 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
We are all aware of the recent scandal re politicians expenses.
OK they didn't break the rules, they made the rules.
If I walk out of ASDA with the change of a £20 note instead of the change from the £10 note I gave them I have 2 options, accept it's wrong and be pleased to have got away with it or point out the error.
All the politicians who stole excess expense money know that they were doing wrong.
Should they own up to it and resign immediately or have they any justification for what they have done ?
Does a good record in thier job be thier forgiveness or should we look for more honest replacements who will do an equally good job ?
Should we put up with pathetic excuses like "it was within Commons rules" or should we insist on action being taken and an investigation into fraud in the very making of the rules which allow public money to be abused ?
Should we continue to allow politicians to make Law in thier own favour such as thier exemption from having a TV licence in thier homes.
The smoking ban not applying to the bars in the House of Commons and the House of Lords ?
Politicians need a second house for thier use when spending time in Parliament, why does this has to be an a hugely expensive residence, why cannot Westminster Council or a nearby Council convert one of it's Multi-story flats that they are anxious to be rid of into an MP's fortress ?
Of course it can be luxurious, it can have the best facilities but wouldn't it be much more secure to have all MP's staying in one secure abode when they are working in parliament.
Wouldn't we then be able to pass it on to the replacement MP when a town or city council has a change of MP instead of buying yet another 2nd house for another MP.
Wouldn't it be better for them to allbe able to spend time together in a secure home when working.
Couldn't they make use of joint office facilities built into the building instead of all needing seperate facilities.
Couldn't they share the cost of a TV licence and have a bar there where they can smoke legally that being thier place of residence ?
Whilst soldiers are dying due to lack of suitable equipment isn't it imoral for the government to spend £56 million for the refurbishment of one of thier buildings for the use by 12 MP's when the cost of a new helicopter from the USA is only £3.5 million (£2 if sold to Israel as they get a better discount)
When is enough, enough ?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Lots of ways this can be resolved.
Take away the MP's right to make rules that only apply to them.
Make the MP's classed as self employed (HMRC have very strict rules what you can claim for as self employed).
Give the constituency the right to call a by-election if more than xx% of that constituency call for one. That could get rid of the ones that say one thing and then once in, does their own thing, as some seem to do.
First step, is to take away their right to make their own rules (Whow, suggestions please  ). MP's salary was once fixed to the same as a Captain in the British Army.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Some of them 'stuck to the rules' albeit they stretched them to the very limits. Probably nothing that can be done about those folks, but some of them clearly broke the rules and committed fraud.
The ones who are proven to have acted faudulently should be subject to exactly the same punishment as you or I.
Scenario....
I make a fruadulent insurance claim and get a couple of hundred quid for something which I claimed that I'd lost in a burglary, but really I never had that item in the first place.
The insurance company rumble me, so I say, "ok, it's a fair cop guvner, here's ya couple of 100 quid back, can we say no more about it?"
I'm sure that insurance company would attempt to prosecute me, quite rightly so, for fraud.
So why some of these politicians think that simply giving the money back will make it all ok again is beyond me.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
good from a security point of view, much easier to control, of course nowhere can be 100% safe but some places can be safer than others.
It works pretty well for security forces in Hellmand province who are relatively safe in barracks, for troops in Northern Ireland even at the height of the troubles.
It is also much cheaper to install security measures for a group than it is for individuals.
Take the MP for Westminster for instance, he of course already had his home in Westminster so when he bought his second home (the one to be used for parliamentary business at the House of Commons) he bought it in Devon, obviously not needing two homes in Westminster. Wouldn't that be much more difficult to secure on a daily basis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
i think they should be made pay every penny back. there should also be clearer more realistic rules to what they can and cant claim like the rest of us who claim expenses through work in case of mine, the cheapest option!!
its one rule for them and one for us then they wonder why no one has faith in them!!
the cleaning the moat one that was rippin the pish if there was ever one!! as the one who claimed her husbands porn channel remember it is US the tax payer that pays it and they are responsible to us!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Did they really do anything most of us wouldn't have done, given the chance?"
the thing is if we had done it we would be charged with fraud why should they get away with it just because there mps you cant have 1 rule for 1 and not another |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
speak for yourself but two wrongs don't make a right.
If you did do what they did and were found out would you expect to:
keep your job
get an increase in salary
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The trick, as most people know, is not to get caught.
I overheard a group of guys in a bar yesterday lunchtime loudly berating MPs for their greed and then going on to share tips for tax avoidance and getting a disabled parking badge when you're not entitled to one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And thats another wrong Jim. Which still doesnt make the corrupt practices of certain MPs right.
Jed and Sasha are right. The whole thing discredits the political system and in some ways leads to the extremist parties gaining credence.
They should pay it all back and ensure tough OUTSIDE regulation to ensure it doesnt happen again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Nobody, least of all me, is seeking to suggest MPs behaviour isn't wrong; of course it's wrong.
What I was pointing out is that a lot of people, placed in the same situation, would have done what they did.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And anyone doing it would have been morally wrong aswell.
Listen I need the moat repairing on Swing22 Towers as much as the next man, but no way would I expect the tax payer to fork out for it. lol  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Nobody, least of all me, is seeking to suggest MPs behaviour isn't wrong; of course it's wrong.
What I was pointing out is that a lot of people, placed in the same situation, would have done what they did.
"
but your statement implies that we should just forget about it because others would do the same.
