Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by djtrev View Post
    Out of 646 MP's only 13 were below £100,000.
    Apparently according to last nights news,the MP who was sacked was claiming on a mortgage that was already paid up.
    No, that MP was Labour and he resigned (from a front-bench role, IIRC).

    The conservative MP who was sacked from a advisory position to Cameron was married to another MP and they were claiming for different second homes.

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    A sensible thing to do would be to say: "OK: expenses will fund the purchase of a second home. However, HMG will have a charge on the property. When it is sold, the sum which has been taken in expenses must be repaid subject to interest calculated at X% above base for the period during which it was not 'earning' for HMG."

    Renting properties will be more expensive than paying monthly mortgage instalments, but that doesn't mean the money has to be treated by the Exchequer as gone.

    It also doesn't deal with things like the cost of new kitchens, or wood flooring(!), etc. But maybe MPs would have been less likely to pig out on the trough if they knew they would have to repay a large amount.

    Today I read that one MP says he was advised to 'claim for the whole mortgage even though most of it had been paid off'. That could mean a number of things, and I cannot be certain which.

    But if that is intended to excuse his behaviour, then it does not. He's capable of applying his own judgment to this and saying: "Well, if I were to do that where would the extra money come from?", before deciding if it was OK to follow that advice.

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Members of Parliament are more than individuals, they heads of organisations. An MP may have need of multiple residences. A home for the family, a residence in the constituency, and a place near Parliament. MPs often have special areas of interest which possibly require others. A lot of constituency work is delegated.

    On top of all this the world is changing rapidly. It is impossible to make strict rules to govern their expenses. If they spent the time to try and do it it would be at the expense of other legislation that is more necessary.

    The system of having their expenses open to public scrutiny, and guidelines, would have worked well, if the public scrutiny and accountability was continuous, and not delivered as a Tsunami just as a elections are on the horizon.

  4. #24
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    It is impossible to make strict rules to govern their expenses. If they spent the time to try and do it it would be at the expense of other legislation that is more necessary.
    The expense system works of a fashion - there was the MP who claimed for a £2000 TV but only got paid half of it - that suggests there are staff who offer some scrutiny of expense claims, and that some of the more extravagant claims have fallen through due to missplaced trust, bias, bad management or outright corruption. I agree that furthur legislation on expense limits etc...is a waste of time without an overhaul of the office that handles them. And a dictionary with the word "reasonable" highlighted for MP's.

    It could be argued that there is an element of missplaced trust more than anything else. Trust that MPs claims are actually reasonable and they are not lying through their teeth because they can get away with it. This reminds me of the ancient folk tale where the King, looking for honest member of parliament, left an unguarded sack of gold coins outside the throne room. A sack that all would be applicants had to pass. As part of the interview he asked them to dance, many refused, knowing they would jingle and be found out as thieves, the ones that did dance got offered the job.

    heres an example of a jingler (not Barry, the MP )...

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I read one quote yesterday in which - I think it was the labour minister who resigned - said he'd called the expenses office and asked what was the limit on the cost of a TV for his second home. There isn't one, he was told. He says now "I thought that was just crazy."

    This did not, however, stop him from going out and spending £2,500 on a home entertainment system.
    Jingle all the way...oh what fun it is to cream expenses day by day, Hey!

    However, I've known people who felt it was their bounden duty to exploit the system as much as possible and justified their attitude by saying 'Oh, it's what they expect, they system is designed to take account of a bit of jigging'.
    Jingling you mean

    I'm a bit - 'well, people will generally act as badly as they can get away with' - but even I've been taken aback. Not by the greed, particularly; but by the total failure to appreciate how small-minded and grasping they are being while simultaneously voting for reductions in social services spending, and so on.
    Yes it is amusing how adamant many MPs are that "the expense system is flawed" after creaming it for all its worth themselves and getting found out for it

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    The rules are largely black and white
    The problem is that they are NOT black and white. A £2500 entertainment system is not reasonable in any shape or form, but according to the rules it is valid. So while some purchases are black and white i.e. you can buy a TV for a second home; how much you should spend on it is a very murky grey area indeed. It would be nice to think that either
    1. The MP realised (without media exposure) that £2500 was not reasonable
    2. The office receiving the £2500 claim pushed it back with "dont be cheeky".

    If either had happened regularly, we would have this outrage in the first place.

    Why should MPs need specific intructions on what is reasonable? Are they children, who upon being given money and told to "buy a sweetie", spend the entire amount in one shop ?

