Explaining MPs' expenses
Post categories: Newsround
| 15:57 UK time, Monday, 11 May 2009
MPs' expenses - it's a huge story that obviously gets the audiences of most news programmes angry and animated.
But what if your audience can't vote, doesn't pay taxes and has probably never heard of the key players? For Newsround's audience of under-12s, the story is not an obvious "must do". It's complicated, confusing and packed with details of things many children just aren't aware of - things like mortgages, constituencies, and of course, expenses themselves.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Plus we know that, aside from the prime minister and perhaps David Cameron, MPs don't feature highly on their radar. Why cover it at all, then?
Well, despite the above, kids get as outraged as adults at anything that might be seen as cheating, and have a very strong sense of right and wrong - so we knew that if Newsround could explain it clearly, we could get them on board.
Once we'd decided to go with the story, it was really just a case of Newsround doing what we like to think we do best - boiling down a story to its essential ingredients, poring over every line of script, and asking ourselves "Will this be easy to follow for a ten year old?"
Never heard of expenses? Well, they're "extra cash for things that help you do your job" -not perhaps what you'd hear Nick Robinson say on the Ten O'Clock News, but vital, we think, for a child who may have no idea what the fuss is all about.
Saying that, the BBC's political editor did play his part, grabbed by our reporter Sonali on College Green for a soundbite that made it into a report that managed to get in all the crucial elements in just over 90 seconds.
Our web story was, we hope, also a model of clarity, with links to an online explainer on the workings of Parliament and politics. If the expenses saga helps get Newsround viewers interested in those subjects, that can only be a good thing. If it happens to also introduce them to the idea already held by many adults that not all politicians are whiter than white - well, they were bound to find out one day, weren't they?
Simon Goretzki is the acting editor of Newsround
© MMXI
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I learned more from this report than pages of the telegraph.
Complain about this comment
Whilst not wishing to make excuses for MP's over claiming on expenses perhaps a higher salary ought to be considered commensurate with the job that they are expected to do. My grandson, a student at Manchester University, contacted our MP, Ann Widdecombe on a matter of student fees. The speed and efficiency in the reply from her office compared to anything that I experienced in my fifty years plus business career.
The public should not be too cynical about MP's; the country cannot be run without them! In previous centuries only the wealthy could afford to become MP's, which restricted membership. My own view is that back benchers should receive a minimum of £100,000 P/A, and Ministers £250K P/A with honest expense claims. Any MP taking liberties above what is reasonable ought to face legal charges. Setting up a control body outside of parliament should not be necessary provided that expense claims are made available to the public and media.
Complain about this comment
Too much time and space has been given by all the media to MP's expenses.Since new rules are being put in place let the MP's get on with their proper work and the media should give us some real news.
Complain about this comment
"Well, they're "extra cash for things that help you do your job" .."
Oh, dearie me, if the MPs had stuck to that definition, then we wouldn't be in this mess. Will Margaret Moran be putting in an appearance ?
Will Alan Duncan ? Ten year old kids are far smarter than your patronising tone gives credit for. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them haven't had a squiz at the Telegraph themselves..
Complain about this comment
If all MPs expenses were available for the public to view online, then the likelihood of ridiculous claims might be reduced.
Complain about this comment
lordBeddGelert (4),
The vast majority of under 12 year olds (which can go as low as about 5 years old for a CBBC audience) do not read any newspaper, let alone The Telegraph. Although you are right in saying they are far smarter than they are credited for they do not use "Adult Language" for want of a better phrase and have extensive knowledge of "Adult Things" such as expenses.
The Newsround report is not patronising, it was well constructed and outlined the simple facts of the story in a clear way. To suggest that it is patronising simply because they use simple explanations is wrong. A normal news report would have given them some idea but not as much as this.
However, I have a problem with one part of the blog;
"Well, despite the above, kids get as outraged as adults at anything that might be seen as cheating, and have a very strong sense of right and wrong - so we knew that if Newsround could explain it clearly, we could get them on board."
Perhaps you simply mean "get them on board" in terms of their interest but it sounds as if you are trying to make them automatically think it is wrong. It is not your place to do that and you should be careful not to be trying to get anyone "on board" a certain opinion, your an impartial news service, not a campaign group.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Please explain why the BBC are doing the same as the politicians and concentrating on the need to change the rules instead of canvassing for sackings and fraud charges to be brought,if these claims had not been published the MPs would have continued with these claims and the public would be none the wiser.The speaker gets on his high horse regarding the right of individuals to pass on this information he should instead concentrate on getting the House to move towards being a respectable place and commend the individual for their service to the country.not something we can do to our so called Honourable Members.
Many of us have or have had jobs were we have had to claim expenses,if we had made false claims or tried to play the system like this lot we would have been sacked and prosecuted not been allowed to repay the falsely claimed amount we got caught for as though that made it alright.
Come on BBC do your job as an independent broadcaster and stop pandering to your political masters.
Complain about this comment
We all should cut spending in this economy. Officals should public funds like money in their own wallet.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Perhaps you should explain that adults are extraordinarily selective and hypocritical, and, sadly, very easily led. Why pick on MPs meagre allowances? Which journalist, media exec., banker, lawyer, company director, etc. etc. doesnt employ an accountant to make sure that they exploit to the full all the opportunities to claim allowances and expenses, and avoid as much tax as possible much more than any MP? Isnt this the norm throughout the private sector, where corporate entertaining (a euphemism for greasing palms) buys up the bulk of the best seats in every branch of posh entertainment, sport and transport?
Who owns the Telegraph and where do they live? On a tax haven where they busy wrecking the economy to the detriment of the majority who voted for things the Telegraphs owners didnt want. No friends of democracy, then!
The BBC should wake up. What these media hyenas, in the Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun, etc. want is to so damage democracy that the country gets to be governed by Big Brother style plebiscites orchestrated by a right wing populist media. This why the BBC is second only to Parliament as the target for the poisonous campaigns dreamt up by the print media hacks. Dont believe if you cant beat them you should join them, BBC they want you for breakfast. But their days are numbered the print media are on the way out, and the super rich cant so easily buy the blogosphere. Strike out independently of the print media jackals you can outlast them if you dont give them so much of a helping hand with their project of undermining our national institutions.
Complain about this comment
If an employee in a commercial context were to take advantage of the trust placed upon them by their employers they would be immediately suspended.
If an employee was the reason for their company's downfall they would not be rewarded.
Our UK society has been undermined for more than a generation by social policies that fail to build values upon which a stable society can succeed.
I would not have believed that MPs could stand before the national media and apologise. Quite simply they have stolen from the tax payers and should be dealt with as such. The very least punishment should be that they are required to refund the amounts in full.
Yes Minister in reality!!
Complain about this comment
I would like to ask the MP's involved in the MP expenses scam - If they had known that, their expense were going to be made public would these hourable people still have presented the same expense claims?
Can we as tax payers expect to see a repayment of profits made from the exploitation of public funds - if this is an example of recent claims made by MPs how long has this been going on and just how much money has been pilfered away?
Complain about this comment
Regarding MP's expenses I am not sure why politicians are now blaming their system (they designed it after all) and why the media are also buying this story to a large extent. Essentially what is being revealed is that many MP's have been abusing the 'spirit' of their own expense system to inflate their incomes (which I am sure wasn't the intention of those who first designed it). The system may be full of holes but every politician is in a position of trust especially when it comes to taxpayers money. Our expectation is that they spend our money wisely and carefully and this applies to their expenses as well. I do not expect to be paying for dog food, tampax or anything else that clearly is not a legitimate expense - for these are clearly personal expenses, not professional expenses. This I am sure would be the taxman's view and I hope that those concerned are investigated by HMRC - then we will really see if they broke the rules.
