MPs' Expenses

[Quake42]

As I say, there is a degree of faux outrage about this stuff. Years ago the firm I worked for allowed employees to claim an overnight allowance if they had to stay away from hime. It wasn't very much - £5 or £10 - but people always seemed to claim it. On one occasion I remember a manager refusing to sign off my expenses claim because I *hadn't* bothered with claiming it. MPs are certainly not alone in ensuring they maximise their remuneration.

People need to step back from the huffing and puffing about cat food and toilet seats and look at it dispassionately. As far as I can see the claims seem to fall into four camps:

(1) MPs claiming legitimately for things that are reasonable expenses - for example rent and utilities for a London flat, when their constituency is not within a reasonable commuting distance of Westminster. The rent etc may be expensive, but accommodation in central London is. No action needed here.

(2) MPs claiming legitimately for allowances and expenses which a reasonable person would consider they should fund themselves - for example food, cleaners, gardeners etc. No particular need to castigate the MPs here but the expense system should be reformed so as to disallow such claims going forward.

(3) MPs claiming for small items which are not wholly within the rules, such as tampons for a partner or daughter, bottles of wine, pet food etc. I can't get hugely excited about this, but the fees office clearly needs to scrutinise receipts more closely.

(4) MPs who are abusing the system by having multiple properties renovated by the taxpayer and then pocketing the profit. It's these people who really need to be voted out of office asap, regardless of their party affiliation.

 

[rynner2]

Darling and Hoon among six MPs facing police investigation into 'fraudulent' claims
By Tim Shipman
Last updated at 12:46 AM on 13th May 2009

Six MPs including cabinet heavyweights Alistair Darling and Geoff Hoon could face a police probe over their expenses, it was revealed yesterday.
Scotland Yard have received several complaints from the public about the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary, who stand accused of milking the system to set themselves up as property tycoons.
Both cabinet ministers are accused of ‘flipping’ the designation of their second homes with House of Commons authorities in order to buy, furnish and maintain first one home and then another.

Metropolitan police sources confirmed that they have been asked to look into whether the ministers have committed fraud or are guilty of any other offence.
The Chancellor changed the property on which he claims second homes allowance four times in five years, pocketing £111,000 of public cash in the process.

Mr Hoon was alleged to have built up a £1.7million property empire part funded by taxpayers while living free in a grace and favour home.
The criminal probe will be conducted by the Scotland Yard Specialist Crime Directorate, which has been behind complex political inquiries such as the cash-for-honours and lords-for-hire investigations.

The unit, led by Acting Assistant Commissioner Janet Williams, is expecting the final number of complaints to soar far higher as they are contacted by enraged voters and members of Westminster's political elite.
One police source said: ‘If we receive a complaint we have to consider it. We will be looking at what has been done and the implications within the law. We will also take into account the chances of getting a conviction.’

The third member of the government in the firing line is Tony McNulty, the employment minister, who claimed £60,000 of taxpayers’ money for a house that his parents live in, which is actually further from Westminster than his own home.

Three Labour backbenchers are also the subject of complaints to the police and will face the same probe.

Police are expected to consult the Crown Prosecution Service, whose job it will be to decide whether prosecutions are in the public interest.
It is the second official inquiry into the expenses scandal.

The Inland Revenue is already investigating whether ministers, including Communities Secretary Hazel Blears and Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell, have broken tax laws by designating one property as a second home on their expenses and another in order to dodge capital gains tax.
A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said: ‘We have received a number of complaints which are being considered and not investigated at this time.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... laims.html

 

[seanex]

(1) MPs claiming legitimately for things that are reasonable expenses - for example rent and utilities for a London flat, when their constituency is not within a reasonable commuting distance of Westminster. The rent etc may be expensive, but accommodation in central London is. No action needed here.

(2) MPs claiming legitimately for allowances and expenses which a reasonable person would consider they should fund themselves - for example food, cleaners, gardeners etc. No particular need to castigate the MPs here but the expense system should be reformed so as to disallow such claims going forward.

