportunities for MP's to line their pockets at the tax-payers expencse.

If they genuinely did, they wouldn't stand a chance of getting through, unless the party leaders have suddenly developed the ability to hypnotise dozens of people simultaneously.

In truth, these have only seen the light of day because tens of thousands of people are on strike today. Even MP's are starting to realise that being able to claim plasma screen TV's and Bathrooms on expenses looks a little greedy when in the real world, people are withdrawing their labour due to below inflation pay rises .


This issue wont go away until MP's expenses are clear, transparent, honest, provable, (i.e. supported by receipts,) and morally and ethically justifiable.

And that won't happen in this life.

Is this a balanced presentation of the issues?

Really?

all we need now is for 'extremesense' to come in and tell us this problem of MPs expenses could easily be sorted out with just a little bit more taxation and preferably on the rich.

When are NewLabour apologists going to realise the argument for higher taxes has been conclusively lost? It was systematically stamped into the mire whne Ed Balls shouted "So what?" to higher taxes at PMQs. Sadly, having the comment removed from Hansard only compounded the dear man's conceit.

The contempt this governmant has for the electorate and the contempt NewLabour apologists have for anyone who dares to question their wonderful economy (with its collapsing banking system, broken tripartite structure, bloated public services, rising inflation and unemployment and creaking infrastructure) explains why their popularity has hit all time lows.

The idea the 'tory' (?) bloggers try to flood this site is a misnomer - the 75% anti-government posts are merely a representative sample of the current state of the opinion polls.

NewLabour apologists will have to get used to the fact they are a minority.

If a kettle or fridge are required "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" for an MP to perform his parliamentry duties then it is quite right for the taxpayer to foot the bill.

If not then claiming for them is fraud and/or theft.

Always has been, will continue to be.

I have a number of FoI requests in various departments trying to find out why a blind eye has been turned to this corrupt behaviour.

I'm getting a little bored by all the trolls (like #3) on your blog Nick, it makes discussion almost impossible.

Cameron has to do a root and branch reform of MPs expenses. He can take the initiative here. New Labour woodentops will do nothing, so come on David let's see some action.

#3 -

To what do you object? How is this unbalenced?

Nick's blog seems to highlight the fact that both sides have offered a solution that is partial to the circumstances of their own MP's.

The only lack of balence I could imagine would be to suggest that either will stop taxpayer money being squandered. It doesn't.

why is it not possable to have a national vote of no confidence in the goverment, and get them out! as for the conservitives! well they are just sitting on the fence, they will say and do everything better than labour just to get in,Its all a joke, everyone moans yet nothing is being done, there is more of us than them, are they not running the country in the best interest of us, does anyone know where robin hood is?

5. At 11:22am on 16 Jul 2008, the-real-truth wrote:
鈥淚f a kettle or fridge are required "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" for an MP to perform his parliamentry duties then it is quite right for the taxpayer to foot the bill.
If not then claiming for them is fraud and/or theft.
Always has been, will continue to be.
I have a number of FoI requests in various departments trying to find out why a blind eye has been turned to this corrupt behaviour.鈥�


Answer, no blind eyes are being turned because the rules (such as they are) are being followed.
The problem is that the rules lack definition.

For example, the last Prime Minister bought his constituency house for 拢30,000, which is what it was worth at the time.

At a time when it was worth 拢150,000, he took out an Interest Only mortgage of 拢300,000, twice the real value of the house.
At 6%, this would have cost 拢18,000 p.a. which he claimed on expenses. The portion of the mortgage that he took out to buy the house would have cost only 拢1,800 p.a. meaning he was stinging the taxpayer for 拢16,200.

What did he do with the 拢270,000 he realised from a house which was only worth half that, and even today is only worth 拢230,000?

If he invested it in an 8% notice account, he would be earning 拢24,000 p.a. gross, although he would have to declare it and pay tax at his highest marginal rate. Even when taxed, he would still be gaining a net income of 拢14,400 p.a. for absolutely nothing.

According to the rules, he was doing nothing wrong.

The rules are full of holes.

It doesn't matter which party this applies to. I can't see any MP lying down and letting us take his/her "perks" away without question. The fact that Labour MP's are saying that they need their John Lewis list more than the Conservatives because they don't earn as much is pure eye wash! How many jobs can you think of where the expense account is three times the salary? They are all doing very nicely, thank you.

The truth of the matter is, that these people don't have one ounce of sincerity or morality between them. They care very little about Joe Bloggs struggling at the pumps, while they go to JL and get their plasma screens and I'm sure they will fight tooth and nail to make sure they keep it.

#4, RobinJD, errrrrr, well, ok then, start taxing the very rich who get away with paying less tax than their cleaners.

Sorry, that's facaetious, as I know where you're coming from.... this, call it a recession for the sake of argument (it is in some significant sectors if not yet by definition), is hitting the majority of people in this country including higher rate tax payers or the upper ends of the 'struggling classes'.