Doesn't it really comes down to a question of integrity - and what we have been shown is that by and large our MP's don't have integrity. Apologies and exuses regarding not breaking the rules or blaming the system should not be allowed to create a smoke screen regarding their lack of integrity. Also the argument that they abused the system to compensate themselves because they believed their salary was too low doesn't really hold water either when it comes to the question of integity. Using this back door method to inflate their salary/income shows that most of them are untrustworthy and are not worthy of the Job. Surely to be an MP and serve the people should be a privilage and an honour. We want politicians who are trustworthy, have integrity and spend our money wisely - how many do we really have?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
With the left wing bile the BBC throws at us every minute of every day how can you trusted to explain anything clearly, especially anything to do with politics? Ordinary people can claim expenses? Rubbish! Most people do not do jobs where they claim expenses. To have the BBC passing judgement on MPs is a bit rich.
Less opinion and more (correct) facts please.
Complain about this comment
All MPs who claimed within £50 of the limit of expenses should be de-selected. Simples
Complain about this comment
Can anybody explain if MPs' actually spend any of their own money, whilst they are Members of Parliament.
Complain about this comment
I feel the report was reasonable and certainly achieved its intention.
However, I am also concerned about certain aspects of "all within the Rules" claims. Children know what cheating is when they understand the rules. If someone offers to "bend" the rules by placing a different interpretation on what they mean children become "confused" and "cheating" becomes less clear as an issue. The Tax Payers Alliance have suggested that the rules on second home allowances are "very clear" but have been consistently "abused". This is as accurate an interpretation of the situation as the other contention that the rules are "not as clear as they should be" and could only be clarified by a formal independent investigation.
Should the report have made more of the issues concerning rules and their interpretation and application? Rules are very important to children.
Complain about this comment
Following on from my previous point we are consistently bombarded with the idea of role models for children, young people and even adults. Would it not have been apt for the report to have identified the handful of politicians who have not only been completely honourable and honest but also steadfastly tried to bring this matter to the attention of our media?
That would certainly have given weight to the argument that even when you think you can get away with "cheating" it is still wrong and that sometimes you will not be listened to no matter how hard you try.
Complain about this comment
Great post. I'm sure there are many challenges in getting kids to understand what's going on, and it sounds like you've put a lot of thought into how to get this story across. Keep up the good work.
I just hope you've not kept up Nick Robinson's apologist tone and portrayed this to this kiddies as just a minor misdemeanour, although I expect it will be hard to explain to the little ones how 600-odd people can have very publicly committed criminal fraud yet escape any kind of consequences. God knows it's hard enough to explain to me.
Complain about this comment
Here's something which even the youngest child can understand, as it has a handy 'picture gallery' to tell the story...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5293320/MPs-expenses-A-Z.html
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Are you talking, like, streetwise ten year olds or those 'sitting comfortably'? Ten year olds I know can argue me into a corner and leave me floundering.
Still, if you hire folk to do with the news what you say, then I supppose they had better earn their bread - and claim their expences.
Complain about this comment
they're "extra cash for things that help you do your job" - Oh dear, not doing too well with that explanation, are we?
Expenses, out of pocket expenses, PAY YOU BACK for things you bought (on behalf of the company) that are needed to do your job. Lunch, a nice massage and antacid tablets would all help me do my job, but I'd be reprimanded if I tried to claim them as legitimate expenses!
Also, the average MP apparently claims almost twice what they earn, as expenses. How is this possible? Are they working 2 jobs and not declaring?
Complain about this comment
Has anyone mentioned the 'free holidays' sorry 'fact finding missions'
3 days a week, 30 weeks a year, 2+jobs,Euro, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, non-attendees = too many MPs - Let's have half the number working full time and properly rewarded.
Complain about this comment
I think this can be summed up quite easily.
The MPs wrote the rules governing their own expenses in such a way that they were able to claim tens of thousands of pounds for items not normally considered expenses without ever getting into trouble.
They did this because they feel that MPs pay is insufficient, even though it is three times the national average wage, and that raising their pay would be seen as profiteering by the general public whereas, until now, expenses have remained an open secret that the mainstream press have not reported.
The people may change but the songs remains the same: Jobs for the Boys & Snouts in the Trough !
Complain about this comment
A little Biased maybe? Lacked important details? Are you Training the next generation of angry Daily mail readers? I'm sure they will impressed though with your Krazy Camerawork and laughing at the funny fat man and his toilet. I bet that journalist gets quite a lot of crisps and pop on her expenses.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps you will now "boil down to its essential ingredients", the economy, using your model of clarity.
10 yr olds should have the basic arithmetical skills, and I'm sure would profit from a clear explanation of that political invention "spin" and its effects on numbers. And perhaps a reason why it's not included on the curriculum....?
It should be the least offered as they are expected to pay for it.
Complain about this comment
At a time where my working week has been taken to 4 days with no shift pay and no overtime, how can an MP who i do not even know, tell me that £304.10 is value for money for getting his pool cleaned?
It is staggering that my taxes go to pay the expenses that these pompous, arrogant individuals claim back.
I wonder if i would be allowed to go and watch a TV that i have helped purchase, maybe have a bath and use the plug that i helped purchase or even just take a dip in the pool that i have just helped pay for to get cleaned? I don't think so.
Do us all a favour, be happy with the wage that you are paid and do the job that you are paid to do. If you can't do that on the salary you are paid, then quit and let someone who needs and wants a job do it instead!
Complain about this comment
#2
You're living up to your name but I couldn't agree more. I obviously don't condone the frivolous expense claims but compared to top earners in some professions (bankers, lawyers, etc) the difference in wages is rather great.
#16
The only bile I've ever notice from the media seems to come from the right wing rather than the left (do you mean bias perhaps?). Oh and 'ordinary people don't claim expenses?'. Well, as much as I'd like to think different, I'm an 'ordinary' person, earn less than £20k a year and I can claim expenses. It just so happens that if I do, any claims are well scrutinised.
Complain about this comment
I would make MPS occupy public accommodation around London.
I believe there must be surplus accommodation available at say RAF Uxbridge or Northolt.
Make them stay there.
Military people receive no allowances for second homes
Complain about this comment
I can't help feeling that a film featuring 'hands in a cookie jar' and some disappearing 'iced gems' might help to illustrate the scenario rather nicely...
Complain about this comment
Peterborough MP Stewart Jackson has confirmed the Telegraph's report that he had made a claim of £304.10 for the upkeep of a swimming pool.
But he added: "The pool came with the house and I needed to know how to run it. Once I was shown that one time, there were no more claims. I take care of the pool myself. I believe this represents 'value for money' for the taxpayer."
- Does this mean as taxpayer that I can pop round and have a quick dip? - know that would be good value for money!
Complain about this comment
I am concerned that the Lord Foulkes interview by Carrie Gracie was misreported by news on bbc.c.uk. While the video at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8045414.stm?lsm is very clear the accompanying text article truncates and edits a key quote without informing the reader that changes have been made. As a journalist I was always taught that quotes must not be edited for meaning and that if words are removed they must be clearly marked.
