MP's Expenses

[alchresearch]

21 hours ago, El Cid said:

Or maybe they are employing friends or family members. 

Well, Corbyn employed Laura Murray - daughter of Unite the union's chief of staff as a "political adviser" on £40,000 a year.

 

She's now being sued for libel by  Rachel Riley!

Edited May 10, 2019 by alchresearch

[Baron99]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59259342.amp

 

So once again, a number of MP's are stretching the public's generosity when it comes to paying them accommodation costs out of the public purse, by renting our their homes for a profit while claiming expenses for other homes they rent themselves. 

 

I reckon it would take much of a law change to stop this sort of thing?  There's got to be 1 MP out of 650 could start the ball rolling? 

 

[El Cid]

20 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59259342.amp

 

So once again, a number of MP's are stretching the public's generosity when it comes to paying them accommodation costs out of the public purse, by renting our their homes for a profit while claiming expenses for other homes they rent themselves.

Perhaps if every MP was given somewhere to live in London or an allowance?

[melthebell]

as they say, never let somebody who wants to do the job, be an mp, they are in it for themselves generally

3 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Perhaps if every MP was given somewhere to live in London or an allowance?

or rooms in a hostel

[Anna B]

Mp's were very good at employing family members and claiming the costs on expenses. I can't remember if it was stopped or does it still carry on behind closed doors.They don't obey the rules anyway, which is why they're heading into another scandal. They never seem to learn do they...?

[Mister M]

6 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Mp's were very good at employing family members and claiming the costs on expenses. I can't remember if it was stopped or does it still carry on behind closed doors.They don't obey the rules anyway, which is why they're heading into another scandal. They never seem to learn do they...?

I don't think there is a ban on employing family members. 

If I'm honest, this doesn't particularly bother me as such, as long as as the work they are being paid for is being done, and there is a legitimate need for an MP to have an assistant to help with running the constituency. 

[ECCOnoob]

30 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Mp's were very good at employing family members and claiming the costs on expenses. I can't remember if it was stopped or does it still carry on behind closed doors.They don't obey the rules anyway, which is why they're heading into another scandal. They never seem to learn do they...?

Who says?   We have had this sort of debate before Anna.

 

Are there actually any rules which have proven to be broken.  I'm talking here absolute categorically proven, not arguments on 'interpretation' not arguments on 'loopholes', not arguments on any morality nonsense - I am talking black and white court of law has a rule been broken?   That certainly not what I'm reading so far.

 

So have this grey area once again between written mandatory rules/laws and some arbitrary meaningless moralistic code which supposedly we should all be bound to and judged upon.

 

No matter how much the wider public find it distasteful or the pot stirring Media sensationalize it, if the rules are there then MPs are well within their rights to follow them. If they are entitled to maintain their careers outside MP work or if they are entitled to accommodation allowances or dinners or duck houses for that matter, then nobody has a right to be berated and challenged just for complying. If the masses don't like it they can sort them out as per their democratic rights. If enough public show their disapproval at the Ballot Box the rules will get changed. But until such time happens or until one of these politicians is actually categorically proven to have willfully and knowingly broken one of these rules, what right have they got to be shamed, berated and driven out.

 

You use the expenses scandal example but let's break that down for a moment. All that massive drama, dramatic headlines, endless news reporting, comedy gold for the topical stand-ups, back patting from all the smug journalists for exposing this so-called 'huge scandal' but just how many out of the 650 MPs were actually proven in a court of law to have broken the rules, charged and sentenced???   Just what exactly has been the dramatic changes made to the rules since the scandal when the practical realities of running offices in both Westminster and a local constituency, staff, travel, hospitality and accommodation all still has to be paid for somehow?

 

I've said it before dozens of times, we do not have some court of morals. The law is what it is. We are not under some mythical unknown unwritten Being. We're not at the mercy of what some man on the bus doesn't like.

 

We are in a world of laws, written regulations and contractual terms. If none of them are broken, no matter how much Doris at number 53 thinks she hates it - its none of her business....

 

Personally I feel all this hot air and media blowout is the completely wrong angle.  The target should be the rules themselves not persecution of people following them ( no matter how distasteful or greedy or privileged the man on the street thinks it is).   Enough hating the player start hating the game and change it.  But of course getting them changed is the hard bit, particularly into a realistic, reasonable and workable application that suits all the requirements and operations of Parliament.  It takes time and great effort and great skill to deal with all the complexities that they have to cover. Therefore the man on the street doesn't bother with all that sort of  complicated stuff– it's all just a lot easier to start berating, naming, shaming and throwing about their uncorroborated unwanted opinions on social media - just like we are doing right now.

Edited November 13, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[Mister Gee]

5 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Who says?   We have had this sort of debate before Anna.

 

Are there actually any rules which have proven to be broken.  I'm talking here absolute categorically proven, not arguments on 'interpretation' not arguments on 'loopholes', not arguments on any morality nonsense - I am talking black and white court of law has a rule been broken?   That certainly not what I'm reading so far.

 

So have this grey area once again between written mandatory rules/laws and some arbitrary meaningless moralistic code which supposedly we should all be bound to and judged upon.

 

No matter how much the wider public find it distasteful or the pot stirring Media sensationalize it, if the rules are there then MPs are well within their rights to follow them. If they are entitled to maintain their careers outside MP work or if they are entitled to accommodation allowances or dinners or duck houses for that matter, then nobody has a right to be berated and challenged just for complying. If the masses don't like it they can sort them out as per their democratic rights. If enough public show their disapproval at the Ballot Box the rules will get changed. But until such time happens or until one of these politicians is actually categorically proven to have willfully and knowingly broken one of these rules, what right have they got to be shamed, berated and driven out.