The taxation I refer to follows the recommendations that Vince Cable has been making for some time - I'm no 'New Labour' apologist. In fact, I loathed them from the word go and can't wait to see the back of them.

Anyway, I digress, MPs need to claim expenses like anyone else working for a living but only if expenses are incurred. Frankly I can't see, rich or poor, why an MP can't fill out an expenses form like the rest of us - they certainly seem to have plenty of administrative support.

What's more, can't the government simply invest in MPs apartments - and furnish them functionally? Property is meant to be a bit of a steal at the moment. A company I used to work for had them at all it's major global locations and I actually preferred this arrangement to a hotel.

#4, RobinJD, I meant to say that I haven't found everything dreadful under this government (my personal experience is that hospitals for one have improved) although I am concerned that we will bear the cost of any improvements for many years to come (eg - PFI).

In 2003, James Purnell claimed 160,000 pounds in rent for a terraced house in Tameside. Discuss.

#12

Vince Cable = Superhero.

#10 very good point. But it's the little amounts claimed that really annoy me.

I spent all my working life in a job where I was never able to claim expenses for anything - so perhaps I'm a bit jealous of those who do. Now I'm a pensioner and having to watch the pennies, I'm probably even more envious.
None the less, I think that when a very wealthy MP expects me, and every other taxpayer, to pay for her windows to be cleaned each month, then I think it nothing short of a national scandal ... I'm sure I can be alone in my anger

There was a story going round that GB sub-let a property he was claiming for on expenses.

UglyJohn #10

It sure does pay to be a lawyer and to know a good accountant!

Note the deafening silence from 99.99% of MPs about their fantastic pensions, subsidised restaurants, free London parking, business 'opportunities' etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad inf.

#10 UglyJohn

I suspect you haven't actually read the rules.

MPs are responsible for ensuring that their claims are for items "wholly, exclusively and necessarily...".

If they have not so ensured then they are in breech of the rules.

As noone in parliament is responsible for ensuring that this rule is complied with, an MP will never be challenged on it - however it is still a breach.

I expect my FoI request to culminate in a whole raft of complaints to the Standards Commissioner.

Come on Nick, let's have a little balance here.

You talk about Labour MPs complaining about wealthy Tories who can afford big houses.

Remind me which party Mr Blair represented? You know, the same Mr Blair who bought a multi-million pound property in London?

What about the MP whose husband mysteriously paid their mortgage, and who was presumably sufficiently wealthy that the odd 拢300,000 here or there went unnoticed?

Last I heard Lord Falconer wasn't short of a bob or two either. It's not just Tories who can be wealthy you know.

Were MP's like the rest of us mere mortals when working away from home they would, if lucky enough, receive a subsistance allowance tax payable for accomodation and maybe food, however it would normally be rented furnished accomodation and any niceties to make it more homely would be at ones own expense.
So to these people who are part of the biggest ego trip in the country, I would have said the world but there is the European Parliament, you are all public servants and should have no preferential treatment or unwaranted perks unless those are also available to every person in the country.

So GB get your party to wake up and smell the roses, if you don't stop the gravy train there is this thing called the electorate that will.
Having said that this is just another nail in the government's coffin.

To DC well done but must try harder.

I've just watch Harriet Harman on the subject of MP's expenses.

What's completely shocking is that some MP's (on both sides of the house) - don't even think it's an issue!

She obviously reads the post she gets from her constituents - but clearly other's don't.

I can hear one of them now talking about how "his constituents don't expect me to sleep on the floor"
I can't identify this idiot, but this is the stupidity which they are discussing this matter.
Have you asked them?
I would be happy for my MP to sleep on the floor, then perhaps they would have an understanding of what it's like to many of their homeless constituents.

Really - arguments based on such twaddle are designed to waste time and move the discussion away from the original point.

Out of touch? - my god, I think there are rocks on Neptune which are more in tune with the public sentiment.

It's funny how one MP requested that they "stop talking about this matter and get back to the real problems of my constituents"
I don't know who that monkey represents, but obviously he must be in an affluent area if no-one cares that the government is spending everyones hard earned taxes on John Lewis gear.

Even that part of the argument - why John Lewis? I'm sure an Argos or Asda list would be perfectly acceptable - and then perhaps they would be more in line with their constituents.

Seriously - how much more of this do we have to put up with?

17#

There was a story going round that David Cameron, he of the 拢26 million familly fortune claimed 拢21,000 (max allowed 22000)in interest payments from the tax payer, for his "third" home mortgage. This was not for his 拢750,000 constituency residence or his other property in Oxfordshire but his Notting Hill house.

Oh wait a minute this isn't a Story!!!