The original quote:
"to come on television and sneer at democracy and undermine democracy. Look, it is being, it is being cleared up and the cast majority of MPs are not abusing the system. The vast majority of MPs are working hard in their constituencies, the vast majority of MPs are being undermined by you and are devastated because of the kind of publicity you are giving them. And youre paid a lot more than them.
the reported quote in paragraph 5:
to come on TV and sneer at democracy and undermine democracy. The vast majority of MPs are being undermined by you.
I have looked through the editorial guidelines but cannot find a section that deals with how to report direct quotes in text services.
Please could you explain?
Complain about this comment
16. "With the left wing bile the BBC throws at us every minute of every day how can you trusted to explain anything clearly, especially anything to do with politics? Ordinary people can claim expenses? Rubbish! Most people do not do jobs where they claim expenses. To have the BBC passing judgement on MPs is a bit rich.
Less opinion and more (correct) facts please."
"With the left wing bile the BBC throws at us every minute of every day ..." Ermm. This reads like an opinion rather than a "(correct) fact". Can you substantiate your point, KennethM, for example by listing the BBC output of May 12th 2009 and showing at least one cubic centimetre of left-wing bile in each minute?
Serious as the problem of expenses and allowances is, it's going to be very hard to re-establish the credentials of democracy in the UK if the debate is led by blind prejudice alone.
Complain about this comment
Is Newsround going to follow up its report with further insight, notably the fact that the vast majority of our political representatives appear to be claiming expenses without scruple as if it is a ritual they must go through?
Is Newsround going to suggest to its audience that no matter how many people "cheat" it does not make it OK and neither does it remove individual responsibilities to people who place trust in them?
Is Newsround going to canvass the opinion of its audience as to what punishment these errant MPs deserve?
Is Newsround going to investigate how we have got to the stage where we appear to be both financially and morally bankrupt and offer its audience the chance to suggest remedies?
When a six year old makes a comment about one of our political leaders "...he sounds just like Daddy when he upsets Mummy and makes her cry more..." we all need to hang on to the precious "naivety" of our young children.
Complain about this comment
@32
Alternatively didn't the Home Office have its eyes on a nice "prison" ship. It could be parked just outside the HoC and serve as a subtle reminder that if you "fiddle" then there are much more appropriate places for you to live than a comfortable second home. Wouldn't that be something much more interesting for Newsround to debate?
Complain about this comment
The phrase Honourable Member of Parliament is dead.All the ill-gotten gains and bogus claims should be paid back in full. All future expense claims should be available for public scrutiny, Any MP who disagrees with this should have to explain why to their electorate, the next time they seek office. It should not be forgotten whilst these greedy pigs had their noses in the public trough, they told pensioners that £2-20 a week rise is all the country could afford. Just how two faced can you get.
Complain about this comment
Am I the only person angered by MPs referring to their bogus claims re. second homes as "mistakes". Mistakes are accidental. This is deliberate fraud and should be treated as such.
Complain about this comment
Surely, most of the BBC's output is aimed at the under-twelves?
Complain about this comment
I do not see why we, the general public, should be paying for the travel expenses of any other party other than the government in power. The opposition is not in power so why should we pay for them to travel around? Surely the ONLY ones who have a valid reason for claiming travel expenses, paid for by the public purse, are those members of the government in power who are travelling around on official business. Also, a salary of more than £60k - which is what an MP earns, is more than enough to pay for their own household items (2nd home et al), expenses and travel. I earn far less than that - £20k, and I can assure you that I have to pay for my own travel, food, running costs, upkeep, petrol, prescriptions, gardening, furniture, kitchens, etc and still have to pay a full capital gains tax if I made profit on a property AND still pay tax on my income without further tax benefits and like many Britons, I have to struggle to get by on what I earn, not expenses claimed to offset any expenditure that is common place and should be expected. Sadly, only politicians seem to have a 'full tolerance' approach to (as Winston Churchill once said) "telling terminalogical inexactitudes" at work and getting away with it. tell you what, lets set up an independent enquiry into something that is so blatently obvious we could all provide you with the answers today, rather than spend more money from the public purse to find out what we all already know.
Complain about this comment
I note MPs are now rushing to pay back illegally claimed expenses - what about the interest?
I personally think MPs should:
Have their salary doubled
Claim for second class travel ONLY (they can top up to business class from their own pocket)
Admin and Research staff should be employed through the Civil Service
Accommodation in service flats (much easier and cheaper for security)
Reduce the number of MPs
No more looonnngggg breaks
Complain about this comment
I have to work away from home, how do I go about claiming back the expense of running a flat in Bristol and a house in Margate? Maybe Mr Brown could explain this to me as all I ever get from his government is Tax Bills!
Complain about this comment
#43
"I note MPs are now rushing to pay back illegally claimed expenses - what about the interest?"
Some people are missing the plot here, all of these claims were WITHIN THE RULES, they are paying back these claimed expenses to try and redress the MORAL balance.
"No more looonnngggg breaks"
But do they actually take long breaks, don't assume that just because 'The House' isn't sitting that MPs are not working within their own constituencies, also remember that one of the reasons for the long summer recess is to allow building maintenance etc. at Parliament - there has been a few examples were one or other house has been recalled during the long summer recess and they have had to sit in the other house due to work being done in their more usual place of work.
Complain about this comment
£92.000 per year to read the news. That is a scandal - and its our money
Complain about this comment
# 45
So by that rationale "building maintenance taking place" wouldn't that apply to all public buildings?
And yes we know MPs are claiming the "Nuremberg" excuse and if they weren't guilty they wouldn't be paying it back!
Complain about this comment
#46
"£92.000 per year to read the news. That is a scandal - and its our money"
£5.73 per hour to clean council toilets. That is a scandal - and its our money...
#47
"And yes we know MPs are claiming the "Nuremberg" excuse and if they weren't guilty they wouldn't be paying it back!"
I claim that the debate is over, "Goodwin's Law" has been invoked...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
As it is, should we all pay any monies ever claimed back, just in case some rule some has was poorly or erroneously drafted at some point in time, perhaps we should go the hole-hog, abandon Habeas corpus, change our legal system over to one of an assumption of guilt, prove your innocence?!
Sorry but this whole salaries/expenses saga, and the many blogs, are becoming nothing that a witch hunt and zoological park (big cat enclosure) feeding frenzy...
Complain about this comment
One of my Dad's more pertinent maxims was that "in a democracy, a country gets the Government it deserves".
I hear suggestions of a daily attendance allowance to replace the current "system??". Yes, undoubtedly an improvement....what couldnt be?
But let me suggest a much more economic alternative. Pay MPs to STAY AT HOME. All MPs would benefit, including London-based "representatives".
Staff at the Fees Office could be re-assigned to international aid duties where their skills in largesse would undoubtedly do some good.
Complain about this comment
Stephen Fry says RE expenses "it doesn't matter" and "we all cheat on our expenses". Not so Stephen. Also in my experience people who cheat on the little things go on to cheat on the bigger things.OR. If you can't trust someone with the little things how can they be trusted on the bigger issues. That is how our coutry ended up being taken into war.
Complain about this comment
#41
I suspect that most groups of 12 year olds would have done a better job of assessing MPs expenses claims than did the Speaker and his staff. I also suspect that a five year old would have been much better writing the rules in the first place. Newsround could gainfully employ some of its audience to come up with a new set of rules and remedies for breaches. However I am still of the opinion that, for the most part, the problem was not the rules but the bending of them by people who actually knew better but still thought they'd get away with it.
