I have met a few people of the highest calibre.
One may well be a sitting MP shortly.
She isn't greedy and would happily live in an MPs hostel if such a thing existed.
I think the second class rail travel issue is a disgrace. I bet the author of the report travels everywhere in London by taxi or is chauffeur driven!
It was also reported last week that Generals are also now expected to travel second class ffs!!
Mind you, there may be some benefits there; running a few yobbos through with their ceremonial sword on the platform might draw a better focus :grin:
Crocodile Dundee style
Knees and jerks comes to mind on this. This problem existed because of self regulation and nods and winks. In the olden days, MP's were elected to the "club" atmosphere of Westminster and were expected to have a significant income outside of their Parliamentary interests on which to survive.
Politics today takes on a more professional requirement. Remunerate accordingly with fewer seats and their could still be significant savings. It's the Civil Servants who basically run the show anyway, no matter who is in "power".
Thanks for your contributions so far - much appreciated.
There were some expenses claimed that were way over the top, for example I recall an MP in Lincolnshire who had some garden maintenance or similar work done at his castle, but the fuss over the majority was somewhat exagerated and appears to have lead to an over-correction.
Plim
I'm glad that someone has raised this as an issue. Well done Plim :thumbup:
Regarding the expenses 'scandal', I have always had the following thoughts:
An MPs salary is not great. Most of them could earn far more in the private sector - and yet their job carries an extremely high responsibility. Something must be wrong there. As a result, I believe that the expense regime was seen as some sort of compensation. After all, there are not many jobs that virtually require you to have a second home (assuming that your constituency is not commutable from Westminster). It is worth remembering that all these expense claims were approved by the fees office. I think it was simply seen as part of the package.
Now, having said that, I do believe that the expense claims fall into three categories:
1. Playing the system but staying within the spirit as well as the letter of the law. This would include decoration and upkeep of the necessary seond home. I don't think that it is unreasonable for that second home to be able to accommodate at least the MP's partner and any dependent children.
2. Abuse of the system. 'Flipping' is the most obvious example. In other words "I will designate home A as my second home and get it entirely re-decorated on the tax payer, then, once that's been done, I will designate home B as my second home and get THAT redecorated on the tax payer." Clearly, whatever their job, they would have had to pay for and maintain one home and to get the taxpayer to pay for both is at the very least bending if not breaking the rules.
3. Fraud. I can't think of any other term for MPs who claim for a mortgage that they no longer have. Has anyone here ever 'forgotten' that they had paid off their mortgage? I think not! Similarly Jacqui Smith claiming that the spare room at her sister's house was her 'main residence' so that she could claim the full costs of running her family home from the taxpayer. Come off it!
I would support the idea of a block of apartments built and maintained by parliament for the use of MPs. All MPs whose constituency was more than, say, an hour's travel from parliament would be entitled to one. They should all have a double room for the MP's spouse/partner and two further bedrooms for family/friends. There should also be an office which was connected to the House of Commons network so that MPs could continue to work from there in the evening. All the cleaning and maintenance would be carried out by contractors appointed by parliament and every 5 years (conveniently corresponding to the duration of a parliament) the whole block would be redecorated. Perhaps each MP could choose a colour scheme for his/her flat.
This would mean that all MPs were treated equally and that the costs of providing them with a home in London would be completely transparent. It would also help security as there is one site that has to have maximum security instead of a couple of hundred individual homes.
What do you think?
Will
I think that was an excellent reply - thank you.
Of indirect interest to the thread is the idea of an accomodation block. This is very interesting as it may or may not save money and give MPs accomodation that would suit. If you built something purpose built and linked or very close to Parliament you might have to knock something down and would it give an unfair advantage to these MPs compared to others who had to travel in a few miles each day?
Another point raised by a poster is there are too many MPs anyway - could be something in that (now that we are down to being a partly evolved parliament) and have to defer to Europe on some major issues. If we built a block to accomodate enough of the present house, it may be too big in a few years!
Plim :thumbup:
Running the country should be managed like any other business, resonable expenses should be designated for the job, budgets issued to 'the employees' and they should be expected to stick to their budgets and expenses. receipts should be required for pretty much everything, just like any company accounts.
If they have to pay for most things directly from their own pocket, then claim it back from 'the company', like most of us do, maybe they would consider each purchase a little more carefully first if there was a risk they wouldn't get it refunded.
Aye diddle diddle the cat and the expense account.
Yup receipts for everything and clear guidance and strict enforcement. Seems simple really.