 

You use the expenses scandal example but let's break that down for a moment. All that massive drama, dramatic headlines, endless news reporting, comedy gold for the topical stand-ups, back patting from all the smug journalists for exposing this so-called 'huge scandal' but just how many out of the 650 MPs were actually proven in a court of law to have broken the rules, charged and sentenced???   Just what exactly has been the dramatic changes made to the rules since the scandal when the practical realities of running offices in both Westminster and a local constituency, staff, travel, hospitality and accommodation all still has to be paid for somehow?

 

I've said it before dozens of times, we do not have some court of morals. The law is what it is. We are not under some mythical unknown unwritten Being. We're not at the mercy of what some man on the bus doesn't like.

 

We are in a world of laws, written regulations and contractual terms. If none of them are broken, no matter how much Doris at number 53 thinks she hates it - its none of her business....

 

Personally I feel all this hot air and media blowout is the completely wrong angle.  The target should be the rules themselves not persecution of people following them ( no matter how distasteful or greedy or privileged the man on the street thinks it is).   Enough hating the player start hating the game and change it.  But of course getting them changed is the hard bit, particularly into a realistic, reasonable and workable application that suits all the requirements and operations of Parliament.  It takes time and great effort and great skill to deal with all the complexities that they have to cover. Therefore the man on the street doesn't bother with all that sort of  complicated stuff– it's all just a lot easier to start berating, naming, shaming and throwing about their uncorroborated unwanted opinions on social media - just like we are doing right now.

You don’t half put in some effort when it comes to defending spivs, shysters and con artists.

[ECCOnoob]

I like to give context. I also like to sometimes drag threads like this kicking screaming away from the generic rah rah rah protesting and over simplistic soundbites to give some reminders of the harsh practical realities

 

I am not defending anyone. I am being realistic.

Edited November 13, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[Mister M]

49 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Who says?   We have had this sort of debate before Anna.

 

Are there actually any rules which have proven to be broken.  I'm talking here absolute categorically proven, not arguments on 'interpretation' not arguments on 'loopholes', not arguments on any morality nonsense - I am talking black and white court of law has a rule been broken?   That certainly not what I'm reading so far.

 

So have this grey area once again between written mandatory rules/laws and some arbitrary meaningless moralistic code which supposedly we should all be bound to and judged upon.

 

No matter how much the wider public find it distasteful or the pot stirring Media sensationalize it, if the rules are there then MPs are well within their rights to follow them. If they are entitled to maintain their careers outside MP work or if they are entitled to accommodation allowances or dinners or duck houses for that matter, then nobody has a right to be berated and challenged just for complying. If the masses don't like it they can sort them out as per their democratic rights. If enough public show their disapproval at the Ballot Box the rules will get changed. But until such time happens or until one of these politicians is actually categorically proven to have willfully and knowingly broken one of these rules, what right have they got to be shamed, berated and driven out.

 

You use the expenses scandal example but let's break that down for a moment. All that massive drama, dramatic headlines, endless news reporting, comedy gold for the topical stand-ups, back patting from all the smug journalists for exposing this so-called 'huge scandal' but just how many out of the 650 MPs were actually proven in a court of law to have broken the rules, charged and sentenced???   Just what exactly has been the dramatic changes made to the rules since the scandal when the practical realities of running offices in both Westminster and a local constituency, staff, travel, hospitality and accommodation all still has to be paid for somehow?

 

I've said it before dozens of times, we do not have some court of morals. The law is what it is. We are not under some mythical unknown unwritten Being. We're not at the mercy of what some man on the bus doesn't like.

 

We are in a world of laws, written regulations and contractual terms. If none of them are broken, no matter how much Doris at number 53 thinks she hates it - its none of her business....

 

Personally I feel all this hot air and media blowout is the completely wrong angle.  The target should be the rules themselves not persecution of people following them ( no matter how distasteful or greedy or privileged the man on the street thinks it is).   Enough hating the player start hating the game and change it.  But of course getting them changed is the hard bit, particularly into a realistic, reasonable and workable application that suits all the requirements and operations of Parliament.  It takes time and great effort and great skill to deal with all the complexities that they have to cover. Therefore the man on the street doesn't bother with all that sort of  complicated stuff– it's all just a lot easier to start berating, naming, shaming and throwing about their uncorroborated unwanted opinions on social media - just like we are doing right now.

I disagree with much of this 

For some reason when the expenses scandal broke over 10 years ago, many rules such as the one allowing MPs to rent out their London homes while letting their own properties were not tightened up on. It was clear then that such practices took the **** , and such abuses should've been tightened up on.

I've no idea why the authorities wanted to take a piecemeal approach, particularly when some MPs are not even observant of the spirit of the law let alone public sentiment. You might scoff at public sentiment - but it's crucial, because MPs and Ministers are only given their authority by the people that they serve. 

As the former Standards Commissioner Sir Alistair Graham said when this story broke during the last week, that it was “shocking”. He called for an end to the “loophole” which allowed property-owning MPs to put their own rent on expenses and stay within the rules. He said, “It may be within the rules, but it’s quite wrong for MPs to use the public purse in this way. MPs have a duty to claim only public funds that are necessary.”

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Mister M