Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
MP's Exes, what's the answer?
I say abolish them completely unless it's direct governement business, they get enough salary, if they don't like the conditions then get another job. Surely the rest of us apply for a job with a plan of actually being able to do that job. All this second home nonsense is a farce. FFS they didn't even get wages at all till about 1910!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the answer is much simpler. Total transparency.
If you claim for something which you can't morally justify like pet food or moat repairs, it's going to be in the public domain and you'll be skewered by the media.
If it's a reasonable expense that relates to your travel or accomodation or work, you'll be fine. If you're not sure, err on the side of caution and pay for it yourself.
It'd soon weed out the bad eggs.
If you claim for something which you can't morally justify like pet food or moat repairs, it's going to be in the public domain and you'll be skewered by the media.
If it's a reasonable expense that relates to your travel or accomodation or work, you'll be fine. If you're not sure, err on the side of caution and pay for it yourself.
It'd soon weed out the bad eggs.
with regard to the LibDem whose house was used by his daughter - he says it didn't happen. One of the things about this rush of accusations is that MPs aren't given a whole lot of time and newspaper space to defend themselves. One Tory is still being talked of as the guy with the moat, even though he says he never claimed on it. We need to be careful with these trials-by-media. I have no idea whether all or any of the allegations are true but it rather seems as though the Telegraph just bought a CD and is printing it off without doing too much inquiring about its accuracy. Perhaps it's not the MPs' claims that need to be looked at in court but the newspaper's?
jno,
From the Telegraph:
Andrew George, a Liberal Democrat MP, is facing questions about his parliamentary expenses claims for a �300,000 London flat used by his student daughter
The MP for St Ives, claims �847 a month from taxpayers on mortgage interest payments for the riverside flat.
But the home insurance policy included on his expenses file is in the name of his 21-year-old daughter, Morvah George, a student who has worked as a professional model and as an intern for her father in Parliament.
It appears the Telegraph have done their research on this one. The MP may wriggle, but he has been caught out. His excuse that his insurance company would not accept a policy in his name because he has another policy on his Cornish home, is very weak.
From the Telegraph:
Andrew George, a Liberal Democrat MP, is facing questions about his parliamentary expenses claims for a �300,000 London flat used by his student daughter
The MP for St Ives, claims �847 a month from taxpayers on mortgage interest payments for the riverside flat.
But the home insurance policy included on his expenses file is in the name of his 21-year-old daughter, Morvah George, a student who has worked as a professional model and as an intern for her father in Parliament.
It appears the Telegraph have done their research on this one. The MP may wriggle, but he has been caught out. His excuse that his insurance company would not accept a policy in his name because he has another policy on his Cornish home, is very weak.
Don't you think we are being sidetracked as most of these paybacks are petty cash compared with the overall scheme of things. Jacky Smith claimed for a second home which wasn't hers and managed to get over �124,000 from the taxpayer over 5 years. Many other MPs claimed second homes when they were within a short distance of the commons. I feel the real culprits are being smothered by the silly side issues which cost the taxpayer little.
Think they should either have apartments for them to be used by any MP, or given an overnight allowance only to be claimed on proof of being in Parliament that day. They should get a meal allowance our work does �15 evening mean and �7 lunch, with no alcohol included. Our work only allows the guys to claim the cost of a 2nd class rail fare from their home to their place of work. After all they chose to be MP's, just the same as I chose where I wnated to work.
In the light of recent events this makes interesting reading, Dated 4th July 2008.
147 Labour MPs
20 Conservative MPs
2 Independent MPs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7488639 .stm
147 Labour MPs
20 Conservative MPs
2 Independent MPs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7488639 .stm
-- answer removed --
rov1200
AOG your list shows the speaker or Tory MP Alan Hazelhurst being paid �142,000 for his own property over 7 years. Why has Cameron not included him in his piglets?
Although he hasn't named them individually, I think Cameron has made it quite clear to his lot what to expect.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ cameron-pay-it-back-or-you-face-the-sack-16840 27.html
AOG your list shows the speaker or Tory MP Alan Hazelhurst being paid �142,000 for his own property over 7 years. Why has Cameron not included him in his piglets?
Although he hasn't named them individually, I think Cameron has made it quite clear to his lot what to expect.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ cameron-pay-it-back-or-you-face-the-sack-16840 27.html
Most politicians these days are career politicians, they work at Westminster doing various research jobs etc just awaiting their chance to join the gravy train. Very few of them know anything about life in the real world. What bugs me most is the way J Smith and her like think we are all fools and believe her lame excuses.
that article in the Independent made most interesting reading.when David Cameron explained what would be claimed in the future, a Tory MP said the rules were draconian !
excuse me ? only claiming for items that related directly to their job was"unusually severe or cruel" {dictionary definition}
As for the Labour MP accusing David Cameron of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted, kettle,pot and black comes to mind.These people still think they have done no wrong.
excuse me ? only claiming for items that related directly to their job was"unusually severe or cruel" {dictionary definition}
As for the Labour MP accusing David Cameron of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted, kettle,pot and black comes to mind.These people still think they have done no wrong.
Mike - Didn't say that no law has been broke, I said it hasn't been proven.
That because you are innocent until proven guilty.
Two points - Do not be led by the media who are very selective in what they state and what they don't until thier is a full disclosure, preferably in court, I remain to be convinced.
Secondly now that it has been discovered that every party High and low has been at it. I reckon hell will freeze over the day one MP go's to court over it.
That because you are innocent until proven guilty.
Two points - Do not be led by the media who are very selective in what they state and what they don't until thier is a full disclosure, preferably in court, I remain to be convinced.
Secondly now that it has been discovered that every party High and low has been at it. I reckon hell will freeze over the day one MP go's to court over it.
i read a while ago of an m.p saying that if you cant get a job locally you should look further afield, so why is it that if us mere mortals have to do it and commute without th luxury of expenses, why cant they? amongst some of the expenses claimed i notice one has claimed for 2 packets of jaffa cakes, surely that shouldnt be allowed