(3) MPs claiming for small items which are not wholly within the rules, such as tampons for a partner or daughter, bottles of wine, pet food etc. I can't get hugely excited about this, but the fees office clearly needs to scrutinise receipts more closely.

(4) MPs who are abusing the system by having multiple properties renovated by the taxpayer and then pocketing the profit. It's these people who really need to be voted out of office asap, regardless of their party affiliation.

I pretty much agree with this. However, I would be surprised if all of those falling into the fourth group were voted out. If indeed any. It will be those who fall under Quake42's other categories and those who have not abused the system at all in marginal seats who will be damaged the most.

 

[Quake42]

I pretty much agree with this. However, I would be surprised if all of those falling into the fourth group were voted out. If indeed any. It will be those who fall under Quake42's other categories and those who have not abused the system at all in marginal seats who will be damaged the most.

I'd like to see local parties deselecting some of the worst offenders, such as Margaret Moran and the Tory MP claiming for a helipad as a "family joke".

Depressingly, this furore can only benefit the BNP. I would expect them to gain a seat in next month's Euro elections.

 

[seanex]

Unfortunately it probably will :nooo: :sob:

On a similar note did anyone see Norman Tebbit on telly claiming that this will push voters towards the "socialist" BNP. Weird.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

Quake42: " . . . there is a degree of faux outrage about this stuff . . . "

It's real outrage and it is directed against politicians whose sanctimony has been emetic for years. We all know people who fiddle their expenses; we regard them with a mixture of contempt and amusement. Some may sneakily admire their brass necks. What we don't do is elect them to high office or trust them any further than we can throw them.

Can we read anything these MPs say now without prefacing it with their real interests in parentheses? "Mr. X. (claims for unicorn-feed, badger-spade and flowers for own mother's funeral) vowed to get tough on welfare claimants this afternoon . . ."

It is hard at the moment to imagine any positive or progressive outcome from the disorder this will bring to politics but it should not cause anyone to defend an order that was rotten to the core and collapsed on contact with the light of day.

 

[Quake42]

It's real outrage and it is directed against politicians whose sanctimony has been emetic for years. We all know people who fiddle their expenses; we regard them with a mixture of contempt and amusement.

And I think it's reasonable to direct that outrage at those MPs who have actually fiddled their expenses, in particular those who have cynically "flipped" their second home designation repeatedly in order to have multiple properties done up at taxpayers' expense.

However, disgust at these very real abuses seems to be no stronger than the finger-wagging over 30p cans of cat food and the like - the equivalent of takiing a pen from the stationery cupboard. People also seem to struggle to differentiate between the actual scamming and examples of MPs claiming allowances to which they are entitled, but which are bizarre and overly generous, such as the £400 a month groceries payment.

There are some very serious issues here. I just feel that they are in danger of being drowned in trivia.

 

[rynner2]

MPs' expenses in detail

The Daily Telegraph has published details of many MPs' expenses claims over the past four years.

Amid the negative headlines generated by its revelations, there remain MPs from outside London who in the year to April 2008 claimed none, or only a fraction of, the £24,000 second homes allowance designed to cover the costs of them having to be in the capital on parliamentary business. Here are some of them:

etc....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8048215.stm

Is your MP among them? Mine isn't...

 

[Cavynaut]

I just wonder how many of the newspaper editors and owners who are gleefully laying into MP's over this scandal quite happily employ accountants in order to avoid tax etc etc.

Which doesn't make the expenses scandal less disgraceful, it just puts things into perspective. Well, it does for me.

What is it? Payback for 50% tax or a warning?

 

[Quake42]

I just wonder how many of the newspaper editors and owners who are gleefully laying into MP's over this scandal quite happily employ accountants in order to avoid tax etc etc.

Journalists are certainly notorious for abusing expense accounts!

What is it? Payback for 50% tax or a warning?

Quite possible payback for 50% tax. This measure has received far more coverage than it required, largely because senior journalists are one of the few groups who will be affected by it.

 

[Spookdaddy]

I just wonder how many of the newspaper editors and owners who are gleefully laying into MP's over this scandal quite happily employ accountants in order to avoid tax etc etc.

Which doesn't make the expenses scandal less disgraceful, it just puts things into perspective. Well, it does for me...

