Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[crazyjoetavola]

i'm in 2 minds over these expenses - on the one hand - they are a bunch of greedy, self serving hypocrites and on the other hand i think...well wait a second - if everything i bought for the house - food, tv, sofas, rugs, moats, chandeliers, etc - if i could legitimately claim them through my employer - i'd be an idiot not to.

hand on heart who could honestly say they wouldn't claim if it was the done thing and you were actually advised and encouraged by the fees office to do it?

and again - i can't see where cleaning a moat or polishing chandeliers is strictly necessary to represent your constituency in parliament - so maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard - especially with tax payers money

i'm completely in 2 minds  :-/ :-/ :-/

I can quite understand what you are saying.  But when I was in the commercial world as a senior manager claiming expenses I knew what would be considered as "expenses in the line of duty and morally right", as opposed to being highly extravacant and even fraudulent!  This applied to the directors who would be audited as I was, with the knowledge that any abuse or fraudulent claim could result in a) dismissal b) police action. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Why have our MPs so clearly stepped outside the moral 'spirit' of their expense system, with clearly fraudulent action?  

Back to Hobbes Ms Zoom - they can't help it

But we should not let the inhabitants of the Fees and Expenses office off the hook, they were signing off on all of this

[Banjax]

Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!!  Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!

I apologise for my lack of eloquence  

aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years  

Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.

Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent  

yep - thats true holy - but you're voting for the party that your MP belongs to - it IS a compromise at times - no one person supports absolutely everything one or other party stands for - as a democracy we have to weigh up what party most closely represents us. at the end of the day - we are free to vote for whoever chooses to stand in - thats the power we wield as voters - thats why i can never understand how the turnouts always so low in this country - in Oz its against the law NOT to vote  

[Nickbat]

i'm in 2 minds over these expenses - on the one hand - they are a bunch of greedy, self serving hypocrites and on the other hand i think...well wait a second - if everything i bought for the house - food, tv, sofas, rugs, moats, chandeliers, etc - if i could legitimately claim them through my employer - i'd be an idiot not to.

hand on heart who could honestly say they wouldn't claim if it was the done thing and you were actually advised and encouraged by the fees office to do it?

and again - i can't see where cleaning a moat or polishing chandeliers is strictly necessary to represent your constituency in parliament - so maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard - especially with tax payers money

i'm completely in 2 minds  :-/ :-/ :-/

I can quite understand what you are saying.  But when I was in the commercial world as a senior manager claiming expenses I knew what would be considered as "expenses in the line of duty and morally right", as opposed to being highly extravacant and even fraudulent!  This applied to the directors who would be audited as I was, with the knowledge that any abuse or fraudulent claim could result in a) dismissal b) police action. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Why have our MPs so clearly stepped outside the moral 'spirit' of their expense system, with clearly fraudulent action?  

i think the main problem is that MP's feel they should be paid more for the job they do (who doesn't) and they use the expenses system as a way of topping up their salary - some of it i can understand - they do need to claim for a 2nd home if they live outside London - but some claims are, like you say, completely fraudulent - flipping between main homes and 2nd homes to milk the system, claiming mortgage payments back when the mortgage has been paid - some of these bandits should be slapped in jail - a lot of it tho is not fraudulent - just cheap and grubby

Apparently (I don't have a source for these figures):

Since 1997 the average UK salary is reported to have risen by 26%

In 1997 an MP’s salary was £43860. Today it’s £64766. An increase of 68%

Add to this there is the increase in the Additional Costs Allowance.

In 1997 the ACA was “just” £12287. Today it’s £23083 (for the year 2007/08). An increase of 88%

If MPs salaries and allowances had increased in line with the rest of the country then they would currently be earning £55264 and have an allowance of £15482

£64,766 and they want to top up because it's not enough?
 

[crazyjoetavola]

Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!!  Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!

I apologise for my lack of eloquence  

aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years  

Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.

Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent  

yep - thats true holy - but you're voting for the party that your MP belongs to - it IS a compromise at times - no one person supports absolutely everything one or other party stands for - as a democracy we have to weigh up what party most closely represents us. at the end of the day - we are free to vote for whoever chooses to stand in - thats the power we wield as voters - thats why i can never understand how the turnouts always so low in this country - in Oz its against the law NOT to vote  

You've kicked ass with that one bannjaxx (please feel free to replenish gum)

[HolyCount]

Maybe they should make the vote the remuneration in a contract between the incoming party and the electorate. For that vote the party contracts to deliver on it's manifesto promises ... and MP's can be held accountable in law for failure to deliver.

Totally unworkable ... but hey

[Banjax]

i'm in 2 minds over these expenses - on the one hand - they are a bunch of greedy, self serving hypocrites and on the other hand i think...well wait a second - if everything i bought for the house - food, tv, sofas, rugs, moats, chandeliers, etc - if i could legitimately claim them through my employer - i'd be an idiot not to.

hand on heart who could honestly say they wouldn't claim if it was the done thing and you were actually advised and encouraged by the fees office to do it?

and again - i can't see where cleaning a moat or polishing chandeliers is strictly necessary to represent your constituency in parliament - so maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard - especially with tax payers money

i'm completely in 2 minds  :-/ :-/ :-/

I can quite understand what you are saying.  But when I was in the commercial world as a senior manager claiming expenses I knew what would be considered as "expenses in the line of duty and morally right", as opposed to being highly extravacant and even fraudulent!  This applied to the directors who would be audited as I was, with the knowledge that any abuse or fraudulent claim could result in a) dismissal b) police action. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Why have our MPs so clearly stepped outside the moral 'spirit' of their expense system, with clearly fraudulent action?  

i think the main problem is that MP's feel they should be paid more for the job they do (who doesn't) and they use the expenses system as a way of topping up their salary - some of it i can understand - they do need to claim for a 2nd home if they live outside London - but some claims are, like you say, completely fraudulent - flipping between main homes and 2nd homes to milk the system, claiming mortgage payments back when the mortgage has been paid - some of these bandits should be slapped in jail - a lot of it tho is not fraudulent - just cheap and grubby

Apparently (I don't have a source for these figures):

Since 1997 the average UK salary is reported to have risen by 26%

In 1997 an MP’s salary was £43860. Today it’s £64766. An increase of 68%

Add to this there is the increase in the Additional Costs Allowance.

In 1997 the ACA was “just” £12287. Today it’s £23083 (for the year 2007/08). An increase of 88%

If MPs salaries and allowances had increased in line with the rest of the country then they would currently be earning £55264 and have an allowance of £15482

£64,766 and they want to top up because it's not enough?
 

believe it or not - most MP's have vastly inflated egos - mainly because they're voted in by us!!

[Banjax]

Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!!  Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!

I apologise for my lack of eloquence  

aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years  

Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.

Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent  

yep - thats true holy - but you're voting for the party that your MP belongs to - it IS a compromise at times - no one person supports absolutely everything one or other party stands for - as a democracy we have to weigh up what party most closely represents us. at the end of the day - we are free to vote for whoever chooses to stand in - thats the power we wield as voters - thats why i can never understand how the turnouts always so low in this country - in Oz its against the law NOT to vote  

You've kicked ass with that one bannjaxx (please feel free to replenish gum)

thank you kindly  

[crazyjoetavola]

Maybe they should make the vote the remuneration in a contract between the incoming party and the electorate. For that vote the party contracts to deliver on it's manifesto promises ... and MP's can be held accountable in law for failure to deliver.
Totally unworkable ... but hey

  Yep you're right there HC, with the way law is applied through the court system we have at the moment it would be a bloody pantomime

[crazyjoetavola]

WHAT? ........ it's a quarter to seven, I'm away to put the dinner on

[Nickbat]

believe it or not - most MP's have vastly inflated egos - mainly because they're voted in by us!!

A vastly-inflated ego is a mandatory requirement.

I think that MPs should be selected from those who are highly capable but do not want the job. They should be press-ganged.

After all, do you want to be ruled by someone whose overarching ambition is to rule you?  

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!!  Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!

I apologise for my lack of eloquence  

aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years  

Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.

Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent  

yep - thats true holy - but you're voting for the party that your MP belongs to - it IS a compromise at times - no one person supports absolutely everything one or other party stands for - as a democracy we have to weigh up what party most closely represents us. at the end of the day - we are free to vote for whoever chooses to stand in - thats the power we wield as voters - thats why i can never understand how the turnouts always so low in this country - in Oz its against the law NOT to vote  

Voter turnouts are mostly the same amoungst the main western democracies.  All surveys have underlined the main reason as a feeling amoungst the voters that no matter who they vote for nothing will change!

This is of course short sighted and a threat to democracy, but  that is how it is at the moment.   In authoritarian states voting runs at high levels up to 99%, but when there is a theat behind the decision to vote or not.................

[Banjax]

believe it or not - most MP's have vastly inflated egos - mainly because they're voted in by us!!

A vastly-inflated ego is a mandatory requirement.

I think that MPs should be selected from those who are highly capable but do not want the job. They should be press-ganged.

After all, do you want to be ruled by someone whose overarching ambition is to rule you?  

one of lifes great ironies - people who seek power are almost always the last ones who should be given it, catch 22 m8  

[Banjax]

Disband the current party driven system --- each region votes in whomsoever they see fit for the job .. and that motley crew run the country with a PM whose "Party" is Great Britain !!!!  Proportionally represented coalition sort of thing !!!!

I apologise for my lack of eloquence  

aaah - you're a LibDem then Holy? Thats what they've been after for years  

Not really Bannjaxx. I just think that the government (of whatever colour) should be working for the country and not for the party. Time and time again the party in power have had a good idea (really!) which has been shot down by the opposition, purely because it was contrary to their party line , and vice versa.

Likewise there have been instances when my constituency have sent our representative to Westminster with our mandate on a particular matter and the whips have forced him to vote with the party line, literally against those he purports to represent  

yep - thats true holy - but you're voting for the party that your MP belongs to - it IS a compromise at times - no one person supports absolutely everything one or other party stands for - as a democracy we have to weigh up what party most closely represents us. at the end of the day - we are free to vote for whoever chooses to stand in - thats the power we wield as voters - thats why i can never understand how the turnouts always so low in this country - in Oz its against the law NOT to vote  

Voter turnouts are mostly the same amoungst the main western democracies.  All surveys have underlined the main reason as a feeling amoungst the voters that no matter who they vote for nothing will change!

This is of course short sighted and a threat to democracy, but  that is how it is at the moment.   In authoritarian states voting runs at high levels up to 99%, but when there is a theat behind the decision to vote or not.................

yep - in Iraq - Saddam's 'elections' had over 99% voter turnout - the ballot paper went something like
a) Vote Saddam..........please tick [  ]
b) bullet in the head....please tick [  ]
c) see a)

[HolyCount]

believe it or not - most MP's have vastly inflated egos - mainly because they're voted in by us!!

A vastly-inflated ego is a mandatory requirement.

I think that MPs should be selected from those who are highly capable but do not want the job. They should be press-ganged.

After all, do you want to be ruled by someone whose overarching ambition is to rule you?  

Forget Hobbes -- go Groucho, "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member."