News0 min ago
Not more smear politics!
15 Answers
Lets get it started then:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-113878 2/Expenses-row-Jacqui-Smith-faces-sleaze-probe -116-000-expenses.html
Do they point out that under the rules to 2004 this was exactly how she should have arraged her expenses and since then it's up to the MP to decide?
Do they point out that she doesn't even use the "Grace and favour" residence to which she's entitled?
Surprise surprise when she's cleared of any wrong doing it will be called a fix!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-113878 2/Expenses-row-Jacqui-Smith-faces-sleaze-probe -116-000-expenses.html
Do they point out that under the rules to 2004 this was exactly how she should have arraged her expenses and since then it's up to the MP to decide?
Do they point out that she doesn't even use the "Grace and favour" residence to which she's entitled?
Surprise surprise when she's cleared of any wrong doing it will be called a fix!
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. 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.
come on Jake, you may be able to explain away this case but I think it's a story because your noo labour buddies have turned corruption and general nest feathering into an art form. Yes the Tories used to get a bit of a slagging for "sleaze" but, Noo Labour have shown them up for a bunch of amateurs.
The reason there's a fuss is that, if this is allowed, there's the most enormous loophole in the rules, both pre and post 2004(she was claiming in both periods). It appears to be contrary to the spirit of them,in any case.The idea is that she is allowed to claim expenses in respect of her second home.For 'second' the proper reading is 'secondary', in most cases that being the home the MP who does not represent a constituency in the London region has to keep in London, it being unreasonable to expect them to commute ,perhaps, hundreds of miles.So far, so obvious.
Prima facie, this MP was claiming monies not applied to the room she had in her sister's house locally but to the house she owned in the constituency.If so, that's an abuse of the process.Although the room would let for �100 a week, it would be interesting to know whether her sister ever received any sum by way of rent (she would not necessarily be taxed on it, since the tax law is set to encourage the taking of a lodger).Cynics might think it unlikely that the owner charged her own sister anything. Are we to understand that she would have let the room to anyone else and it was put on the open market as a lodging ?
Now, who thinks that, if this is the case, it's morally right ?
Prima facie, this MP was claiming monies not applied to the room she had in her sister's house locally but to the house she owned in the constituency.If so, that's an abuse of the process.Although the room would let for �100 a week, it would be interesting to know whether her sister ever received any sum by way of rent (she would not necessarily be taxed on it, since the tax law is set to encourage the taking of a lodger).Cynics might think it unlikely that the owner charged her own sister anything. Are we to understand that she would have let the room to anyone else and it was put on the open market as a lodging ?
Now, who thinks that, if this is the case, it's morally right ?
I think this SCANDALOUS.
How the labour party have the nerve to critisize bonuses for bank bosses when they abuse the system like this is a joke.
I have no problem with an MP renting (or even buying) a second home in London and claiming for that (although the expenses should be enough to make the house habitable, not for having a whole kitchen refitted).
But to claim for your second home, WHEN YOUR SECOND HOME IS THE HOUSE YOU NORMALLY LIVE IN borders on the criminal.
And to claim over �100,000 for it makes it worse.
And I am not having a go at Labour here, it seems to me all the parties do it, so do our MEPs in Europe.
They stand up on the stage and tell us how we are all going to have to suffer the credit crunch and the downturn, while they are claiming THOUSANDS in expenses, AND building up a huge pension, while the ordinairy public are losing their jobs and their houses.
How the labour party have the nerve to critisize bonuses for bank bosses when they abuse the system like this is a joke.
I have no problem with an MP renting (or even buying) a second home in London and claiming for that (although the expenses should be enough to make the house habitable, not for having a whole kitchen refitted).
But to claim for your second home, WHEN YOUR SECOND HOME IS THE HOUSE YOU NORMALLY LIVE IN borders on the criminal.
And to claim over �100,000 for it makes it worse.
And I am not having a go at Labour here, it seems to me all the parties do it, so do our MEPs in Europe.
They stand up on the stage and tell us how we are all going to have to suffer the credit crunch and the downturn, while they are claiming THOUSANDS in expenses, AND building up a huge pension, while the ordinairy public are losing their jobs and their houses.
Up to 2004 she wouldn't have had a choice! her constituency home would have automatically been assigned as her second home.
MPs get these allowances because they have to work in Westminster but can't be expected to move because they represent a constituency possibly on the other side of the country. Most need 2 houses.
But the point is that even the Tory MP who's referred the case hasn't actually accused her of wrong doing!
"Has questions to answer" he said.
Simple smear politics of the lowest sort
MPs get these allowances because they have to work in Westminster but can't be expected to move because they represent a constituency possibly on the other side of the country. Most need 2 houses.
But the point is that even the Tory MP who's referred the case hasn't actually accused her of wrong doing!
"Has questions to answer" he said.
Simple smear politics of the lowest sort
The problem is 'under the present rules'.
It is scandalous that anyone can claim that the home they own and supposidly share with their husband and children can be classed as a second home.
There is your home and your work lodgings otherwise she should be classed as seperated or living seperatly from her family and should pay maintanence etc accordingly!!!
Personaly there should be no second home allowances that can be milked. It should be rent on a london place as that is the only place any mp should need a second home and that's it. If you furnish it you can always sell the furniture later and we shouldn't be paying morgages so that they benifit from property at a later date.
Otherwise they should be made to use the grace and favour places AND PAY THE TAX as a perk of the job like the rest of us.
It is scandalous that anyone can claim that the home they own and supposidly share with their husband and children can be classed as a second home.
There is your home and your work lodgings otherwise she should be classed as seperated or living seperatly from her family and should pay maintanence etc accordingly!!!
Personaly there should be no second home allowances that can be milked. It should be rent on a london place as that is the only place any mp should need a second home and that's it. If you furnish it you can always sell the furniture later and we shouldn't be paying morgages so that they benifit from property at a later date.
Otherwise they should be made to use the grace and favour places AND PAY THE TAX as a perk of the job like the rest of us.
Employing spouse or relative, particularly spouse, as a secretary or researcher is an established way of getting extra money into an MP's pocket. They only come unstuck when they employ a son who spends his whole time at university or clubbing in London, by the look of it.
The short answer is to pay MPs a proper salary in the first place. They work a lot harder than the general public realises and to good effect (the turning up and voting in the House, like so many sheep being shepherded, is the least useful of their contributions! ) Having set a proper salary then only allow them what any other professional is allowed as expenditure necessarily incurred in the course of business to enable them to run the business and earn the salary, with receipts produced for everything. In an MPs case that wouldn't be much, on the face of it.
The short answer is to pay MPs a proper salary in the first place. They work a lot harder than the general public realises and to good effect (the turning up and voting in the House, like so many sheep being shepherded, is the least useful of their contributions! ) Having set a proper salary then only allow them what any other professional is allowed as expenditure necessarily incurred in the course of business to enable them to run the business and earn the salary, with receipts produced for everything. In an MPs case that wouldn't be much, on the face of it.
1 to 15 of 15
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.