Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
MP's Expenses review |
|
|
|
Oct 12 2009, 12:27 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 12 2009, 12:10 PM) 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?
--------------------
Bloggo
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 12 2009, 06:32 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33
|
QUOTE (Hugh Saskin @ Oct 12 2009, 07:29 PM) 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
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 12 2009, 10:04 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 12-July 09
Member No.: 191
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 12 2009, 12:10 PM) 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'.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2009, 09:38 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ Oct 13 2009, 12:10 AM) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2009, 09:39 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 12 2009, 12:10 PM) ... claims judged to be inappropriate? QUOTE (Sarah @ Oct 12 2009, 11:04 PM) 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. QUOTE (Sarah @ Oct 12 2009, 11:04 PM) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2009, 09:51 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 13 2009, 10:39 AM) 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.
--------------------
Bloggo
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2009, 10:17 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Oct 13 2009, 10:51 AM) 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...)
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2009, 10:30 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 13 2009, 11:17 AM) 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. QUOTE 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.
--------------------
Bloggo
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2009, 10:55 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 554
Joined: 27-June 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 164
|
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 .
--------------------
Rem tene verba sequentur
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2009, 11:17 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41
|
QUOTE (lordtup @ Oct 13 2009, 11:55 AM) 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.
--------------------
Bloggo
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2009, 07:47 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE (lordtup @ Oct 13 2009, 11:55 AM) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13 2009, 08:02 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ Oct 13 2009, 08:47 PM) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2009, 09:50 AM
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 28-October 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 444
|
Would anyone be interested in previous MP's expense claims - maybe the NWN should put in a Freedom Of Information request.
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|