Same old snout in trough Tories!

while we're on the subject of political parties, I have a friend who insists that technically it is illegal for a Member of Parliament to be a member of a political party too. Is there, or has there ever, been any truth to this? If this was true it would be too delicious for words... it would make every non-independent MP an outright criminal (rather than just untrustworthy generally) and that would be the funniest thing I've heard in ages...

I can't find anything on the internet about it either way, and I figure if anyone would know of this - or know where to look - 大象传媒's political editor would. Go on Nick, it'll be a fun way to kill an afternoon, surely? And think of the glee you could bring to bear asking the Chief Lord of the Treasury (i.e. Gordon Brown) at his next press breifing about when he plans to resign from the Labour party...

Labour, Conservative, and Liberals aka poppycock, baldadash and piffle.
Agreeing to disagree on ripping off the taxpayer.
I guess I'm just dreaming here but wouldn't it be more economic and simpler to house all of our MPs in a London tower block?
When they retired or, " heaven forbid" were voted out they could return to there first homes!
Then simply re-decorate the vacated flat with some quality London Borough Council magnolia paint and get it ready for the next one.
They could replace the John Lewis list with the woolworth/dixons list, for furnishings. Shopping at Lidls/Aldi for all there quality nosh wouldn't go amiss either.
With easy access to the "user friendly London uderground" they could commute to work with all the other mere mortals, arriving relaxed and refreshed at there destination ready for a hard days work.
They cannot tax my dreams. Yet!

Expenses are a symptom of the fact that any government with a large majority over more than one term loses touch with the voters and their concerns. They do what they like and become arrogant. The Tories did and now Labour.

The problem would be indirectly resolved by a fairer voting system that reflected the aspirations of the largest possible percentage of the public instead of the smallest.

But in the meantime I am glad the media is helping keep the pressure on them to clean up as I don't see the voting system changing anytime soon.

Why does no commentators ask the MP's directly why they believe they should be treated any differently than the rest of us who have to stick to rules eminating from the Inland Revenue in respect to expenses.
Off course MP's whose constituencies are outside the M25 should have expenses to live in or near London but why are they making a song and a dance about providing receipts for any expenditure they make. All the rest of us have to in order to stick to the Inland Revenue rules.

leics-shane.

There is a perfect location - the old GLC building in Westminster.

5 mins walk.

I think the government (or Westminster council) already own the building and it's empty.

Strange that such a great solution lies on the doorstep and not one of the blithering, waffling idiots can see it.

I would have no complaints if an MP was given a flat in this building to conduct business. The overall cost to the tax payer would be so much less than 600 odd seperate claims for varying amounts depedning on how 'bent' the MP is.

Nick - could you suggest this to them please?
I will try to do the same by shouting as I ride past the 'house of wasted money' on my bike on the way home.

....oops, can't do that - would count as a 'protest' and as it's within 3 miles of Westminster it would be punishable by arrest.

Good old Democracy - protecting the rights of citizens (as long as they have money and power already)

So the upshot is that they do away with a John Lewis list and just let people claim whatever they want instead.

Great thinking from labour there, and a perfect example of why they're electorally in so much trouble.

I reckon they should keep it simple; have some kind of sliding-scale where the further away their constituency is, the more they get added to their salary, and then just leave it up to them what they spend that extra money on (commuting costs, mortgage, new kettle etc).

They do genuinely need/deserve some kind of additional payment when their constituency is a long way from parliament, I think that's only fair/reasonable.

Having a sliding-scale of payments on the distance between parliament and the constituency would be a great way to do it; the MPs would be happy because they wouldn't need to produce receipts (logic being; "up to you what you use the money for because it's your salary, but we reckon this is what you deserve given the distances involved"), and most reasonable people would just consider it part of their salary and not expect an audit of where it goes.

Psychologically, if the public see that a politician paid for a new tv in their house via expenses then it looks bad. But if they bought a new tv with their salary then nobody would care.

Keep the admin to a minimum as it's a relatively small amount in the grand scheme of things; just keep it simple but fair I reckon. If you do that then the actual total cost to the taxpayer might actually decrease because of the lack of admin needed, normal people would be more willing to want to become an MP, and nobody's fleecing the system.

thegangofone

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your statement.

Expenses are not a symptom of a government in power for too long, this issue is a symptom of a set of people who have to

Lie their way through an election by making promises they can't possibly keep (in order to get elected)

Lie and avoid their constituents so they don't have to explain why they're not doing as promised once in power.

People who cannot get employed unless they broker deals with big business in order to pay for their campaigns - who of course want something in return

People who are already comfortably off and are quite happy to commit the most outrageous hypocrisy and then smother their consience in the only way they know - by lying to themselves.

The day an MP cannot make a vote because he cannot afford the train fare, or the day I see an MP in ordinary clothing, driving an ordinary car - or god forbid, catchin public transport - is the day I will start to believe things are changing.

To date - 1 person from a political background has been seen doing this (and I've seen him on the tube in real life myself).

Who? - Ken Livingstone, that's who.