Many would expect to reap the consequences when caught out not show indignation at being questioned about it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" ...........
but your statement implies that we should just forget about it because others would do the same.
"
Not at all. I'm suggesting that some folk expect higher standards of others than they do of themselves.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
when you decide to be an mp you are expected to be honest and trustworthy not a greedy money grabbing git!! they on average 60k a yr thats no exactly peanuts is it?? 2 homes gettin rid of their 2 homes would certainly free up some space for other people but it wont be wee nice average priced houses will it?? lets face it with the fiddling that goes on they missin a good job in an orchestra....
would you steal from your employer if you knew a workmate was?? its the same but for mps its different?? i would like to see every single one's expenses sheet and show them where to make cutbacks like they vote to do to every bloody public service!! rant over. x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
yes and its a salary that the people with common sense on the street could never dream to achieve!! maybe a reduction of salary would remove some of the self centred fatcats who are out for what they can get and not acting in the voters best interests!! x  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nobody, least of all me, is seeking to suggest MPs behaviour isn't wrong; of course it's wrong.
What I was pointing out is that a lot of people, placed in the same situation, would have done what they did.
"
Totally agree, the vast majority of self employed and small limited companies, play with their figures every single day to stop the taxman getting his share....those on PAYE dont have that luxury and do pay their share into the coffers.
Why should an MP be any different from the millions of tax dodgers that live here...MP's are human too..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hmmm, I wonder how many berating the MPs are working and claiming benefits etc. I'm not defending them in any way shape or form, I have to work very hard for a living and putting three kids through uni meant my moat has been neglected and the helipad has fallen into disrepair. It wouldn't cross my mind to steal like these MPs but like the slagging Tiger Woods is getting at the moment, some people have one moral compass for others and another for themselves! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hmmm, I wonder how many berating the MPs are working and claiming benefits etc. I'm not defending them in any way shape or form, I have to work very hard for a living and putting three kids through uni meant my moat has been neglected and the helipad has fallen into disrepair. It wouldn't cross my mind to steal like these MPs but like the slagging Tiger Woods is getting at the moment, some people have one moral compass for others and another for themselves!"
Hitting the nail on the head, springs to mind... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The rules have been changed already in so much as that if a politician's constituency is 15 miles or less from Westminster he/she cannot claim for a second home.
What you have to realise about a politician's entitlement to a second place of residence is that the taxpayer only has to pay for it whilst the person concerned is still an MP. If they are unelected at any point they lose all the perks and priviledges of a sitting MP. So where you and I can plan our finances for the next 10-20 years in terms of mortgage requirements etc an MP can only plan up until the next election. Some would argue that these are intelligent people and their wage as an MP is just one of many sources of income so they shouldn't need any recompense from the taxpayer when they are more than financially able to afford it themselves. But why should they?
You and I are entitled to claim back any expenditure incurred whilst working - regardless of whether your employer reimburses you or not, you are still allowed to declare it on your tax return. Being an MP requires an enormous amount of travel, diary planning, surgery committments to one's constituents among many other things they have to do. This all takes time & money to accomplish and I see no reason to withold the facility for MPs to be adequately reimbursed for money spent on behalf the Britain PLC. This obviously should not include duck houses et al.
I do agree, however, that MPs should not be able to make the rules that govern them. This should be done by an unelected and impartial body of officals with proven track records for decency and honesty.
With regards to them repaying what they've already claimed and been reimbursed for, well how would you feel if the Chancellor decided that we should all pay an extra 5p in the £ income tax - but that it should be backdated to 2005!
You'd be up in arms over it.
The rules for MPs expenses have been addressed now so I say that we should draw a line and let what's gone before rest and move forward with a clean slate. Those that are good at what they do will make the new system work for them and new MPs will be elected in the fullness of time that haven't been exposed to the old way of doing things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
A lot of sense there and I have learned some new things about MP's entitlements, it doesn't convince me that a part of what some did was bordering on criminal if not just morally wrong.
I like to think that our MP's are partially elected for thier intelligence and ability to see the difference between right and wrong, but that apparently has not been shown to be true.
As long as there are MP's who knowingly and willingly abused the system still in office the matter cannot be put aside.
And it is still going on, a minority of MP's seem to think it is the public that are wrong to question them.
Based on what you have said, which I don't doubt is true why would an MP dream of purchasing a second home in London when they cannot guarantee a need for longer than a few year perhaps less, surely it would be more prudent to rent for that time ?
Then it would not just be the interest the taxpayer would be responsible for but all the rental costs, of course then there wouldn't be the advantage of being able to sell the home at a huge profit at the end of your tenancy, and of course if they were supplied secure housing by the state they would not have to put themselves in the position of having to worry about those finances.
It is not just expenses, it is making laws to govern us like the smoking law and exempting themselves, making laws regarding TV licences then exempting themselves, and many other "perks".
How many times have MP's been reprimanded over not declaring interests in Companies and other incomes yet still they flaunt the rules. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You're right Jed, I couldn't agree more. I think only the surface of MPs fraudulence has been skimmed so far and it has a way to go - I do note that they call it fraud and not corruption
They could argue that a taxpayer funded TV licence is required as a politician has to keep abreast of world events but I would argue that they are probably knowledgable about more world events than are ever passed on to us mere mortals. So on that basis I say they should pay for their own TV licence the same as the rest of us. As for the smoking ban not applying to the House of Commons.. grrrrr.. don't get me started on that unwholsesome piece of hypocracy!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