    Numbers like, 'most MPs claim over £100,000 in expenses' are misleading; they need to be placed in the context of what it costs them to do their job.
    A very good point. It is a unique job in that you really do need 2 homes, you have a constituency and you have a requirement to be in London and possibly elsewhere for purely work purposes. Of course if you already live in London and have received funding for a 2nd home that isnt even much closer, then you are clearly taking the p1ss.

    The one major change I would make revolves around MPs buying personal assets on the Government. If they buy assets, those assets should be the property of the Government, not the individual; if they want to keep the asset, then they should pay for it themselves. That, rather than the amount they spend, should be the essence of the debate.
    Totally agree. If an MPs buys somewhere and invests 10% in it, they can get 10% of its value if it is ever sold. If they put in nothing, they get nothing. Seems fair. Everyone agree? OK, lets move on.

    It does require clear moral leadership, that stems from individual integrity (something more substantial that what comes across as self-righteousness that we're getting from all sides of the house at the moment).
    Ah bring back Thatcher or Stalin - clear moral leadership there. Or immoral depending how you look at it. Nowadays we have an expectation of "outrage subject to degree of media furore" and wishy washy "we are listening and are as shocked as you are" rehetoric broadcast over youTube.

    Finally, the individual behaviour. This is the thing that everyone seems most worked up about, but actually the last thing I think needs to be worried about. The individuals who are actually breaking the rules are already being dealt with; the rules need to be tightened up; and the culture needs to be changed. But fix all of that and you will produce a change in individual behaviour.
    I see your point, but is the fact that the "culture will change" enough? Should we ignore the individuals who are breaking the rules or even the spirit of the rules because they are "being dealt with"? As mentioned above, these people are "jinglers" - do we want these people representing us? Do we consider them honest?

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    There was an employer who was aked why he did not sack an employee who had been exposed as a thief who replied "He steals more for me than from me."

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    3,166
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by FirstMove View Post
    My company went the other way. The Inland Revenue argued:
    Your staff are making a profit out of expenses and we're not getting any income tax or National Insurance from it." You can't tell us how much they're earning (without introducing an expenses system), so we'll tax the total amount.
    .
    Here we have the cause of their problems

    Expenses are not taxed . Some time ago MPs decided not to have big pay rise, which would be taxed, instead decided to allow themselves £26 K in expenses, but in order to be tax free they need receipts. then to their horror the Freedom of information act made their receipts public

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Waltham Abbey
    Posts
    5,534
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    The 'second houses' expenses system is intended to relieve MPs of the additional expenses incurred as a consequence of having to do part of their job in Westminster and part of it in their constituency.
    Oh, but then you've got the likes of Ann and Alan Keen who really are taking the plss out of that one.

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,119
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Bartholomew View Post
    Then it was stated that John Prescott claimed about 4 grand for food last year, and I thought, "That's fairly reasonable, if you think about it."
    What does Gordon Brown eat? Caviar all day? and does he use Bolinger for bath water???

    I know Glasgow is cheaper for food than London, but my budget allows me way lower than 1/2 of that!!! Add to this I eat out at least once a week, and I can currently have friends over once or twice a month without feeling the pinch too much...

    The only logical explanation I can find for £4,000 of food expenses is if his whole nuclear family's food is being paid for.... IMHO it should only be for the individual's food expenses - not the family's - that would have to be paid for from any other salary....

    Irritated underpaid public servant

    [rant over]

    Whitetiger

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South
    Posts
    5,424
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    The Queen should dissolve parliament and sack the lot of them. Then start again from scratch, but march the new MPs past traitors row where they can see the current p1ss-taking scumbags' heads on spikes.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gav View Post
    The Queen should dissolve parliament and sack the lot of them. Then start again from scratch, but march the new MPs past traitors row where they can see the current p1ss-taking scumbags' heads on spikes.
    Thanks for the manifesto. Which constituency do you have your eye on?

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Yes.

    Next question?

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Yes.

    Next question?
    Where are you going to move to?

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    The problem is that they are NOT black and white. A £2500 entertainment system is not reasonable in any shape or form, but according to the rules it is valid.
    You've confused the rules being clear with the rules being acceptable and reasonable. That's precisely the problem I was alluding too: conflating these too ideas. The fact is, most of the expenses that you've used as examples appear to be within the rules - I see little ambiguity around that fact. The one exception to that, the individual has been immediately suspended from their party.