No matter what you say about him politically - at least he has credibility. Voted into the 2nd biggest job in politics as an independent, and only lost his job because of unfounded, unproven and unimpressive lies by Fat bald Gilligan (no offence Andrew, but you were born a no mates and will die a no mates)

...but the public are much more easily swayed by the opinion of papers - or rather the 61% who actually voted in the last election (the other 40% have already decided their representatives are idiots)

The Labour argument is pathetic but typical of them. Whenever anyone criticises them they always attack with: "it's racist", "it's class warfare", it's because we came from a tough background" "it's because we didn't go to a public school" it's all Mrs Thatcher's fault"-delete as appropriate. But they just don't get it, we will not put up with this abuse of public money any longer.
The more they trough and the longer they ignore public opinion the more seats they will lose at the next General Election.

yeah yeah so MPs get a wacking great expense account...and so do MSPs and Euro MPs as well..always have, always will...

I like the idea of MPs staying in London hotels during the week, its much cheaper than buying a property! - and that great idea about "Halls of Residence" - super!

still, while MPs can claim 拢50 per day in expenses (in line with businesses - but dont ask which ones) to allow them a quote "coffee, a newspaper and a snack" unquote

- which they dont have to account for -

I think they ought realise that, in order to claim Housing and Council Tax benefit you have to earn 拢200 per week or less..or 拢40 per day - BEFORE Tax!

and yes, there are people out there who earn that much a week - and have to buy their own coffee, paper and lunch to boot!

still - who can blame them? everyone knows that most MPs will be out of their seats in two years time..so make hay while the sun shines eh?

sleaze? shome mishtake shurely?

Slight caveat to my last posting...

not all MPs would be happy if using a sliding salary scale dependent on the distance, because the ones who have constituencies in London wouldn't get any expenses at all (and rightly so).

But, it would at least be fair. Mind you, with so many MPs in london being labour ones at the moment, I can't see them adopting that kind of fair approach because they wouldn't be able to fleece the tax payer anymore for their luxuries.

So the situation so far

- in past MPs could claim things on expenses and Commons authorities would decide if the expenses were appropriate or not and approve or reject them

- someone uses FOI requests to investigate expenses and discovered authorities had a list based on prices of items at John Lewis to determine of expenses were justified

- further FOI requests required details of list to be made public to general embarrassment of MPs (and I suspect John Lewis as well as they seem to have become associated with sleaze).

- now Labour want to "solve" the problem (i.e. MPs embarrassment) by abolishing the John Lewis list and letting MPs claim on expenses with commons authorities being able to approve/reject claims

... how long till the authorities decide to draw up a secret list which they'll use to decide if expenditure is justified?

Sounds like "progress" :-)

Just watched Brown on PMQs

Still can't give a straight answer to a straight question.

Has anyone noticed the look on the faces of Harmann et al as he speaks? They give him the look if a terrified parent who thinks their child is about to make another embarrassing blunder.

Still looks like NewLabour will go down to a landslide tory victory.

#21, ThoughtCrime2008, yes, you're obviously right (and let's not forget the substantial Islington property before becoming PM), however, I really don't think TB qualifies as a Labour man - he certainly didn't ever act like one.

In fact, I do believe that Cameron once said he was the man to continue what Blair had started? Mind you, the Conservatives were way behind in the polls in those days.

TheresOnly1Soupey

Democracy is the principle of the equality of rights, opportunity, etc. for all people; political control shared by the populace.

Or in broad terms; We vote them in; they make the rules.
"shared contol"

I wouldn't shout if I were you, you may spend 42 days at a government holiday camp somewhere!
Freedom of speech is permitted anywhere in our beloved democracy; as long as you keep you mouth shut and your opinions to yourself.

#33, jannerlabour, poor old MPs - they were just having a good time and now the electorate want to stop them.

I think we all need to stop being nasty and ruining their fun.

Alternatively, perhaps, rich or poor, they could be made to fill out expenses forms for their expenses and be subject to disciplinary proceedings/dismissal/prosecution if they deliberately try to make fraudulent claims. Is that too sensible?

20. At 12:29pm on 16 Jul 2008, the-real-truth wrote:
鈥�#10 UglyJohn
I suspect you haven't actually read the rules.
MPs are responsible for ensuring that their claims are for items "wholly, exclusively and necessarily...".
If they have not so ensured then they are in breech of the rules.鈥�



I fear you have missed the point of the story.

The MP (or PM) in question could easily say that it is 鈥榳holly, exclusively and necessarily,鈥� etc to have a constituency home. He registered it as his second home. That was his right too.

He could apply to have mortgage payments paid on his home.
That was his right too.

The problem is that he re-mortgaged for ten times the value of the original mortgage and twice the actual value of the house. The rules didn鈥檛 say he couldn鈥檛. They should have.

