MP's and Expenses

[chesters1]

they are all at "it" luckily my blame never picks parties ,trough is nearest i can find to describe it.

been looking through old parliamentary papers (not closer than 2002 ) and how many MP's were involved in "Discussions" and "questions" IE how many actually turned up in parliament itself.

not surprisingly a lot were 0 (thats zero I.E they never went) but all were NOT full time I.E they didnt clock in every day ,most averaged a month (as far as i can work out) parliamentary "work" a year

add their constitionary (sp?) work and its not a bad job ,just a couple of months work a year!!

 

this would be nice to see :"Participation rates in Commons Divisions 2007-2008 Session" but its not in circulation for some reason (most papers are if you look hard enough but this ones eluded me)

NOT saying everyone's at it but if "good" MP's are not stopping "bad" MP's then their all bad ,tarring is justified.

 

there was a cofuffle (that got the spell checker flummoxed ) on here about "freedom of the press" and why it shouldnt be gagged ,these revelations are the very reason ! just think how it would be if nothing was in the press or more importantly leaked to the press.

when you want to gag the press then your desperately trying to hide something

Edited May 11, 2009 by chesters1

[gozzer]

I an not going to get involved in this shambles, save to say that Labour are saying that the Tories are at it as well! The Tory that claimed for the gardening had it sent back (by Labour) saying that "IT WAS MORALLY WRONG!!!"

 

I think that sums Labour up.

 

I think you are wise to stay out of it KB with that thinking.

 

If you want to do a bit of research, look at which party brought in the present system, and why.

 

 

 

Nice one Judy

 

Two out of three is pretty good for me.

 

John.

[Sportsman]

I agree that MPs need a system that allows them to keep their homes and travel to / stay in Westminster without penalising those who live further away,

BUT!

The facts seem to indicate that many (if not most) MPs from all persuasions seem to be taking advantage of the present system to maximise their expenses "take"

Whilst this may be technically within the law it is morally doubtful and for a cabinet minister to be seen doing it must cast doubts on their moral rectitude.

Or to put it another way, they are all a bunch of lying, thieving greedy incompetent lying barstewards that wouldn't get a look in at any other job

[barry luxton]

this would be nice to see :"Participation rates in Commons Divisions 2007-2008 Session" but its not in circulation for some reason (most papers are if you look hard enough but this ones eluded me)

NOT saying everyone's at it but if "good" MP's are not stopping "bad" MP's then their all bad ,tarring is justified.

 

I have seen something of this previously, where the likes of george galloway came out as being rather expensive in relation to questions submitted in parliament.

 

The average cost of expenses claimed by the mp's per year is over 100k. Work out value for money. The previous fishing minister bradshaw is in the press down the west country today so even he hasn't excaped the press net. While he was the minister, 130k exes he was claiming. Not bad work if you can get it.

[Alan Stubbs]

"It was within the guidlines" - hardly a ringing endorsement of the standards they set themselves - they use their own self-interest to get the money, then complain that the rules are over-generous to them.

 

Double standards? Whatever, it's hardly a ringing endorsement.

 

I also see that the person responsible for passing expenses claims said he felt bullied into passing claims and to stop complaining by the Speaker (who has also been accused of living high on the hog). He felt that if he complained more, he was in danger of losing his job (at a pittance of £125,000 a year).

The bullying consisted of being ignored by the Speaker for weeks at a time. Bullying? The guy's a wimp.

[Ken L]

They all seem to be falling back on the Nuremburg defence.

 

"The rules allowed it and I was only doing the same as everybody else"

 

So far there appear to be very few conscientious objectors whose personal moral compass has prevented excessive claims. As it's completely obvious that our MPs are a self serving shower of sh1t3, I have far more interest in knowing which ones have a shred of decency than in the depths to which the majority will sink.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Ken L

[kleinboet]

I said I wouldn't enter the debate and I won't.

All I will say is that the only acceptable answer would be that ALL MP's get the AVERAGE (Either London or national, as worked out every year) wage - that way we get MP's, not money grabbers.

They must have expenses, so elect a commitee from the unemployed to decide what are legitimate and what aren't!

Edited May 11, 2009 by kleinboet

[Alan Stubbs]

I said I wouldn't enter the debate and I won't.

All I will say is that the only acceptable answer would be that ALL MP's get the AVERAGE (Either London or national, as worked out every year) wage - that way we get MP's, not money grabbers.

They must have expenses, so elect a commitee from the unemployed to decide what are legitimate and what aren't!

 

 

ermmmm....this is a subtle point, KB. You said "I won't enter the debate" then added a comment.

 

You entered the debate as soon as you posted. A small credibility issue there.

[Sportsman]

Makes interesting reading

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...ents/article.do

[Jim Roper]

How should this mess be resolved,shoud the MP's be paid a sensible salary and no expenses?

 

 

 

what do you think the answer should be?

 

I think the salary they get is already OTT for someone who has never had the experience of doing any productive work.

 

They should have tied accommodation provided (if they really need it), to carry out their westminster duties. Portcullis House was provided for their office work, I thought. The YHA could probably put them up for the odd night they need to sleep in London.

A purpose-built block of flats designated for them only, might prove to be an irresistable target for terrorists. Some might think that to be an acceptable 'final solution' though(a bomb attack, I mean).