Me too. I'm sick to death of having to strain to hear through the dense white noise of journalistically induced moral outrage that seems to accompany every story these days. And I know, not being elected representatives and all, that it's largely irrelevant to the present argument, but by Christ I'd love to see a detailed breakdown of the expenses of the journailsts who write this stuff.

For what it's worth, I agree with virtually everything Quake has said on this matter.

On an immediate, visceral level, of course it makes me sick.

However, if the 'system' allows something to happen it's the system that's at fault - change it.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I just wonder how many of the newspaper editors and owners who are gleefully laying into MP's over this scandal quite happily employ accountants in order to avoid tax etc etc.

Which doesn't make the expenses scandal less disgraceful, it just puts things into perspective. Well, it does for me.

I think the big difference is that it's OUR money the MPs are spending and feathering their nests with. This isn't the case with newspaper managers and staff.
This whole affair has pretty much done it for me and British politics. I couldn't even take the shit when I thought they were misguided, slightly underhand but fairly honest in their dealings. Now they just come across as an unscrupulous bunch of career opportunists bent on fleecing the system while releasing ill-thought out new laws into the wild.

This latest thing about them paying the money back. Pah! What shoplifter has never said that after being caught? I've totally lost confidence in the system and there's no-one left to vote for to fix it.

That's my twopennorth. I'm off to wax my drawbridge.

 

[rynner2]

The lighter side...

Austin Mitchell's tongue in cheek response to ginger crinkle biscuit expenses
While some MPs went to ground, and others reached for their cheque books, Austin Mitchell saw the funny side of the expenses scandal.
By Nick Allen
Last Updated: 7:54PM BST 13 May 2009

In a humorous reply to the Daily Telegraph’s inquiries about his own expenses, the Labour MP for Great Grimsby,suggested that any questionable claims were his wife’s fault and that she would sacrifice herself on a pyre of furniture coverings to make amends.

Mr Mitchell’s expenses files revealed that he had claimed for £1,296 for bespoke shutters at his second home, a flat in London but was rebuffed by the Commons authorities.

There were also supermarket receipts for Sainsbury’s ginger crinkle biscuits, and bottles of whiskey and gin.

The MPs wife had submitted the receipts on his behalf and Mr Mitchell insisted that he himself does not drink whiskey or gin.

“I will check to see if my wife is an alcoholic and take appropriate action,” he wrote.

Mr Mitchell said he was “shocked” that money had been spent on ginger crinkles and Branston pickle and would investigate.

He said: “Neither is made in Grimsby but I am instituting immediate enquires in my household to see who could possibly be responsible for introducing such dangerous substances - I have not so far traced empty containers of either.”

As for the shutters, Mr Mitchell revealed that he had bought them because they were advertised in the Daily Telegraph.

He had suffered a series of break-ins at his flat prior to having them fitted. There have been none since, he said.

The veteran MP also defended his £1,200 claim for re-upholstering sofas.

The 20-year-old sofa covers were “stained with Branston pickle, whisky, and gin” and he needed them cleaned so he could impress senior Labour figures like Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock if they came round, he noted. 8)

Mr Mitchell, 74, said it had been necessary for him to have the sofas re upholstered hundreds of miles away in Yorkshire “because everything is cheaper and better there”.

He even claimed that his approach was more environmentally friendly than buying new furniture, speculating that it could win him an eco award.

However in recompense for any misunderstanding over the incident he offered to donate the sofa covers to the Daily Telegraph for its offices.

"I’m sorry I can’t comment further as I’m off to a seminar on 'Cleaning and Maintaining your Moat',” he concluded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... enses.html

 

[Spookdaddy]

...This latest thing about them paying the money back. Pah! What shoplifter has never said that after being caught?...

But the fact is that within the rules of the system the vast majority of politicians weren't doing anything wrong, which makes words like theft and shoplifting largely irrelevant in most cases. As far as I'm aware most shoplifters do not submit receipts for examination and possible future publication.

Yes, it seems ridiculous to me that, for example, an MP can claim for cat-food, but if the process allows it, what is that MP actually doing wrong?