Interesting comments so far. On the World at one, I think both Chris Hulme and William Hague and another chap said they had never heard of the so called John Lewis list. Having heard Gordon Brown speak it seems he may have. Nick, how likely is it that MPs haven't heard of the John Lewis list? I agree that to claim expenses receipts should be shown. On the second home front what are the rules at present? Why not just have a a research grant type system for every 5 years in office? For research generally the grant budget is split up into wage and the resources for the lab. Out of the second bit comes all the necessary equipment needed for the job. If MPs are a "unique case" as I have heard then why not match them up to the other type of unique case which is University research grants? Make it dependent on how far and how long travel to and from the constituency is then split it across a five year period. So that 1st year get the largest amount and subsequent years get less to cover rent/mortgage. There why not ban second homes and just rent? So there, a lump sum with money claimed via receipts. If money is left over it gets reabsorbed into the countries coffers.

In correspondence my MP talks about his 'profession'. Could this be part of the problem? As any idea of service disappears, perhaps we also lose a sense of honour. Everytime any MP is accused of expenses irregularity they respond that 'it was within the rules'. To most interested observers I suggest this misses the point completely.

The whole thing needs to be scrapped and started again!

It's about time MP's started to live in the real world. If they really want to do the job, let them do it without all the perks. Then we would be able to see who we could trust.

What about MP's needing to buy a second home to be nearer to Westminster and which turns out to be further away from Westminster than the MP's original home? It is time to provide 5 star flats for the use of MP's until they are unelected.
Alternatively MP's must repay the capital gains made on second homes which the country financed.

Poor shelling out. Rant with no real solution or even just a misguided ideology of what MPs are about. I don't really know. I've had some correspondence with my local. I've gone and heard candidates speak. They seem human to me i.e. fallible. Many actually seem from the real world. I agree with #42 that in much of the public sector the idea of necessary service has been lost. Patients aren't treated as patients but service users (this is no joke). We vote in MPs to serve our interests and at some point, especially the cabinet/shadow cabinet, the idea that they will still always be there has been lost. This was in a way highlighted by the recent David Davies by-election. Comments about his career were made. Maybe some how to judge to be a suitable MP you have to be judged that you really aren't doing it for your own gain. Expenses should still be set at how far and time taken to travel. Homes/Apartments can only be rented no second home purchases. 5 year grant based system. Expense forms and receipts.

Dunky_R

So you think that all MP's expenses are bona fide, and they are not out to fleece us all, then? How naive are you.

I think they are probably a bit like all of us. Many of us would wangle the rules to get what perks and enjoyments we can even off expenses (such as a nice meal). There may be some expenses which are not bona fide and probably a few politicians that want to "fleece us all" but probably no more than that happens in business and academia anyway. The rules do need to be tightened. I think the way they voted is wrong and I believe that a receipt based expenses form with a maximum 5 year budget divided per Sitting year would probably be the best thing. I'm just not as paranoid as you Shellingout. MPs are meant to represent us and if we view them as dishonest and out for only themselves then it just reflects ourselves really.

Nick
The only thing I would add to your report - which looks like a balanced report of the party positions to me - is that I would be very worried if I were John Lewis at being associated with this issue.

I know there is no such thing as bad publicity, but surely being associated with a group of people who have fogotten that they are supposed to represent the rest of us and live by the same rules is bad for business!?

When the MPs have a 'Poundstretcher' and 'Aldi' list I think we might be getting the issue into a better place.

#31 TheresOnly1Soupey

Funny that you should attack Andrew Gilligan.

I think he was the guy who said that Blair (therefore all the Cabinet) had approved the sexing-up of the Iraq WMD report.

The guy who was actually right.

And it was the Blair/Brown government who "outed" Dr David Kelly.

That government which failed to insist that a proper inquest was carried out. The Public Enquiry did not do what an inquest would have done - that's to say it did not demand all evidence to be properly challenged.

Medical science says that Dr Kelly could not have died in the way it was described in the original enquiry.

So, although I have no feelings for Gilligan, except to recognise he was the originator of a real - fact-based - story that collapsed the independence of the 大象传媒 under a Labour government, I feel you should be a little circumspect about your attacks.

Brown - having said he would whip this one, didn't, and then - as ever, the coward that he is, didn't even turn up for the vote.

How he thinks it is OK to lie openly to us again and again, god only knows. Time he got impeached, or done for treason, for he has done for this country better than any invader could ever have done.

Off with his head.

Dunky_R

I'm not paranoid. I have several different ideas which I have posted on this, and other blogs, that could be put into practice, such as:-

I think all the constituency houses outside London should be owned by the taxpayer. Then, whichever MP gets voted in could have the use of that house whilst he is MP for that particular area. No mortgage or rent would therefore be claimed. The house would be furnished with reasonable kitchen and bathroom. Again, no claim there, and the taxpayer would benefit from the rise in the house prices, and not the MP at our expense.

