Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Its a done deal Keith. There is nothing for DC to 'get away with' he has had meetings, shown leadership and a chastened Party has fallen in behind him.
We should also remember - the number of those identified as abusing the system is still a minority of the 646 Mps. There are talk of a dozen LibDems being exposed tomorrow and even adding them to the total it remains at no more than around 70-75 miscreants (still far too many, needless to say). It is easy to get carried away and to think it is the majority who are the problem. it isnt.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
There was a time when the only reward MPs received was the satisfaction of serving their constituents well.
Then they were given a wage so as to ensure that MPs were not just drawn from those who were of independent financial means - for many years this was all they got,, no expenses, not even secretarial or postage costs.
As workloads increased, so allowances and other expenses were brought in, and abuse of these started, until we ended up with today's snouts in the trough behaviour.
It does not matter how many are at it - one is too many.
Unreceipted expenses are a recipe for over claiming/fraud - every organisation I have worked for demands receipts for any item over £5, prior authorisation for expenses over £25 and sets limits on travel (cost, mode of transport, class of ticket etc.) subsistence and entertaining - so why should not expect these wastrels to abide by similar rules?
Oh and don't get me started on the nonsense that is the European Parliamentary expense fiasco, but suffice it to say that with bit of guile and some clever accounting it is possible to get over £1m in expenses and allowances over the course of a 4 year tenure.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Well there you have it as GB says, its no good a few MP's tinkering at giving back, or even DC good intentions, its about looking at a revamp of the whole system.
Unless this happens the electorate won't be convinced,and as HOWARD says the only winners will be the extreme parties and thats a real concern
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
I think the marvellous Anne Widdicombe summed it up beautifully, If you've done nothing wrong then why are you paying money back and if you have done somehing wrong then what the hell are you still doing in office.
Sums it up quite well really.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the logical extension will be that criminals when caught will start paying back their ill gotten gains with no penalty for their wrongdoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Dave1 - Anne misses the point. The rules were so lax and the House authorities so complicit in encouraging the use of these lax rules it just is not enough to claim that you were within the rules.
DC said it, he said if it smells wrong then it is wrong. He is setting a bar for Conservative MPs much higher than the rules and he is applying it retrospectively, if the scrutiny committee finds a claim that does not meet the standard then the money is paid back. Seems right to me.
There have been too many MPs claiming that they kept within the rules despite morally questionable claims on taxpayer money.
Where an MP is guilty of an abuse that is against even these slack rules then tougher action needs to be taken.
Incidentally - DC has also said that local Parties should consider whether to re-select an MP who cannot satisfy them with a reasonable explanation for what they have done. Even paying the money back may not save some from de-selection.
Howard - your comparison with criminals is wrong as they will have broken the law. That is not necessarily the case for the vast majority of excessive and inappropriate claims by MPs even though the rules should not have allowed it.
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
Just watched the news it seems never ending but still no resignations, they obviously have no honour or decency at all, in the days of honour by now at least one of them would have gone into a locked room with a bottle and a loaded revolver. Now they bleat and that they haven't done anything wrong scum.
beer the food of the gods
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I have just found this case - the worse yet. this is one man for whom paying it back definately is not enough. He must face criminal prosecution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5320852/Elliot-Morley-claimed-16000-for-mortgage-that-did-not-exist-MPs-expenses.htmlGuest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
Hes apologised so its alright
beer the food of the gods
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
The gravy train, "OH quick, give some of it back"
That makes me look so much better and the public will think better of me.
NO WAY PEDRO.
Ian...
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
Barry, the damage is done, it is going to take the public a long time to regain confidence in politicians. Only tonight we have a report that a labour MP claimed £16,000.00 for a mortgage that didn't exist and a Coservative MP who took expenses for a second home when in fact it was the address of a London club. Should these instances be true that is fraud in any sense of the meaning and the police should deal with it in the same way as they would deal with anybody else.
Make excuses for the system of expenses but the fact is a lot of these MPs are QCs, stockbrokers, accountants and god knows what, they are not stupid.
Good lord! Throw him in the slammer - IMMEDIATELY! That is theft, plain and simple, and there should not even be any discussion as to whether it is a police matter.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
my favourite was a mr hogg with his country seat.
he kept rattling on about who was expected to keep ot clean.
how about him?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Douglas Hogg while wrong to have claimed morally and should not have done so, he did clear it with the Commons authorities first therefore there is no criminal or Commons rules case against him, howard. Paying it back is the thing the he must do (and done now, I believe)
This MP claiming for a non-existant mortgage is another matter - throw the book at him.
I have just read about John Maples. It seems he had cleared what he did with the Commons authorities too, those damn rules again. So no legal case but I do think a moral one so paying the money back is necessary and he will need to explain himself to his constituents and the scrutiny committee.
One of the pleasures of this outrageous event is watching the MPs squirm and bicker: there was one spreading himself far and wide on radio and TV and all he managed to do was demonstrate what an out of touch hypocritical big girls blouse he was, whinnying about how much news journalists are paid and how hard MPs work. Boo and Hoo.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Further to Dave's post above..yes its Elliot Morley who has claimed for a mortgage he doesnt have. That's criminal surely, we have reached the ultimate bottom of the cesspit with this one. As I understand it..it is no defense in law to offer to pay things back. It doesnt exonerate you from the crime. So all these people rushing to pay stuff back, and waving their cheques about on television, is not an exemption from the original crime. It may be desirable but its not an exemption, an exoneration. The crime has still been committed.
Ive had braces of press releases in over the years about local people of humble means claiming benefits wrongly and going to jail for their trouble. Even these people, poor mostly, have more of a case than the rather well off affluent and now effluent MP's claiming similar.
I also think that the staff in the fees office who turned a blind eye to almost every claim should be sacked. We could start there.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The problem with the fees office is the their boss, Mr Speaker, he set the tone - he, as the man responsible and in charge is the one to go. I would bet that he will be gone by the end of the month.
Yes - where crimes are committed, hang draw and quarter them
That does not cover the vast majority though so for paying back and subjecting themselves to the mercy of their local party organisation is the only way.. There are a good few, including some Conservatives, who I would love to see de-selected.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
i hear that one of dc advisers have been sacked,i wander how many more will follow in the next few weeks.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Yes thats right Brian, I agree.
David Cameron is rightly being ruthless in his investigation into Tory wrongdoers and is not waiting for the Telegraph to 'out' them before acting. To sack one of his right hand men like this says a lot about his determination to be pro-active. I would not be surprised if there is a re-selection fight in McLean's constituency and a good job too.
Contrast that to the Labour Chief Whip who was interviewed on the BBC admitting he knew about Morley's false mortgage claim four days ago but kept quiet. Only on Morley being 'outed' by the Telegraph was any action taken by him.
I would expect a few things to happen over the next week.
I think the police and tax authorities will get involved in some of the worse cases where it seems likely a fraud has been committed.
I also think that DC will be confronting some of the others among the worse offenders who may not have broken the rules or law - expect some whip withdrawals and re-selections on the Tory side of the House. There is a lot more drama to come on this one.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
Barry all three party leaders have to be ruthless., it's not a point scoring exercise to see who can act first, it's a damage limitation act to impress a very irate public.
According to my reckoning more than10% of MPs have submitted, shall we say, spurious expense claims, that is an absolute inexcusable disgrace.
I now have no idea who I shall be voting for in the forthcoming elections, suffice to say it won't be for any of the three major political parties