 

[rynner2]

Heads are beginning to roll...

Tory MP quits post over expenses

Conservative MP Andrew MacKay has quit as parliamentary aide to David Cameron over what the party said was an "unacceptable" expenses claim.

Mr Cameron has said all Tory MPs must be able to defend their allowance claims after a series of damaging allegations about MP's claims.

Several senior Tory figures, including Michael Gove and Alan Duncan, have agreed to repay money they claimed.

Mr MacKay, MP for Bracknell, is married to fellow Tory MP Julie Kirkbride.

'Unacceptable'

The Conservatives said Mr MacKay had voluntarily submitted his expense claims to party officials and these had revealed "an unacceptable situation that would not stand up to reasonable public scrutiny".

It is understood that Mr MacKay and his wife claimed second homes allowances on two separate properties.

"Although Mr MacKay maintains that those arrangements were agreed by the Fees Office, he resigned this morning with immediate effect," said a party spokesman.

The party said Mr MacKay had agreed to appear before a new committee, announced by Mr Cameron on Tuesday, set up to scrutinise MP's expense claims.

It said the panel would discuss "how much of the allowance should be paid back".

The BBC's political correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti said Mr MacKay was paying a heavy price for the public backlash against MPs' behaviour over their expenses and the strong action party leaders were now taking over the issue.

Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit said Mr MacKay was a "good guy" but said he had done the "right thing" in stepping down given the nature of the situation.

"It ain't right," he said of the claims details. "I am glad he has recognised it is so."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8049614.stm

 

[JamesWhitehead]

" . . . if the process allows it, what is that MP actually doing wrong?"

Obviously nothing at all! They were feathering their nests and we have the same duty. After all God helps those . . .

Now let God help them since the revelations have unleashed a massive outburst of public indignation. It may be a prim and proper response but we have learned a few things from them in their days of pomp!

 

[Quake42]

Obviously nothing at all! They were feathering their nests and we have the same duty. After all God helps those . . .

Now let God help them since the revelations have unleashed a massive outburst of public indignation.

Well, as I said, I think it's important to distinguish between cynical and in some cases borderline illegal expenses claims, and those cases where MPs were claiming for things such as groceries and cleaning expenses, all of which were clealy permitted under the (admittedly bizarre) rules in place. I can't really understand the holier than thou hysteria over the latter. As I said, if your employer would allow you to claim £400 a month tax free towards food are you really saying you would turn it down? You may as well complain about people drawing their full salaries, or taking their full holiday entitlement.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

Well it is now in the court of public opinion and the vast majority of the jurors there do not have expense accounts.

I know people who live in extreme poverty because they have been intimidated out of legitimate claims for benefits by campaigns against fraud. These seem to place them on the defensive to an extent their pride will not tolerate. It is very hard to get some people to help themselves. They could learn a lot from these politicians!

Where is that pride among these MPs?

 

[Quake42]

Well it is now in the court of public opinion and the vast majority of the jurors there do not have expense accounts.

I know people who live in extreme poverty because they have been intimidated out of legitimate claims for benefits by campaigns against fraud. These seem to place them on the defensive to an extent their pride will not tolerate. It is very hard to get some people to help themselves. They could learn a lot from these politicians!

Where is that pride among these MPs?

I'm not sure what your argument is here. As a general rule, I don't object to people claiming what they are entitled to, whether it be state benefits or remuneration from an employer.

As Spookdaddy says, using words like "fraud" and "theft" is unhelpful in those cases where there is no suggestion of such criminal activities.

Developments today suggest that fraud may have taken place in at least one case. However, I don't think that should be lumped in with MPs who had the temerity to call out a plumber.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

The sight of a race of politicians exposed as being so out of touch with the people they govern has no precendent in my life-time, so why continue defending the indefensible?

Even such a folly as the Iran war was launched on the back of a significant amount of support from those who trusted what their leaders said.

Today has also brought in a verdict on the Lords who lobbied for cash. They are, no doubt, isolated cases of corruption in a sea of noble virtue. I would laugh but it really isn't funny.