As for paying it back let them do that whilst at the same time facing criminal charges for misappropriating public funds. Benefit claimants get absolutely no leeway on the rules so why should MPs?
Complain about this comment
Well done Carrie Gracie !
i watched you interview with the rude man foulks , i know of him ,his old constituancy has the worst roads in britain, just a shame i can't claim expenses for my broken suspension to get to work, hope you've played a part in the end of the expenses gravy train, all i'm hearing about is ministers spending money "doing" up houses, at our expense and not just one ? how many houses do these people need? some countries would jail or worse for these criminal acts, oh and how much has the running scared mp claimed over the past few years £64000 to be exact.
mark g.
Complain about this comment
Why cant the government sort the expenses out in a simple and straight forward way. If there is an elected MP who needs a second home in London to carry out their business then why doesnt the government provide a "Married Quarter" for their use whilst in London. Let the council tax, furnishings etc be paid for by the government, then when the MP losses his or her seat they hand the keys on to their successor. The property and its contents remains the possession of the government and is not the MP's to keep or sell on and make a profit. Surely after the initial purchase of a few hundred homes, perhaps even a purpose bulit village (built by currently out of work builders and tradesman)and the fact there would not be a need for expense claims the government will start to be in "profit".
Complain about this comment
I work in Local Government and we cannot do anything there unless it stands up to vigorous scrutiny by the Audit Commission.
It would seem that MPs don't come under the same scrutiny? Why is that?
Complain about this comment
@50 - I don't think Fry's point was that "it doesn't matter" at all - rather, that there are other things that matter a heck of a lot more, and much of this journalistic feeding frenzy is making us forget that.
I agree the system and the politicians need to be exposed, and yes some of these claims make me angry. However I can also see that much of our sense of proportion is being lost, driven away by journos.
Complain about this comment
I lot of people above and also MP's are now saying that they should be paid more and not get such extravagant expenses, but as tax payers we must be very wary.
Is it possible that there is a conspiracy in existance, orchestrated by MP's to force through a large salary increase before they lose their seats at the next election? After all, MPs, including the PM, get paid less than some senior Civil Servants, TV presenters and Bankers whose jobs they have saved. Some retiring MPs get more pay after leaving by becoming Company Directors than they were getting as MPs.
Why the conspiracy theory? It all relates to their Final Salary Pension Scheme, which gives them a pension based upon their Final Salary, and if you increase that salary, you immediately increase their pension entitlement. But does everyone know the cost?
To finance a Final Salary scheme costs approximately 25% of that years pay, so if we increase a MPs salary by 40k,, we increase that years cost by approx. 10K. However if they have been MPs for 10 years, (and most have, if not more than this) the cost of putting the fund right is 10 times that 10k, or 100k. If we then consider that there are around 650 MPs, then it becomes 650 times 100k or 65billion. We would be better off allowing them to continue to claim questionable expenses, rather than have to pay taxes to fund these massive pension increases!!
Complain about this comment
By the way, am I alone in looking at that Newsround clip - with its wacky props, zany camera angles and informal street-speak - and fearing that what I'm seeing is BBC News for grown-ups as it will be in 10 years time?
Making it more, y'know, "accessible" and "compelling"?
(Perhaps 10 years is optimistic)
Complain about this comment
#36. Stuart n
Have a look at my post history to find plenty of examples of BBC bias and opinions. Finding examples of left wing bias is so easy it is boring. Just listen to the BBC radio, watch BBC tv or go online any time of any day.
Just think about how suddenly the BBC worries about taxpayers money when it comes to banks and politicians but it is not mentioned it when it is campaigning for more public spending.
Just think how a conservative MP was lambasted by the BBC for claiming expenses for work carried out by his son and compare with the BBCs first reaction of criticizing the Daily Telegraph when it began with the expenses claims of Labour MPs.
How about the sniping at President Bush compared to the coverage of President Obama?
How about this:
Jane Garvey talking with Peter Allen on BBC Drive (Radio 5 Live) where she reminisced with co-host Peter Allen about the morning of May 2nd, 1997, the morning when Tony Blair became Prime Minister:
"Ah, well - I had been up for most of the night but I was doing this Five Live breakfast programme with our colleague at the time - it was a bloke called Peter Allen so - I had to get a bit of sleep, and I do remember I walked back into - we were broadcasting then from Broadcasting House in the centre of London - all very upmarket in those days - and the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles - I will always remember that (Allen laughs) - er - not that the BBC were celebrating in any way shape or form (Allen, laughing - 'no, no, no, not at all') - and actually - I think it's fair to say that in the intervening years the BBC, if it was ever in love with Labour has probably fallen out of love with Labour, or learned to fall back in, or basically just learned to be in the middle somewhere which is how it should be - um - but there was always this suggestion that the BBC was full of pinkoes who couldn't wait for Labour to get back into power - that may have been the case, who knows ? but as I say I think there've been a few problems along the way - wish I hadn't started this now..."
And what about the recent decision by the Editorial Standards Committee to uphold complaints against Jeremy Bowen and of course, how about the censored Balen Report?
And how about the buried reports about the misdemeanours of Labour MPs (e.g. Stephen Ladyman)?
Apart from political parties and NGOs I do not know of any other British institution that takes it upon itself to comment on and campaign about national and international politics in this way. The Health Service doesnt do it. The police dont do it. And so on. Any institution taking public money should respect the fact that we have a democracy and our money should not be used to send out propaganda, and in this case, mainly left wing propaganda.
And contrast the BBCs efforts at talking up the economy right now with their shameful treatment of John Majors government and their constant talk of gloom in an earlier recession when things were no nowhere near as bad as they are today. For instance, the Bank of Englands further downgrading of UK economic prospects has been relegated to about fifth place. If a conservative government had been in power this would have been at the top of the agenda.
Perhaps examples are not enough as it is simply too easy to find left wing views on the BBC. Perhaps an even better test is to find right wing views. You may go days and even weeks before you find the BBC putting forward a right wing perspective
And of course, in the light of the recent investigation by a committee of MPs, the BBC is pushing for pub companies to pay more money to their staff and has accused them of bullying their staff. There was no qualification of this comment. The BBC has decided that they are bullies. And that was just a few hours ago on BBC Radio 4 (You and Yours). Disgusting.
Complain about this comment
I have just watchd Linda McDougall and am appalled at what she is saying! MP's get over 60K per year and she thinks it's "OK" to buy "BRANSTON PICKLE AND GIN" at our damn expense.... is sheMAD!! People walk for miles raising money for Great Ormond Street Hospital etc, and we the public care about making sure our money goes to just causes, she and many others think its ok to abuse OUR MONEY... I am glad she was on air, she has just made millions of us really mad and in total agreement for a call for change. I am so incensed I joined this blog and wanted to make my point. Sick immoral People.. "The peoples representatives"... how veey sad. Think of the hospital services and the poor before buying GIN, Branston Pickle, manure and "Light fittings"... GRRRRRRR......
Complain about this comment
Just a joke. I was going to write something serious but I was reading http://www.thebeginners.net and it made me realise how stupid this whole thing is. We can't even do corruption properly...