I think MP's in London consituencies should be able to get hotel accommodation, but why not turn the old GLC building into suitable accommodation for these people. That way, no hotel expenses for London, as the taxpayer would own it outright. (I'm sure there are other plans afoot for this building and the taxpayer will probably not benefit, whatever it is used for).

MP's and their wives should also get free rail and bus travel (if they don't already) and they should use it! It would stop MP's such as Mr Martin from claiming 拢4000 in cab fares for his wife to do the weekly shopping.

They should not be able to claim for extra food! We subsidise the HoC restaurant enough.

Any other expense should be claimed for in the usual way - with a receipt, and there should be a limit set, depending on where they are and what they are claiming for.

They should not be able to employ members of their families unless they can prove that they are actually working. That would stop MEP's like Mr Cashman from claiming nearly 拢750,000 for his civil partner to be his secretary. This man is grossly overpaid in my view, but you might think he is worth every penny. We may have to agree to differ there.

Now on to other ideas.

I think that if an ambulance has to be called out for someone who is drunk and disorderly, they should have to pay for it. Perhaps that will curb their drinking a bit.

If they attack hospital staff, they should be fined heavily and made to do at least 200 hours community service. If they do it more than once, they should serve a custodial sentence. It is totally unacceptable for hospital staff to be abused in this way and it happens far too often, with no fitting punishment for the assault.

I could go on, but my fingers have cramp. If you think this is paranoid, Dunky, I'll eat my hat! I thought these were very rational ideas, but I know other people will see me as far too radical. We have got to start getting tougher, otherwise we will be taxed even more than we are now to pay for it all.

47: Dunky-R

If we view MPs as dishonest it just reflects on us? Not that old chestnut, the: 'we only get the representatives we deserve' argument. Furthermore, the last thing we need is a version of 'research grant' rules to westminster. Do that and nothing, I repeat, nothing useful will get done. My god: imitate what academics do with public money??? Pheeeweee, let's just throw money away then.

fairlyopenminded

I agree entirely with your comments about Andrew Gilligan and Dr David Kelly. His treatment, and that of his family, was nothing short of appalling.

Gordon Brown, the son of The Manse, is only doing what his Bible tells him to do. " Do unto others before they do one on youi"

Not exactly we get what deserve but at the same time if we vote them in then something is amiss. Before you start on the fact that the electoral system needs an overhaul I know that and it's another discussion altogether. You also need to somehow break the blind "I voted X party always and always will". I am glad that you (@ 51 and 52) put forward ideas. From what I can tell is we agree that the way the MPs voted was wrong and that change is needed. What is the problem of having a capped limit set for a specific period (which is what a grant generally is)? The expense claim process can be so difficult that I actually gave up and used my own cash. I'm sure we wouldn't complain so much if MP's used their own money just because the expense claim process takes a while and is complicated. If each year only so much is available and if not all spent in one year it doesn't get carried over. If the excess is taken back surely that is a good thing. At the moment it seems we are throwing money at them any old how.
I'm not saying that there aren't those who will exploit the system (such as Mr Martin), I'm saying that it's not necessarily all of them and I am saying that most people will exploit any system for their own benefit at some point, even if only a little bit. And when concerning second homes were you meaning within London? It is a good suggestion for the GLC but what of the interim? If the conversion would cost around 拢96million (based on an average house/flat cost of 拢150000 including some furnishings per MP) initially then it may be worth it. But then you would have a yearly maintenance cost of the building (most apartment blocks seem to have a maintenance charge) and also the prospect that the project would go way over budget. I suppose that way at least every MP would have a room to go to. Also there would still be a problem whilst waiting for the change over. At the end all second homes would have to be sold, any gains paid into funding the new building perhaps? Knowing that the odd meeting in the HoC can go way into the wee hours of the morning then hotel sounds reasonable to me (after all in many cases you can make claims for overnight accommodation). In relation to food, well 拢50 a day is a bit steep, from experience the food allowance seems to max out at 拢20 per day. A five year capped, banded expenses per year system would mean that if Mr Martin felt like spending money on taxis he could (yes a waste of money) but then have nothing for anything else). MEP expenses I don't think were being voted on and do need changing. A solution? Even more unlikely.
Employing family members, well as long as the post has been advertised and they actually do the work won't be any different from what I've seen of internal appointments within companies and organisations (i.e. candidate already chosen but have to jump through the hoops). At same time such employment should come out of the expenses packet and could be strictly part time. Need extra funding? Apply for it. Doesn't mean that you will get it.
If the electoral system was different then every general election would be a thorough performance review. Then we could get rid of them.
I don't know about the free bus and rail passes to be honest but it would probably encourage a much needed overhaul of the transport system.
I'm afraid I still think you're paranoid shellingout (not because of your plans for the NHS) but because of your view that because of a few all must follow suit. My experience of working in call centres and retail is that people are fundamentally unreasonable, though unreasonable to different levels and will get what they can for themselves. Why should I expect MPs to be any different? They are human afterall. At the same time I know that as there are different levels of selfishness that not all MPs can be that bad. Finally in the media (on GMTV, on ITV, on the 大象传媒 for example) we get guides on how to avoid tax within the rules or how to exploit certain banking loopholes to get more or generally how to exploit some system for our own benefit. I'm not surprised some have exploited it, I don't believe all will.