It is no longer a matter of argument at all. The massive public sentiment is one of revulsion. In the face of which, argument is powerless. It's a horrid force and I don't know where we will be driven by its blast. :!:

 

[Spookdaddy]

The sight of a race of politicians exposed as being so out of touch with the people they govern has no precendent in my life-time, so why continue defending the indefensible?

Possibly because not all of us believe that everyone should be judged by the actions of the worst of their peers. Possibly because some of us are getting sick to death of being treated as morally inferior because we see shades of grey rather than black and white. Possibly because some of us deeply mistrust any media campaign which, however right it's core motive, actively attempts to inflame emotions. Possibly because some of us mistrust the blurred vision, our own as well as others, that comes with moral outrage. Possibly because some of us don't like being told how we should think.

It is no longer a matter of argument at all.

...possibly because some of us don't like being presented with absolutes.

 

[rynner2]

Another One Bites The Dust...!

Brown suspends mortgage claim MP

Former minister Elliot Morley has been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party after claiming £16,000 expenses for a mortgage he had already paid off.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the decision was taken because of the "serious" nature of the allegations.

Mr Morley said the claim had been a "mistake" due to "sloppy accounting" and said he had paid the money back.

etc....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8049096.stm

 

[rynner2]

And another one coming up..?

Short mortgage claim 'excessive'

Former Labour Cabinet minister Clare Short was paid more than £8,000 of taxpayers' money to which she was not entitled, the Daily Telegraph has said.

She is said to have been paid the full cost of a mortgage for two and a half years despite being entitled to charge only for the interest on it.

The MP, who has repaid the money, said she was "embarrassed and irritated" it took so long to pick up on the mistake.

The paper says it is also to publish allegations about a serving minister.

Ms Short, the MP for Birmingham Ladywood who now sits as an independent, was unavailable when the BBC tried to contact her for comment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051091.stm

 

[Analogue Boy]

I can't really understand the holier than thou hysteria over the latter. As I said, if your employer would allow you to claim £400 a month tax free towards food are you really saying you would turn it down? You may as well complain about people drawing their full salaries, or taking their full holiday entitlement.

Not good enough. The last decades have seen the end of those things that used to be called Statesmen - politicians with experience and integrity, who, as our elected public servants could be trusted to solicit advice and act on it with judgement. They have vanished only to be replaced by a bunch of mediocre middle managers who just seem to want to have a go at running UKplc. What this whole business has brought to light is that for MPs there is as much in common with probity, wisdom and judgement in regarding what are fair in terms of expenses as there is in a pack of hungry dogs thrown a few bones. This may be the behaviour I would have cynically expected but it shouldn't occur to this extent in fact.

There are some exceptions but they are rare in this case and it points to a wider malaise in those who seek power and responsibility. Let's face it. The banking system is screwed. Now Politics is in the mire. The BBC is trying to recover from its last bad years and the rest of the press and media are doing little better.

As to the point of food. Yes. I would like to see ONE MP live on a food budget of £100 a week and eat every last single scrap and crumb.

It's not hysteria. It's not just about the legality of the expenses. It's about integrity. MPs should lead by example. The Twats.

 

[Quake42]

As to the point of food. Yes. I would like to see ONE MP live on a food budget of £100 a week and eat every last single scrap and crumb.

It's not hysteria.

I think what you just said could be considered hysterical.

I'm with Spookdaddy on this. A number of MPs have clearly behaved very badly, and they should be held to account. Additionally, there is something very wrong about the way that the allowances and expenses system works, and it needs to be fixed.

All of that does not mean it shouldn't be possible to have a rational debate about the issue, without comments such as:

why continue defending the indefensible?

It is no longer a matter of argument at all.

for MPs there is as much in common with probity, wisdom and judgement in regarding what are fair in terms of expenses as there is in a pack of hungry dogs thrown a few bones.

That's not debate. It's an attempt to close down rational discussion by implying that anyone who thinks the issues are more complex than the media is presenting them to be - anyone who can see the difference between a packet of maltesers and £800 for a mortgage which doesn't exist - is as morally bankrupt as some of the MPs themselves. Screaming "Witch!" in other words.