Complain about this comment
#58
[re perceived bias at the BBC]
"Jane Garvey talking with Peter Allen on BBC Drive (Radio 5 Live) where she reminisced with co-host Peter Allen about the morning of May 2nd, 1997, the morning when Tony Blair became Prime Minister:"
Well by that 'rational' the BBC have a right wing bias as the BBC Parliament channel have recently been remembering 30 years back at the time when Jim Callaghan lost that parliamentary vote of confidence tabled by a certain M. Thatcher and her party, not only that last bank holiday the channel cleared it's schedule to mark the occasion a certain M. Thatcher and her party winning the 1979 election.
Bias is mostly in the eyes of the observer...
Complain about this comment
I think it is absolutely disgusting what these politicians are doing, while people are working themselves so hard to pay these taxes it is being used and abused. They should all be charged with theft. They are no better than people commiting benefit fraud. Who do i vote for? They are all a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
If we are going to have history lessons for those who are twelve years old and under then Thatcher's broadcasting policy was as anti-BBC as you could get without pulling Broadcasting House down brick by brick. She made it pretty obvious what she thought of BBC bias; she also began to "die" politically after the Belgrano ("moving away from the conflict zone") affair and public questionning of her role. BBC bias has tended to follow Labour policy and so when Blair became "New" Labour's first PM the BBC followed his centrist policies together with his Tory monetary plans.
In covering the expenses scandal the BBC has yet to establish just how angry members of the public are. The one big flaw in Newsround's delivery was NR's repeated "all within the rules" which is inaccurate reporting. One of the biggest issues is the feeling of many tax experts that the rules were rather clearer than the Speaker and his staff have made out and that interpretation was "incompetently liberal". Even some correspondents to these pages who are trying to play down the importance of this scandal are engaged in the dangerous game of "degrees" of fraud. Fraud involving public money by public servants is as serious a crime as you can get.
None of the MPs involved in this scandal should be allowed to stand at the next election - none of them.
Complain about this comment
The Government should buy an apartment building which is fully furnished and serviced so all the MPs from outside London can stay in there. This avoids anybody having to claim for anything. They pay for their own food as all the taxpayers have to. If they want to live in luxury, they fork out for that themselves. Nobody can then accuse them of feather their own nest!!!
A very simple solution!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
1. Why 4 years
2. I live in Whitechapel, worked in Marylebone, fell asleep once and ended up in Harrow, got of the train and went home in time for tea.
3. If all the MP's give back the profit on their flats to the taxpayer, fine. Enterprise !
Complain about this comment
1. Why 4 years?
2. Hammersmith and City Line.
3. Dolphins.
Complain about this comment
Various dilemmas have occurred, who is responsible; The Speaker is a busy man.
Complain about this comment
There is no way any person can claim for expenses and then make excuses. If I had claimed £16,000 for mortgage costs knowing the mortgage was fully paid, I would be arrested and charged with fraud. Same applies to some of the other claims. If this was a commercial business these people would be fired and then prosecuted. Lord Steel, made a very good statement, pay them an allowance (this should be taxable) and they can then spend it on what they want, but the allowance has to be reasonable and not excessive.
Complain about this comment
If I claimed expenses falsly I would be sacked.
If a civil servant claimed expenses falsly they wouls be sacked.
Why are these bent MP's not being removed from office??
Parliament should be abolished and new elections held immediatly.
Get rid of this shower (of all parties) of bent MP's.
They are MEANt to be running the country.......What a joke.
Complain about this comment
It's no wonder Jacqui SMITH felt not one iota of guilt in snubbing the independant decision to award the Police the previously agreed pay rise. Then went on to make her own decision in the award amount.
It's obvious that she can well afford to live comfortably and her salary is an added extra to the position she holds. I on the other hand have to pay my own mortgage, food bills, garden upkeep, household repair bills, etc.
It is about time that someone addressed the outrageous items that are claimed for by MP's, whether 'within the rules' or not. Surely morals feature higher than just being 'within the rules'.
Complain about this comment
tHE RULES WHERE ALTERED BY THIS GOVEREMENT 12 YEARS AGO. IT WAS THOUGHT THAT NOTHING WOULD COME OUT DUE TO THE PRIVACY RULES. HOWEVER WE NOW KNOW WHY MP'S FROM HUMBLE BACKGROUND'S SUDDENLY WEAR DESIGNER CLOTHS AND UPGRADE EVERYTHING AROUND THEM.THE LABOUR MP'S ARE MORE CORRUPT THAT ANY OF THE OTHERS. THIS HAS MADE ME SO SAD. I WAS BROUGHT UP BY A STAUNCH UNION MAN WHO NOW HANGS HIS HEAD IN SHAME AT THE ANTICS OF HIS SO CALLED HERO'S WHO HAVE SOLD THERE COUNTRY DOWN THE ROAD EVEN TO THE EXTENT SWALLOWING THE FACT THE THE eu CHANGED THE RULES FOR IMMIGRANTS WHILST THEY OPENEND THE DOOR. wILL THEY CLOSE IT?. NO. ARE THE STUPID? NOT SURE BECAUSE THEY ALL WANT PLUM JOBS IN THE EU. ARE THEY BEING CLEVER? OH YES TO THE COST OF THERE OWN PEOPLE. THEY ARE ALL SHARLATONS NOT WORTHY OF THE UK
Complain about this comment
Pesonally I am more concerned at the waste of public poll tax payers money that is the BBC. £92k pa for a newsreader, much more than an MP? Also Jonathon Ross and his millions probably more than the whole of Parliament. The phone in scams. Criminally abusive phone calls to pensioners. Dubious journalismn standards. Carrying their own adverts but not others. Dummed down output. Thompson and Lyons earn considerably more than the PM and then wheeling out consultants to say that they pay is not out of line. The failure to subject themselves to NAO strutiny. Dubious activities at BBC worlwide including involvement at woolies. The PC snooping madness that is the One Show. The blatant nepotism at the Beeb. The commercial broadcasters have to lay off staff - not so at the BBC. Methinks that this is the pot calling the kettle black! Is this the Beebs revenge for Hutton? Why do the Beeb never report on any of this lot?
Complain about this comment
A simple question:
If the ministers in question can afford to simply repay £40k or £20k etc in cash, in one lump sum, then why are they being allowed to claim 'expenses' in the first place?
The answer should not be 'because that is what the rules allow... there should be some common sense applied; not tax-evasive, expense-dodging swindling.
Complain about this comment
I appreciate Hazel Blears writing a cheque to the inland revenue for the equivalent of the capital gains tax she should have paid on the sale of her flat but what of the profit she made and continues to retain?
We, as tax payers deserve, nay should demand that all profits made by MPs on the sale of second 'homes'and their contents(effectively funded by the taxpayer) should be repaid to the treasury.
I have no issues with MPs being able to claim for expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties but they should not PROFIT from them.
Complain about this comment
Correct me if I'm wrong... but MP's are responsible for making the laws and guidelines governing expenses, right? How very convenient it has been for them to be in a position to 'design' the laws in such a way that has allowed them to leech all this money from the taxpayer. Any such laws relating to MP's and their remuneration, etc. should surely be independantly pre-assessed as to their relevance to the MP's and particularly the British Taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
Now that the expenses gravy train has been (temporarily) derailed (apart from the £10K communications allowance - elocution lessons?), no doubt our honourable MPs will be wanting a £40K pay rise! This would be on the grounds of the need top enable poor people to be MPs. Now poor people don't earn £60K+ plus various other expenses - it would be like a goldmine to them. No, what the attempt to raise pay to £100K IS about is enabling lots of very well paid Accountants, Bankers, Solicitors, Lawyers and Trade Unionists etc to go into Parliament for a rest and make laws to help their own vested interests without losing any pay. EG Human Rights Laws - main beneficiary = Cherie Blair and co!
