MP's Expenses review Options

[Bloggo]

It's going to be interesting, in light of the apparent disregard that some MP's are reported to be showing regarding the results of the Sir Thomas Legge investigations into their expenses, whether or not the party leaders will allow those MPs that are shown to have made inappropriate expenses claims to ignore the findings and not pay back any further cash.
Will Brown and Cameron bite the bullet and reprimand all of their people who are named or will they pick and choose?
I hope they do insist that all do the right thing as public confidence with these MPs will be further damaged.

I have heard a rumour that many Labour MPs won't pay anymore money back as they realise that they won't be in Government next year and possibly won't even stand in the election as they know that they will lose their deposits.

[JeffG]

Are you saying it's optional whether MPs comply when told to pay back claims judged to be inappropriate?

[Bloggo]

Are you saying it's optional whether MPs comply when told to pay back claims judged to be inappropriate?

Surprisingly that's what it looks like. I don't think that other than the threat of de-selection by the Party there is anything that can be done.
It does not seem to be a violation of any law or if it is it is not being threatened.
You have to ask why eh?

[GMR]

Are you saying it's optional whether MPs comply when told to pay back claims judged to be inappropriate?

It seems our glorious leader Brown has to pay back quite a bit. At least he is setting an example.

[Hugh Saskin]

It seems our glorious leader Brown has to pay back quite a bit. At least he is setting an example.

Yes, but not as much as some of them will have to - a despicable bunch all, really, when you think that Davie Boy - when he gets in, - so he he tells us - is going to raise money by putting those on invalidity benefit through the hoop (well, not quite..) to save a few bob. And then there's Jacqui Smith - what a role model for politicians....

Meanwhile, all their rich friends walk on unscathed.

[GMR]

Yes, but not as much as some of them will have to - a despicable bunch all, really, when you think that Davie Boy - when he gets in, - so he he tells us - is going to raise money by putting those on invalidity benefit through the hoop (well, not quite..) to save a few bob. And then there's Jacqui Smith - what a role model for politicians....

Meanwhile, all their rich friends walk on unscathed.

You can see why people want to be MP's

[Sarah]

claims judged to be inappropriate?

That's a nice tactful way of putting it, as is 'claims judged to be made in error'.

How about 'mortgage claims on phantom homes judged to be fraud and theft'.

[blackdog]

It seems our glorious leader Brown has to pay back quite a bit. At least he is setting an example.

As is Nick Clegg, while David Cameron is amongst the group being investigated further and has to answer some more questions.

[Hugh Saskin]

and we think our lot are bad:

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/ju...-126k-expenses/

At least this character has resigned

[Bloggo]

Well, Dave has said that if any of his team are advised to pay up and don't then they must not stand as MPs for the Conservatives.

Some of the figures being quoted are more than have been scooped up in some bank robberies. There has to be some criminal charges made.
What a load of crooks.

I don't hear anything from Gordon.
No change there then eh.

[GMR]

As is Nick Clegg, while David Cameron is amongst the group being investigated further and has to answer some more questions.

True. That is why they are not attacking each other over it. Just imagine if it was just Brown, or Cameron.... the other leaders would have a field day. That would have been a great political advantage. Now they've got to protect each others back.

[JeffG]

... claims judged to be inappropriate?

That's a nice tactful way of putting it, as is 'claims judged to be made in error'.

No, not tactful - neutral. Not being the Daily Mail, I deliberately chose neutral wording. And you can't judge a claim to be "made in error". Only the claimant knows whether it was an error or not.

How about 'mortgage claims on phantom homes judged to be fraud and theft'.

They would be inappropriate.

Anyone who committed a crime should be put on trial.

Anyone who made an otherwise unacceptable claim should repay it (but moving the goal posts retrospectively is unfair, imo).

It will be interesting to see the actual percentages, i.e. what proportion of MPs have over-claimed.

[Bloggo]

Anyone who made an otherwise unacceptable claim should repay it (but moving the goal posts retrospectively is unfair, imo).