I expect someone will mention the Nazis soon.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

Would these claims have been made if the MPs had known they would be made public?

Expenses are a petty thing, after all.

The proberty of these people in all other respects must be unquestioned!

 

[Quake42]

Would these claims have been made if the MPs had known they would be made public?

Which claims in particular?

 

[rynner2]

Tom Utley has a pop at Stephen Fry:

I tuned into Newsnight earlier this week and heard Stephen Fry, the polymath entertainer, making his characteristically lofty and sophisticated contribution to the debate on MPs’ allowances.

This is what he said: ‘Anybody can talk about snouts in troughs, and go on about it. For journalists to do so is almost beyond belief.
‘I know lots of journalists and even I’ve never met a more venal and disgusting crowd of people when it comes to expenses and allowances.
‘I’ve cheated expenses. I’ve fiddled things. You have.’

At this point, Fry pointed at the camera to include everyone who was watching Newsnight in his blanket condemnation of the British people as a race of cheats and fiddlers like himself.
‘Course you have.’
He went on: ‘Let’s not confuse what politicians get really wrong — things like wars, things in which people die — with the rather tedious, bourgeois obsession with whether or not they have charged for their wisteria.
It’s not that important. It really isn’t. It’s a journalistic, made-up frenzy.’

Several interesting points arise. The first is why the BBC chose to consult Fry on the matter of MPs’ expenses, interviewing him in the street as he stood in his dinner jacket.
Perhaps the corporation thought Fry’s status as an official National Treasure meant that he was the man the country would naturally turn to for guidance in this moment of moral crisis.

Or perhaps Auntie felt his criminal record for credit card fraud, for which he spent three months in prison in his youth, qualified him to pronounce.

Whatever the reason, he was brilliantly put down by Labour’s Kate Hoey (that rare creature, an honest MP) when she referred to him on Newsnight as ‘that actor you interviewed — I can’t remember his name’. 8)

Another interesting point is the one Fry makes about journalists. Now, I’m not going to mount a righteous defence of my trade’s morals (except to protest that we’re not all ‘disgusting and venal’).
If Fry would disqualify journalists from publicising theft from the public purse, I wonder who he thinks will do it instead.
Or does he believe, in his oh-so-sophisticated way, that it would be best if the little people of Britain weren’t told about being ripped off by their masters?

But the biggest mystery of all is how a man with Fry’s famously huge brain has so completely failed to understand the calamity that has befallen our country.
Yes, wars and ‘things in which people die’ do matter beyond words. So does the global economic meltdown.

But can he not see that it was precisely because of the dishonesty of politicians, chiefly Tony Blair, that Britain took part in the devastation of Iraq?

Can’t he understand that the financial crisis was caused by the dishonesty of the American homebuyers who lied to borrow money — and of the bankers who sold on their bad debts after disguising them as assets?

Honesty and trust underpin every human interaction at every level. Without them, civilisation is lost.

Thank God, therefore, that Mr Fry is wrong.
We’re not a nation of cheats and fiddlers like him. It’s because of the honesty of his despised bourgeoisie, obediently paying our licence fees, that he’s been able to grow so sleekly plump over the years. It’s because we don’t defraud credit card companies, as he did, that money is still honoured in the shops.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... d-MPs.html

 

[Spookdaddy]

So now anyone who has the balls to go against the present orthodoxy is not only morally suspect but also an intellectual snob.

At least, in their god-given quest to stamp out dissent, the present day Witchfinders are limited to snide and bilious comment rather than the more physical paraphernalia of inquisition.

 

[Cavynaut]

The greed of bankers which has caused the current banking crisis and recession seems to have generated less public revulsion than the expense scandal. I wonder why this is? Could it be that the general public know that they have no redress against the (former) Masters of the Universe and so the politicians get the backlash?

Let's be fair, the amounts being spoken of here, all of them, are piddling compared to bonuses of hundreds of thousands of pounds which have been paid to the excessive risk takers who have pissed our financial security away. Yes, MP's have been spending our money in a reprehensible fashion, and they deserve punishment, but let's not forget that the biggest snouts in the trough have more or less got away with it.