    It's equally clear that these rules are not deemed acceptable by the tabloids and their readers. But this is a different problem and one that should be dealt with differently.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Why should MPs need specific intructions on what is reasonable? Are they children, who upon being given money and told to "buy a sweetie", spend the entire amount in one shop?
    I assume that's a rhetorical question. Given the current situation, it's patently obvious that guidelines on what is reasonable and acceptable are required. If they were not, this thread would not exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    I see your point, but is the fact that the "culture will change" enough? Should we ignore the individuals who are breaking the rules or even the spirit of the rules because they are "being dealt with"? As mentioned above, these people are "jinglers" - do we want these people representing us? Do we consider them honest?
    The people who are breaking the rules are being dealt with - as they should be (again, don't conflate breaking the rules with crossing the line of what you consider reasonable). Losing their job seems like a fair outcome to me. But this is already happening, so it's a non-issue.

    The spirit of the rules is much trickier - punishing one person because they went a little further than another person, but still acted within the formal rules and within norms and standards in place at the time of their action seems harsh (not to mention stupid and futile). This is where the moral leadership comes in to place: put a line in the sand defining standards of reasonable and acceptable behaviour first. Then crucify anyone who crosses that line. At the moment, the moral outrage of the media is calling for crucifiction first, which is completely backwards.

    Perceived moral outrage is one of the strongest motivators for people to act immorally.

  14. #34
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    The fact is, most of the expenses that you've used as examples appear to be within the rules - I see little ambiguity around that fact.
    From the "Green Book" for the relevant period:

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenBook
    You must ensure that arrangements for your ACA claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation, goods or services funded from the allowances.
    You really think most of those expense claims are inside that rule?

    Also

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenBook
    You should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.
    Specifically not allowed:

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenBook
    The capital cost of repairs which go beyond making good dilapidations and enhance the property.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenBook
    Furnishings or fittings which are antique, luxury or premium grade
    How a £2500 entertainment system, or an £18000 set of bookcases, do not break these rules, I don't know.

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    3,166
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?


  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    1,324
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    [QUOTE=bigdjiver;547726]Members of Parliament are more than individuals, they heads of organisations. An MP may have need of multiple residences. A home for the family, a residence in the constituency, and a place near Parliament. MPs often have special areas of interest which possibly require others. A lot of constituency work is delegated.

    QUOTE]

    Oh come on.Now who is taking the pi55.

    If there is this need to have a place near Parliament,may I suggest that the Government buys a tower block and house them all in there.
    Its one thing having a second home in Chelsea but its another having a dampformer council flat in Hackney that used to belong to an incontinent crack addict.

  17. #37
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by philsmove View Post
    For those who don't fancy searching a 100+ page thread; did you mean http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/s...postcount=2845 by any chance?

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South
    Posts
    5,424
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    Thanks for the manifesto. Which constituency do you have your eye on?
    Constituency? I'm after the crown!

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    The one exception to that, the individual has been immediately suspended from their party.
    You haven't been paying attention.

    I haven't been following things that closely, but I believe it's correct that at least 2 MPs have claimed for mortgage payments that they weren't actually making. [Also, I refer you to David Franklin's excellent post citing the actual rules - good work, fella!]

    There is also a third problem which you haven't identified. This is the 'laxness' of the interpretation which has been put on the rules by the expenses office. This is one of the reasons the Speaker is in such trouble, because it's one of his responsibilities.

    The MP who spent £2,500 on a home entertainment system claimed that the expenses office told him there was no limit to what he could spend on a TV.

    So we have a rules system which was wide open to exploitation, and an implementation system which seemed to have no thought of protecting the interests of the exchequer (or the taxpayer, if you prefer). But the main problem is we had MPs who fell into the wrong mindset. Instead of thinking - which I believe and maintain I and most of my family would think - 'well, this money comes from a source which means I must be modest in my demands', they appear to have decided - 'hey! free money! let's go for it, and milk the system for whatever we can get away with. What, you bought your own TV? SUCKER!!! AAH HAH HAH HAAA!!!'
    Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 19th-May-2009 at 10:02 AM.

  20. #40
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Do we want to be governed by a bunch of Goody Goodies?

    I believe the evil laugh at the end really happened in some cases.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Workshops: choreographed routines or just a bunch of moves?
    By ducasi in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 30th-November-2007, 05:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •