Not before time.....

[ginger ninger]

Ive just been watching the news at 10, and it's just been announced that some M.Ps ARE to face prosecutions about there expense claims.... not before time too... what do you think.... I'm sure this is a subject we all have an opinion on ???

[piskieinboots]

make 'em walk the plank

[NOG]

Now that would be a Jury to be on.

[Alice]

Don't get me started Ginger Ninger. I'm just absolutely disgusted at the whole thing. I would like to see all those charged with even petty theft charged, prosecuted and thrown in the jail if guilty - just as we would be. What really gets me is that these people have no shame, they just keep saying I didn't do anything wrong. Well if they sit down with me for 5 minutes I'll tell them what they did wrong. Shameless lot !

[bobleponge]

As has been hotly debated on here before though Alice, very very few of them actually have done anything wrong "legally." Morally they are in general reprehensible, but legally very few offences have been committed.
This, as we now know, is because our Members of Parliament set their own rules for what they can and cant claim on expenses. There are a few cases of flagrant theft and abuse, (and these should be flogged, hung drawn and quartered and then made to walk the plank) but the majority have acted within their own laws.

I think this issue, more than any other in recent UK political history, has caused the general public to lose what little faith they had in the political system.
There is, sadly, a very very negative side to this, which was viewed in France 2 elections ago.
The electoral system is different at home, they have the first round, and the top 2 then basically fight it out. 2 elections ago, due to immense political antipathy in the general population, Jean-Marie Lepenn (French equivalent of Nick Griffin, BNP) got through to the second round, to the eternal shame of the majority of French people that I know.
The following election, voter turnout was over 80% to ensure that it didnt happen again.

Political disinterest can only give advantage to the more radical fringes of British politics, who are far more passionate than the average voter, and who WILL vote, no matter what.

Thus, I suppose what I'm saying is, even though we are appalled at the behaviour of our ministers, the possible ramifications of inaction would be far worse than what is currently in place.

Political diatribe over, I shall now lie down with a cool flannel across my eyes.

[rana]

Has our monarch lost her teeth. Considering the vehemence of disgust displayed by her subjects I would have thought dissolution of parliament was the appropriate reaction.

[tootles]

As I see it the whole problem centres around the half hearted attempt at 'transparency'. Essentially MP's have an allowance to assist with the running of second homes and the staff for their offices. If there hadn't been this stupid idea of making them justify the money (and thus encouraged to sumbit any old reciept) then no-one would be frothing at the mouth now. Of course a duck island isn't a justifiable expense for an MP, and he didn't get a penny for it, but the system encouraged them to give it a try though.

Here in France MPs are effectivly handed a brown envelope each year with a wodge of cash to facilitate the running of offices and second homes. No-one cares what they do with it after.

Many MPs have their wives (or husbands) running their constituency offices. £64,000 pay is less net than a couple each earning the national average wage. They have got themselves in this pickle by trying to seem egalitarian. The truth is that is the pay stays at this level and there are no decent allowances then only those with private money will become MPs - is that really what you want?

In the UK there are always people hitching a lift on main roads carrying trade plates - they have been paid an allowance to get public transport home, who hasn't been given a clothing allowance or meal allowance by their work and gone for a cheaper option, pocketing the difference? Is that really any different?

[bobleponge]

As I see it the whole problem centres around the half hearted attempt at 'transparency'. Essentially MP's have an allowance to assist with the running of second homes and the staff for their offices. If there hadn't been this stupid idea of making them justify the money (and thus encouraged to sumbit any old reciept) then no-one would be frothing at the mouth now. Of course a duck island isn't a justifiable expense for an MP, and he didn't get a penny for it, but the system encouraged them to give it a try though.

Here in France MPs are effectivly handed a brown envelope each year with a wodge of cash to facilitate the running of offices and second homes. No-one cares what they do with it after.

Many MPs have their wives (or husbands) running their constituency offices. £64,000 pay is less net than a couple each earning the national average wage. They have got themselves in this pickle by trying to seem egalitarian. The truth is that is the pay stays at this level and there are no decent allowances then only those with private money will become MPs - is that really what you want?

In the UK there are always people hitching a lift on main roads carrying trade plates - they have been paid an allowance to get public transport home, who hasn't been given a clothing allowance or meal allowance by their work and gone for a cheaper option, pocketing the difference? Is that really any different?

Nobody voted for the trade drivers to run the country thought Tootles. The governement is responsible for setting the laws, and thus should surely abide by the same?
Re the French ministers, I was having lunch in Paris recently with a Minister for the north, a former secretary of state for education, and we discussed this very topic. French ministers are given a sum, roughly equivalent to their salary, and from that, you are quite correct, they have to administer their affairs. If they have spare, its theirs, if they overspend, it comes from their own pocket. If a similar situation was in place in the UK, a lot of the claims wouldnt have come about in the first place, as the sums were far over what would be in their envelopes.

[rana]

Standing for election as an MP is about public service (not lining ones pockets) and I am sure for many this is the case. To represent your public is an honour and a priviledge bestowed upon you by the electorate.
It could be considered a calling to public duty, as perhaps is NHS nursing where candidates are in it for the job and certainly not the money. Nevertheless £65k a year is pretty much 3 times the average wage and ill defined rules are no excuse for having your hand in the till.

[bubblewrap]

Some MPs could be defined as "BENEFIT CHEATS"

[Hilary B]

Labour claims that they did worse in the council and Euro elections after this because 'the public has higher expectations of those in Government' seem to me to be so much tripe. The reason Labour did worse was because of how it was handled. Cameron said the right thing "keeping within the rules isn't good enough", so he got a more forgiving response from the voters. Whether he is actually doing anything more about it might be a different thing, but he made the right speech at the right time, and got the result!
Now there is talk of tightening the rules, but as has happened so many times with the current government, a new law isn't what is needed, but the PROPER use of the existing law. At the end of the 'book of rules' is one little phrase that would cover all of this nonsense anyway, something about all claims being such as would stand public scrutiny. If THAT rule was applied, there would be no need to change anything else!

[SarzWix]

What is this "national average wage" of which you speak? In amongst my circle I know maybe 2 people who earn anywhere near half of £64,000, and we survive on less than a quarter of that amount!
One thing's for sure, any normal worker who was fiddling the expenses would at best be given written warnings, at worst would be fired for gross misconduct.

[zazen999]

We have let people go for fiddling expenses; we would have sacked but they were still in their probation period.

Don't trust a single one of them. Not gonna rant about it either - or I'll have bad vibes all day and I'm doing woodwork in a bit so it's bad karma.

[bobleponge]

One thing's for sure, any normal worker who was fiddling the expenses would at best be given written warnings, at worst would be fired for gross misconduct.

And thats the point. Very few of them actually HAVE been fiddling the expenses. They have simply been claiming anything and everything that legally (by the laws they have written themselves) they feel they are entitled to. Handmade bookcases, moat cleaning etc.

[zazen999]

And thats the point. Very few of them actually HAVE been fiddling the expenses. They have simply been claiming anything and everything that legally (by the laws they have written themselves) they feel they are entitled to. Handmade bookcases, moat cleaning etc.

Apart from the expired mortgages, and the non-existed council taxes.....

Don't start me off!!!!!!

[Still can't work out how a duck house can in any way shape or form be a business expense].....