Shellingout

Just a bit hard to feel that things are all well in the best of all possible worlds.

I admit that I feel it would be good to take out any governments who oppress their people. (Iraq/Zimbabwe/Burma/etc.)

Problem is to determine where oppression starts and ends.

Blair was supposed to be a barrister. But was happy to see "speculation" evolve into "facts".

If he'd remained a barrister, he could have affected a few people. Take a guess at the outcomes for those few people.

Brown was a part of any decisions. The big-hearted guy who wants to give aid to African despots?

Get out.

Nick,
I fail to understand what is wrong with giving MPs 拢 10/15.000 pay rise and let them do what they want with it scrapping the current system alltogether. They can buy houses, kettles, sex toys or entertain their secretaries (remember a J. Prescott?).
Anything necessary to better perform their duties but at least we don't have to see again that a new elected MP is the top claimant on the very first year of his election and similar disgusting stories.

Re #51 shelling out

"MPs and their families should get free bus/train travel ... it would stop Speaker Martin's wife having to claim 拢4000 in taxi fares"
For Christ's sake, what's wrong with her paying for her own taxi/bus/train fares.. just like my old lady has to do ?

"Labour MPs say to me that it's all very well for a wealthy Tory to claim over 拢20,000 a year in expenses in mortgage payments for a very pricey house that they had a huge deposit for. Labour MPs on the other hand often have smaller homes, pay off their mortgages because they have to, and therefore feel that they need that extra bit of money to pay for a new kettle or a fridge when it breaks down in their second home. You pays your money, and of course in the ballot box, you makes your choice. "

Whilst one may agree that nobody should be excluded from politics on the basis of background or money, Nick, one really has to take offence at the suggestion that Tory supporters such a myself ( from very 'unbecoming' background living on the 'undesirable' side of the Wirral ) are any less "well endowed" than say the deputy leader, chairman and whatever other names the privately schooled harridan in the form of the disgusting disgrace to humanity that is Harriett Harman and the rest of her ilk in Labour HQ in plush residence in Millbank, is quite frankly utterly offensive.

One suggests looking up the following from "You Tube", it is by David Icke, no don't ignore me at the mention of that name you have been told to hate and demonise by your superiors.

Google - " David Icke + Repeaters " on 'YouTube'

Nick Robinson is the icing on the cake of what David is talking about

Nick, yes, absolutely! I fully agree that the issue has now become a vote counter.

The only thing I would like to ask how is it that the Labour MPs are all so poor (as opposed to the rest) and in such a desperate need of extra money to pay for an "extra fridge" etc (with 20 pounds a day they can claim for food)? The MPs are definitely able to afford items such as a bed, a table, a TV and many other items just out of their basic salary. I could easily afford all the basics in London having a well paid (not the MP "well paid" but a well paid nonetheless) salary fully supporting my partner and my business expenses.

"...pay off their mortgages because they have to..." 鈥� what鈥檚 that supposed to mean? We all pay our mortgages because we have to! Try not to do so and you鈥檒l get into all sorts of trouble (unless you鈥檙e a MP, of course). Pray tell, what is the difference between an average MP and an extremely highly skilled professional on the business trip? We all have to make decisions that may cost ridiculous amounts of money.

Gravy Train...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why dont the MP's simply have a Government credit card in their name that they can claim their expenses on.Then at the end of the month they receive a statement from the credit card company,fill in a expense claim form and submit it ,with receipts,to the central accounts department at westminster.They wouldn't even have to do the form filling themselves- they could get their secretaries to do it and just sign the form before it is dispatched to Westminster.Simple.

I dont have time to read peoples posts (work to do!) but surely abolishing all expenses and paying MPs a proper wage is the way forward?

They can then spend the cash on what they like and maybe we would encourage a better quality of MP into the Commons.

Im sure there are pros and cons to it but it appears pretty simple and obvious.

Are we not paying Johnaton Ross more to present a TV show than we pay people to run the Country?

What do we expect.

Who'll pay? Hmmmmm

Well, lets see - remember the Child Benefits data disc loss last November? Two civil servants were blamed, Paul Gray and Stuart Cruikshank.

Paul Gray left HMRC last November with a payoff of 拢137,591 and monthly payments of 拢49,292 which continue until next month. His pension pot amounts to 拢2 million

Stuart Cruikshank left with 拢88,125.

Figures courtesy of The Register (.

These are hardly unique either, and are the reward for taking a fall rather than allow further embarrassment to the government for its failures.