When they
*WORK a minimum of 250 days per year and turn up for debates in the chamber (watch Parliament Channel most only turn up for vote)
*Have a clocking in/out smart card (or better satellite monitored leg tag) to ensure they are actually present in either their constituency office or Westminster chamber / offices
*Are accomodated in Government owned flats near Parliament - so no expenses
*Remove smoking and bar from commons and Lords
*Reducew number of MPs to less than 300 (70% of laws are EU laws now, so what are this lot DOING?)
Complain about this comment
Hilarious! I await the first edition of my local paper to report the defence of a 'benefit cheat', 'accounting error', m'lud. To see the acts of contrition being acted out by the great and the 'good', as they attempt to explain their, possibly fraudulent or criminal activity, whilst the economy is in virtual meltdown. The extremist and fringe parties are going to have a field day at both the local and euro elections. Without 'heads', BNP in parliament?, the electorate will take some placating.
Complain about this comment
#57: I don't know if it counts as news for grown-ups, but have you ever seen the news bulletins on BBC 3? 10 years is wildly optimistic!
Still, at least we still have a choice of quality news programmes like Today and Newsnight. All is not lost yet.
Complain about this comment
#61 Boilerplated
My recollection is the same as yours. The BBC were very pro-Thatcher before and just after her election and they had it in for Michael Foot & co.
However, two wrongs don't make a right.
Wouldn't it be nice if the BBC just reported facts and did not have the likes of Nick Robinson Pontificating over our elected government? If they just stuck to reporting we wouldnt have a problem.
Complain about this comment
There are very real snags with the argument that the allowances enable "poorer" people to stand for Parliament. First how does a "poorer" person raise the cash required to stand as a candidate? Second how does a "poorer" person get through the savage party machines that want party clones and not free thinkers?
MPs are selected by their capacity to stand behind the leader and the policies determined within cabinet government - modified manifesto commitments if you will. Fail that test and you are going nowhere fast.
No, this is all a fallacious argument designed to cover many red faces and chastened egos. These people would, in more savagely dictated times, have been hung, drawn and quartered with no mercy shown. It would have been no more than they deserved in such times just as expulsion from politics is no more than they deserve now.
Complain about this comment
Nick
NOT ENOUGH CONTRITION FROM THESE CHARLATANS
Call me old-fashioned but those MPs repaying on their fraudulent claims isn't good enough.
I want them to show real remorse: I want to see wholesale suicides, preferably in view of the paying public with the money raised from ticket sales going to good causes, e.g. those on income support of 53 pounds per week.
Susie
Carryduff
Complain about this comment
It is ridiculous that the MPs are ripping us off as these are the same MPs that sent thousand of service men one of which was my son to fight in Iraq without the proper equipment like proper boots etc which they had to buy themselves.
Shame on them.
Complain about this comment
#80
"#61 Boilerplated
My recollection is the same as yours. The BBC were very pro-Thatcher before and just after her election and they had it in for Michael Foot & co.
However, two wrongs don't make a right."
That wasn't my point (there hasn't been one 'wrong', never mind two), what I was trying to show - by using the two example of recent programming, given by both myself and the quote I used - that the BBC is actually unbiased (as a whole) and any apparent bias is due to the BBC not being biased towards ones own point of view. Hence ending my comment with "Bias is mostly in the eyes of the observer..."
Complain about this comment
Because we don't have an elected Head of State, we don't seem to have anybody in a position of respect above the government who can sound the public's views and speak out with the distaste we all feel. The Bundespresident of Germany is able to criticize the performance of the German parliament has enough clout to have his opinion respected. Who do the top politicians actually fear or even listen to?- the electorate they certainly won't fear until their own seats are at risk down the line.
Complain about this comment
And even now (Thursday evening - 14 May) an 'Honourable Member' stated on the BBC that the last 3 weeks has damaged Parliament. Surely, if a time span is at fault it's the years of 'playing the system' by honourable members that has done this. Or are they ALL 'honorable' unless caught, when of course they can give a sincere banker's apology and keep the dosh! Does Westminster World accept 'get out of jail free' cards? or is that another game?
Complain about this comment
Last night, on Question Time, there was a measure of the public anger over the expenses scandal from Grimsby. There was no diplomacy in evidence just hard hitting candour and Margaret Becket and Menzies Campbell being made to look somehwat foolish. Teresa May was, surprisingly I felt, a little more contrite. One factor that was highlighted by an audience member (which perhaps made light of the importance of this expenses fiasco) is how it may enable the BNP to gain seats in a rebellion vote.
We really do need to flush out corruption in public and private life if we are retain the values and traditions of the UK. Any benefit fraudster committing the kind of misdemeanours of MPs would be facing a long term of imprisonment. Any person failing to pay their Council Tax would be facing a gaol term. Why on earth should MPs get away with this?
Complain about this comment
#84
Quote: Hence ending my comment with "Bias is mostly in the eyes of the observer..."
Agreed, and therefore the case with your good self too, and me and everyone else....
Accepting that it is true we all have our own "bias" does not mean that we should all shut up forever and a day and not make another comment. Bias is acknowledged and accepted as a part of life but when it slips into prejudice or obsession it may be obstructive rather than constructive. Once again we have to trust that everyone has the ability to make their own judgements on bias or we will slip slowly and very surely into totalitarianism.
Complain about this comment
For the past few days I have listened to the excuses and appalling attempts of MP's to justify high living at the tax payers expense. Labour MP's who should have at the heart of their drive the social good of the people not the apparent self help they are trying to protect and justify.
Justice Ministers that seem to think that because there were no limits set by the Fees Office that it is Ok to spend spend spend. Claiming he would have spent that at home. Well if he could then he was able to spend more that normal folk would as a proportion of the salary he earns doing the job? How does he manage that, use his own private income to support his work, I think not.
You have to question how so many MP's, who after all are claiming money as a return of an expense, therefore the money is already spoken for can find the cash so quickly to repay the excess. Makes one feel like it was an enhancement of their well being something the Green Book specifically requires that they do not do.
How is it that an MP can claim for an expense that does not exist? Mr Morley seems to think sorry is good enough, I as a member of the general public think I would have been in custody, charged and being prepared for a court appearance if I had made levels of claims of this nature against the company I work for.
When will the police act, when will the public be provided with the justice we deserve as the body of people who are funding this excess and catalogue of "ERRORS".
The government need to act and swiftly to regain public confidence. They should purchase 625 homes in London, furnish them to a reasonable standard, maintain them via a maintenance contract and provide the utilities via a single contract at a discounted rate form a single source. The same way we do for quarters for the armed forces. We consider that good enough for the people who lay down their lives for us at the direction of the same people who are making excessive claims on us. That way each MP would live in a "Tied Cottage" provided with the job. Paid for with no option to make a profit or gain. Furnished via a government contract so as to obtain best contract rates. Maintained to an agreed standard and no need for an expensive "Claims" process. Beyond reproach and considerably cheaper for us the tax payer. It's good enough for the man in the top job so why not the rest?
No second home allowances for anyone, Hotel stays for anyone going to constituencies where they don't live and only pay expense that are reasonable. Since the number of claims to be processed would be 1/10th of current they could all be independently reviewed by a body who's aim was based on what the PUBLIC would think is reasonable.
We have MP's who can spend as much as they like of tax payers money on heating lighting etc , while they pontificate over a few pence increase for pensioners to assist them in keeping warm.
MP's take a long hard look at what you are doing otherwise the public will turn on you and the minor parties will get the votes and this country will end up with 100@s of parties in parliament, nobody in control and the decline of UK Ltd will be complete. Get it sorted ASAP
Complain about this comment
#85
"Because we don't have an elected Head of State, we don't seem to have anybody in a position of respect above the government who can sound the public's views and speak out with the distaste we all feel."
Well as much as the above is true the rational is a bit daft, if we did have a president who or what would be the "position of respect" above the president were the public could air their views and speak out with the distaste we all feel should support collapse in the elected president - should we, the state, keep building an ever taller pyramid?...
Complain about this comment
There is a culture in this country existing from the Middle Ages,where the people at the top(MP's,bankers etc) feel they are entitled to a lifestyle funded by the rest of us lowly serfs!Margaret Beckett's comment on Question Time that we don't understand their expenses is just another way of saying that MP's think we are too thick to realise that the class divide is still alive and well in Westminster.The rich man is living in his castle(s),complete with swimming pool, and the poorman will be lucky to have a gate to have a gate to lean against after they have finished fleecing us.
Complain about this comment
Do these MPs know the phrase "you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" Have they no concience. The truth is, they claimed expenses they know they shouldn't have. Or is this country being run by a load of idiots. I don't think so. Its no good saying sorry now. The damage is done.
SUCH A SAD SAD SITUATION SORRY IS JUST NOT ENOUGH
C Harrold West Midlands
Complain about this comment
I am puzzled by the BBC headlines to this issue. Yesterdays was 'First victim of MP's expenses scandal', which is bizarre, as the BBC do not cover terrorism with 'First victims of anti-terrorism laws'. Or perhaps burglars and shoplifters are 'victims of the Theft Act'? Is it that the BBC are determined to let these freeloaders off the hook, or is this a continuation of the media complacency that allows 19th century regulation in a 21st century democracy? Our parliamentary system is utterly corrupt and degenerate, and it urgently needs to be made fair,transparent and ACCOUNTABLE. The issue of MP expenses is very simple. Jobseekers allowance is about £94 per week, and the pension is about £92 per week, and this, our honest politicians assure us, is sufficient to maintain a household with dignity and without poverty. So assuming our politicians ARE honest, then lets give them £92 a week flat rate, or they can explain in public why they have been lying to us. And we should not forget that this is only an issue because of Freedom of Information Act, a reforming piece of modern legislation from europe, that westminster fought tooth and nail to keep out. And now we know why. If its paid for by the taxpayer, then it should be in the public domain, and the arrogance of our MP's in assuming that they are above the law and can keep their freeloading secret is sufficient grounds in itself to lose any vestige of trust and respect.
Complain about this comment
The revelations are only the tip of 'greed culture' that has been fostered in all walks of life in the UK : Mp's should stop talking and start 'doing' to sort this out : I believe a realistic wage structure needs to be in place ; UK Plc should own and run a 'block' of London homes on behalf of MP's who can stay/live there when working in London from far flung areas - Then 2nd homes are abolished and the 'crookery' goes away - these houses are owned by the state. When parlimentary life is over they go 'Home' and a new MP moves in. Its no wonder so many decent people have turned their backs on living in the UK
Complain about this comment
Just watching news 24, no this story will not go away, the MP's have committed a cardinal sin and upset all the people at the same time when normally they pick us off as disparate groups and get away with it. And thank you the Daily Telegraph for exposing the detail of what we knew was going on. I have yet to hear the BBC give credit to Heather Brook without whose FOI court battles we would never have known. The speaker was a major mover in frustrating her, forcing the issue to the horrendously expensive High Court but she won. Even now they are trying to hide their details away from us, they are still mulling over exempting these details from the FOI, and Sir Sturat Bell said that if the administration of their expenses was passed to an independent body it would be outside the FOI ! I think he is incorrect but it shows his mindset. A medal for Heather? All such awards go through the PM so????
Complain about this comment
Still watching BBC 24, please stop them trying to talk this subject out and be more Paxo like when interviewing the miscreants. I see Ray Mallon has made a formal complaint to the police , as it appears have others. The result , a deafening silence from the police. How many times have you heard the police say after being taken to task over heavy handed investigation of a trivial or spurious complaint that " if we receive a complaint we must investigate it". Well Sir Paul get on with it or make sure that excuse is trotted out again when caught out by bad policing.
Complain about this comment
We,the british public have knone for years that the people in power are only there to line there own pockets!And this proves it.we also need to look at how much the house of lords have taken from the public! we need to get rid of this goverment,and call for a general election.
Complain about this comment
The main Have Your Say blog is still playing up, I find this a bit sinister at this time. I also want to ensure my real name and address does not show on screen, only a fool would want that shown right now, and guess what, cant access the changes segment of my details to check or change, hmmmmmmmmmmmm !
P.S. Last blog should have said NEVER trotted out again, the never got ommitted.
Complain about this comment
I would just like to point out that these rules thay have all stuck to
Are rules made for them By them!As for mp's taxs,thay wont pay tax.And if thay do,thay can claim it all back.Any new rules thay think up!will just benifit them even more.There above the law and always will be!.
Complain about this comment
I totally agree with the guy who phoned into the BBC News, who said that we need to get rid of career politicians and get people in who have sampled life, who know what they are talking about. All these out-of-touch types with their airy-fairy ideas, disastrous financial management and their dubious scruples, need flushing out.
As with so much in life wherever there is no accountability, corruption reigns, or as Charman Mao said "where the broom does not reach, the dust will not disappear by itself".
This is the 21st century: People are no longer happy to 'know their place' tug their forelocks and say "Yea", as if to the Lords of the Manor.They want fair dealing and accountability and will push to get it.
Whitehall denizens - the jig is up!
Complain about this comment
It makes me laugh (or should I say cry) that William Haig comes on BBC Breakfast news to say that now he has earned £1 million plus outside of Parliament that he will pay back his expense claims!!
Firstly, if he is paying them back then why did he claim them in the first place??
Secondly if he is a "full time" MP then how can he earn over £1 million from a second "job"? It seems to me we have a bunch of part time representatives who are there to line their pockets at the expense of the members of the public.
Complain about this comment
Just listened to D Camaron's interview. "we must apologise" Has no one got the guts to admit they knew exactly what they were doing. Most normal people's expense claims are for petrol, lunch, mileage. Like many honest employees (given they have a job) wouldn't even dream of submiting an expense claim to our company for manure,plumming,cleaning and so on. It looks like these MPs have been ripping us off and lining their own pockets for God knows how many years. Stop treating us, the Tax Payer, like Idiots.
WHO CAN WE TRUST If our own Government, at a time of recession seem to be just taking us for everything they can.
Complain about this comment
Can the monarch dissolve parliament? If she can, then surely this is the time that our "Head of State" should act to remove these fraudsters and make them face the electorate?