I would have thought that if the party leaders agree with the findings of the review, regardless of "the goalposts having been moved", and you will recall the MPs repeatedly said that the system of claiming expenses was undefined which is why they made "mistakes" when claiming then the MPs found wanting should pay up.

[JeffG]

you will recall the MPs repeatedly said that the system of claiming expenses was undefined

I don't recall that, actually. I believe there was a "rule book", which has since been discredited as being too lax.

But when you claim expenses, I'm sure you know what you are allowed to claim, because it's laid down by your company (or whoever you work for). I don't think you'd be too pleased if the company turns round a couple of years later and says "Oh by the way, we've just changed the rules, so you have to pay back x amount you claimed 2 years ago in good faith."

(Someone has to play Devil's Advocate here...)

[Bloggo]

I don't recall that, actually. I believe there was a "rule book", which has since been discredited as being too lax.

Yes, and that's my point in that the procedure for claiming was so open to abuse they all filled their boots knowing that they were abusing the system.
Surely they know right from wrong or are they so morally corrupt that they have lost sight of the prestige of the positions they hold.

But when you claim expenses, I'm sure you know what you are allowed to claim, because it's laid down by your company (or whoever you work for). I don't think you'd be too pleased if the company turns round a couple of years later and says "Oh by the way, we've just changed the rules, so you have to pay back x amount you claimed 2 years ago in good faith."

I think they knew all to well that they were getting away with caning the system, flipping homes being the big one.
Again I think if their leaders take the view that abuses have taken place and the money should be repaid then that should be the end of it.

[lordtup]

As all three party leaders are culpable in this debacle , surely they should all do the honourable thing and stand down from their respectful positions .

Why they are not all hauled before the beak for fraud is beyond me , but then I am a , hopefully at least , a law abiding citizen . Something that can not be levelled at this bunch of reprobates .

[Bloggo]

As all three party leaders are culpable in this debacle , surely they should all do the honourable thing and stand down from their respectful positions .

Why they are not all hauled before the beak for fraud is beyond me , but then I am a , hopefully at least , a law abiding citizen . Something that can not be levelled at this bunch of reprobates .

I quite agree.
It is astounding how morally bankrupt so many of our MPs have been shown to be and the huge sums of money that have been swindled from the tax payer is astounding.
Your're right they should all face some kind of criminal charges.

[blackdog]

Why they are not all hauled before the beak for fraud is beyond me

I suspect that there are relatively few cases of fraud - the problem was a stupendously lax system that encouraged MPs to claim for everything as a way of compensating them for what they felt were inadequate salaries.

Much of the money that Legge is asking to be repaid was claimed within the rules. It seems that Legge has come up with maximum amounts for various claims - so much for gardening, so much for cleaning, etc. while he has placed no limit of mortgage interest payments. No such limits were involved previously, so many MPs are pretty upset.

Imagine working for a company that allowed you to choose the hotel you stay in while away on business and happily paid your expenses claims, then after four years they tell you they are retrospectively setting a £60 a night limit and expects you to repay any excess - how would you like it?

I have no sympathy for duck houses and moat cleaning, or for second home 'flipping', but I suspect that a lot of MPs who are guilty of nothing that could be seen as fraud or massive overindulgence are being penalised while those who have profited from property speculation funded by massive mortgage payments are getting away with it.

[Iommi]

Imagine working for a company that allowed you to choose the hotel you stay in while away on business and happily paid your expenses claims, then after four years they tell you they are retrospectively setting a £60 a night limit and expects you to repay any excess - how would you like it?

This is more than an exercise to repay money that should have not been granted, this is about attempting to rebuild a severely fractured trust in the parliamentary system. Unfortunately, as you have mentioned, the benefit received from property is obscene. From the outset, the moats, TVs and arm chairs was small beer. It is the profiteering that is a vulgar display of intent.

[Thirtover]

Would anyone be interested in previous MP's expense claims - maybe the NWN should put in a Freedom Of Information request.