Similar rewards are reflected across the whole public sector, add this to quangos and the several billion wasted via incompetence over tax credits and it starts getting a little easier to see where the money *could* come from.

Perhaps Nick, you could run a story on waste and the pricing for falling on your sword and ask some questions with regard to that?

The answer to this is simple. The MP's should follow the same rules that apply to the rest of us, as dictated by the Inland Revenue. They say what is an allowable business expense and what is not. Anything else would be taxed as a 鈥榖enefit in kind鈥�. Let's have one set of rule for all 鈥� even the for the rule makers.

#64 Interesting comment on HMRC.

Here's an extract from the auditors statement on the accounts for HM Revenue and Customs. Interestingly, the National Audit Office could not say that the books and records that HMRC maintains for the tax credit system gave a true and fair view of the real state of affairs. Here's what they said in relation to errors:

"The Department's latest estimates show that adjustments to awards led to 拢1 billion being overpaid to claimants in 2006-07, compared with 拢1.7 billion in 2005-06. At 31 March 2008, 拢4.3 billion remained to be recovered from claimants, of which 拢1.8 billion was in doubt. As part of its Tax Credits Transformation Programme the Department is evaluating service improvement pilots that are designed to assist claimants who need extra support in making a claim and reporting changes in circumstances. It anticipates that most of these will be implemented by April 2009.

In 2006-07, between 拢1.31 billion to 拢1.54 billion (7.2% to 8.4%) of tax credit entitlement was paid to claimants to which they were not entitled. The Department has now set a target to reduce this to 5% by 2011."

fairlyopenminded.

Here's why I can attack Gilligan (and any other sensationalist journo)

Bad journalists have you worrying about the wrong things. That's why the whole country thinks they will be a victim of knife crime and that every old man is a Paedofile. Meanwhile the most likely danger to the average person is a) getting run over, b)Getting a disease brought on by one of the many 'allowed' poisons in our environment- tobacco, car fumes, radio / mobile phone masts, radiation waste (because I don't know where you think they're putting it all).

However no-one believes that because they are all too busy worrying about things which are very, very unlikely to happen to them (unless you're a non-white teenager in a poor inner city area - not many of whom watch the news or read papers anyway)

You may feel the Dr Kelly story was his villification, but if I remember correctly the Doctor made the comments, probably not realising that they would be quoted and published. I have made comments about my boss like that in the pub, based loosely on truth (but tainted with a casual attitude) - but luckily for me I don't have someone stanidng there with a tape recorder.

....and what did it solve anyway? End of the Iraq war - No, Impeachment of the PM? - no, Labour loosing power? - No.

If MPs say they require these essentials for their second homes, and paid for by the tax payer. What justice does that show to our military servicemen/women.

Its fine for the MPs to claim on expenses for a bathroom or a plasma TV, but on the other hand let our troops buy bullet-proof jackets online, because the MOD cant afford to supply them all with what the require to survive, its just like the shaby living quarters they were assigned to live in, hardly a place for a solder to live in, especially in the UK!.

Double standards!

Its wrong that MPS get more perks than many, they dictate on their own pay increases, and expenses, whilst the rest of us struggle on. Which idiot MP says their job is stressful, im afraid they have no idea, the only place in britain where they can smoke and drink AT work (The committee also recommends that smoking should be permitted in an area at the end of the Lords Terrace abutting the Commons Terrace. Given the usage of the Lords Terrace for the consumption of food and drink, this provision should be reviewed if excessive smoking creates a hazard or offence.



That just shows what sort of politicans we have in power today, We need a clear out of corruption and greed in OUR parliment.

Brownhas2eyes

It was Alan Duncan who said the job of an MP was stressful, and he also said they weren't paid enough. I should have sent him the shirt off my back then!

I don't know if anybody here is old enough to remember "Are You Being Served?" Dear 'Young' Mr Grace would arrive, waving his walking tick and cry "Haven't you done well!" He could say this now to the government, especially the Minister of Health. On the 大象传媒 News I heard, MRSA has actually gone down, then as an afterthought, the more serious Clos.diff infection has gone up. Next we learned that crime has gone down, again another afterthought, gun crime and murders have risen. It's a wonder they didn't announce that so many SAT results have been lost that schools have the highest levels of passes ever - no failures!!!

MPs, on average, have no greater qualifications than the rest of us. In general they are no more intelligent, have no more business experience, are no more trained, have no more knowledge of economics etc. than anyone else. They are, however, gifted in the art of persuasion which got them elected in the first place.

A substantial number of MPs are more wrong than the other side unless all are equally right or equally wrong, in which case why should we care which of them makes the decision?

Why should we pay substantial sums to people with such a record?

We need a basic competence test for would-be MPs. This should not be political, but with such questions as to what continent a particular country is on, which are our major trading partners, what the average UK worker earns etc.

Just don't pay a US company to do the marking.