My experience of the expense arrangements within corporations and amongst the self employed is that it is seen as a wonderful way to avoid tax obligations and is widely used to do so. One only has to observe how petrol station staff are asked if customers need a VAT receipt to wonder at quite how much personal fuel is put through the company books.
BB is pissing herself laughing........this is relevant but I can't tell you all why
I am pissing myself solely because I am tempted to take that wager. All we need is a volunteer to hold the stake money and an agreed set of measurement scales. Any volunteers/suggestions?
It will come as a considerable surprise to all that I haven't spent the last 45 years living under a stone eating worms. You will note that I am already familiar with the western petrol station conventions.
kk max I suggest we do it by pm.
Send me a figure you wish to wager and we can sort the details of the measurement scales from there.
To bring the matter back to topic.
Yes max as you say, the self employed habitually inflate their overheads with bogus expenses and thus reduce their tax bills and nobody is overseeing their claims other than HMRC. One would expect the accountancy profession to work within its own published professional standards but of course they don't and often conspire with their clients to defraud HMRC. I cite the KPMG tax shelter fraud as an example of a big fish at it, smaller fish make less of a ripple of course.
I take your point that fiddled expenses cosst the employer. My point is if you turn a nelsonic eye to expense claims you as an employer save money. You run a risk but a hundred quid of fiddled petrol costs you less than a hundred quid of salary. In what you believe is my limited experience such an approach is commonplace. Our governments, over the years, have had slightly different motivations but decided upon the same fraudulent activity. Very much a case of "beocome an MP, the money is shit but the fringe benefits are wonderful".
I see that you agree that petrol station staff habitually ask if a receipt is needed. I point to this practice as evidence of the widespread nature of expense claims many of which I believe to be fraudulent. You have already agreed the concept of the self employed deliberately inflating their overheads. Not quite sure what we are disagreeing about to be honest.
No different to people claiming benefits they are not entitled too, but they do not exist.......do they?
BB wants to know if there are any side bets available
Ok max we simply have to agree that no evidence that may allow participants to be identified is allowed and if you start a thread, I suggest we call it "Ben and Max pissing up the wall" we can sort out the details.
I suggest BB starts a book stag.
I made no claim that ALL simply that it is commonplace.
I made no claim that all accountants are bent just that some are and offered evidence to support this assertion.
If every organisation you have been exposed to has paid all its taxes and sacked the fiddlers then our experience is more limited than mine and I will win our wager.
I made no claim that petrol station staff are complicit in the frauds I simply pointed out that this common practice leads me to believe that tax fraud and the action necessary to support it is commonplace.
I accept that you did only claim that my experience is only limited to the extent that it does not exceed yours yet you have never encountered institutionalised fraud or witnessed employers who are complicit in employee fraud. I therefore deduced that your experience was limited.
Are we still up for that wager?
I did do a response max but my webnet lagged and I lost it all. Suffice to say if you read back I havent said what you think I have said.
Any news on the wager?
Max please tell me what we are disagreeing about bearing in mind that I am not asserting that everybody is on the fiddle.
And what is the difference between exposed and involved or are we gonna argue semantics forever?
For many years successive Governments have been happy to accept that some jobs are not so high paid but carry many "fringe benefits", MP's, Doctors, Vets, Judges and many more people have been able to increase thier earnings with consultancy work or by endorsing profits.
David Beckham for instance earns more from advertising, promotional work and endorsements than he does from Football despite being one of the higher paid footballers, most sports people from Tiger Woods to Eddie the Eagle have done the same, we are all aware of Eddie's current advertising campaign with Churchill, he never earned anything worth mentioning as an athlete (love him for his effort as we do).
The Tax Office and the Government have been happy to accept these "bonuses and benefits" as a way of increasing income and even tax some of the benefits such as Taxi Driver and waitress tips putting an estimated income amount against tax returns on such people. They have always stated that these bonuses should be taken into consideration when calculating income for such people.
One MP once suggested that Nurses don't need quite as much salary as they had the "bonus" of meeting well off Doctors to marry.
Some MP's are directors of a multitude of companies earning them a "nice little annual earner"
MP's should be beyond reproach, they should never put themselves in a position financially or morally where they can be blackmaied into giving away information or voting in a certain way, an MP cannot have an affair or smoke dope etc, that puts the Country in jeapordy, take the pay do the job.
Most British soldiers serving in Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles were on Supplementary Benefit because thier army salary fell below the breadline and minimum weekly income levels at the time.
And now they are set to receive legal aid to fight their cases in court