Complain about this comment
These MP'S are paid more than enough to do their job, as for second homes, if i was to take a job away from home i would either have to commute or sell up home and move, MP's should have to do the same. no one asked them to stand to be an MP that was their choice.if i was unemployed and was doing odd jobs and getting paid for it, if i got caught i would be up in court for making a fraudulent claim for benifit, this is what the MP's are doing making fraudulent claims, it is a disgrace and they should be made to pay it all back, no more excuses from them about what they are entitled to claim for, so they can do their job, like every other working man and woman in the country we have to pay for anything we need to do our job, wheather it be a car to get to work or a pair of boots, we don't get anything back from the goverment if anything we give more to them and now we know why, so they can line there own pockets
Complain about this comment
If the foundations of a house are undermined then the House must surely fall.
But why trust to chance lets help it along?
Whilst acknowledging and agreeing with all our comments of outrage amongst us what can/should we practically do - to ensure change forever.
Should we assemble at our local town halls to demonstrate our contempt for those who obviously hold us (the electorate/Joe Public) in such contempt!
MPs all are tainted in this shameful debacle - not a true patriot amongst them (generic definition: one who defends his country, its freedom and rights) yes the word patriot still exists even if somewhat, in hushed tones in PC- land come, let us restore the word to the English language take a deep breath.
These Honourable men have put personal gain above the good of this nation and its people treasonous behaviour by any definition therefore deal accordingly where is the Police Force in all this by the way?
Another General Election what will that bring?
More of the same from the usual three broken promises etc break this cycle vote for the same old parties - receive the same old promises.
Restore power to the people (on all issues) so that true democratic process can take place enough of Animal Farm bring on Brave New World!
The views of an ordinary working, family man who has been driven to extremes (ring any bells?) who still loves his country, and believes we have a duty to offer our children hope, encourage their aspirations and provide them with opportunity their future and ours is too precious to do nothing.
Complain about this comment
While watching the unravelling of MP's careers, you get the impression that one MP is as bad as another. However, in terms of the general public's view of MPs, what is the way ahead? As a start, perhaps we could have a list of the MPs who have been investigated, even by the Telegraph, and found not to have participated in such unsavoury activities and are, in a word, clean.
Complain about this comment
It feels extremely dissatisfying reading the comments and the naivity displayed in some of them. Some call to increase the pay of MPs and Ministers, so that they will have no need to 'fiddle' the system that they themselves write the rule book for. This is tantamount to paying the burgular not to break into your home.
Let us not be coy here, let us not delude ourselves of the import and implications of the Telegraph's expose. This system of abuse (and it is abuse) would still continue, but for the whistleblower's revelations being brought to the public's attention. This is how honourable our MPs and Ministers are...self-serving, self-gratifying, and light-years out of touch with the public.
I fully understand that there will be many MPs and Ministers whom will be undeserving of being tarnished with those whom deserve being tarnished, but in the end they are still a part of the system, and the lack of transparency enables abuse and misuse to go undetected for such a length of time.
I have every right to climb up on a horse of indignation and anger, and ride it if necessary all the way to London to vent that anger. I am sick of the corruption, and I am sickened by these revelations because I now cannot give my trust when I go to vote. The whole House, the whole political system needs reforming, but not before it is fully cleaned and sterilised, and not before genuine 'checks and balances' are put into place: it is time that the cradle of modern democracy put its own House in order...regardless of the cost.
You do not allow a crook to reform the rules that judge him/her, that make him/her accountable for his actions. You remove him/her from the system and reform it yourself. The greatest damage done by these revelations is to the people's trust. If you cannot trust anyone, to whom do you give your vote?
Complain about this comment
Maybe the kids think it is swine flu. Pity you didn't poll them in who they would vote for (add a ''I don't know''), giving the probability that (if) any allegencies would be at a minimum.
Complain about this comment
#107
You make a very important point concerning the actual number of MPs who remain untarnished by the Telegraph expose. As of last night the Telegraph could not say anything other than it would seem to be a very small minority, and they still have a way to go to sort through the millions of receipts and documents they have. We do know the identities of those who not only remained honourable but fought very hard against the Speaker to get the information into the public domain.
The House of Commons is damaged beyond repair in its present format. Voting in the last general election was barely above fifty percent with Blair returned on a miserly 22% of the electoral vote. The last four years have seen a number of extremely divisive laws introduced, the collapse of our economic structures and now evidence of fraud and corruption amongst our elected representatives. In reality politics has been dropped to a level far below that of estate agents and traffic wardens.
The failure of our leaders to bring in the police and start investigating breaches of the law they appear to think we are stupid enough to accept their apologies. Would any of them like to tell me what happens to a benefit fraudster who apologises?
Complain about this comment
Irony is alive and well, today a committee of M.P.s have condemned the banking hierarchy for milking the system. One of the fears of sending offenders to prison is that they may pick up skills that prepare them for greater criminal success upon their release, I am worried that we are facing a similar dilemna here !
Complain about this comment
I will be the one voice in the wilderness I know that virtually no-one will agree with this post, but.
#93 Bigrose
I hate the Freedom of Information Act. I think it will do more harm than good and has the potential stifle decisive action in times of crisis. We will see.
# Everyone else
I think MPs are ridiculously underpaid for what they do. They should not have bowed to media pressure and voted for low or zero pay rises. I believe Margaret Thatcher set a precedent when, under pressure from the Labour Party/BBC etc, she pressurized MPs to forego their pay rise. Because of the erosion of their income they have allowed themselves to get into this expenses mess and many of them certainly do look foolish.
#88 redaer_tolb
I certainly cannot trust myself to make judgements on bias. I am influenced by what I see and hear and I suspect many others are too. I suppose if this was not the case we wouldnt have advertisements, political broadcasts and so on. I think it is vitally important that the state broadcaster is a beacon for unfettered and unbiased facts. Unfortunately it is not. The news on the BBC is run rather like the Guardian. The fact that the staff are pretty much interchangeable and many move in the same circles doesnt help. There is a gap in the market for truth and although I did no agree with all the points in post #93, I think the point about the contentious BBC headline ('First victim of MP's expenses scandal') is quite valid. When the BBC takes an angle on a story, no matter how subtle, it is already off the rails and is asking for trouble. 'Former Minister Resigns' may have been a better, more neutral, headline
Complain about this comment
This is actually a problem from Thatchers government.
In 1983, the world & UK was in deep recession, jobs were being lost & millions were suffering poverty levels on benefits, losing houses & losing any & all hope for the future, not much different than today 26 years later.
Government was dictating low wage rises and even used the police & courts to put down strikes which government made illegal by introducing new laws.
MPs & Parliament were in the position that they could not themselves make large pay claims as it would be imoral & outrageous while so many people were forced to accept less & so little. In 1983 the current expense system was introduced, it was basically a way of MPs gaining higher income while the public were unaware of who was able to claim what & for why & it remained secret until recently.
Over the years, MPs have on occassion, pretentiously & deceitfully accepted lower pay rises but in the full knowledge of rising expense accounts & ability to claim for a wider range of expenses that could be made within the rules but which were actually & morally repugnant but remained hidden from the electorate.
The present system of payments for expenses is reasonable system to cover exceptional costs incurred due to duties required of MPs. It is also worded in such an explicit way as to totally avoid excesses and abuse of it.
The system is fine, it's wording is fine, but it's purpose has been deceitful and has been used deceitfully for years to hide rises in income for MPs, while they pretend to accept lower rises.
MPs should be entitled to a decent wage and they should be entitled to reasonable expenses for legitimate circumstances.
MPs have acted & behaved like some paranoid alcoholic or drug addict, keeping the problem of wage & expenses structure secret in fear, as they already knew, long ago that it was a toxic problem and had already wrecked havoc among them, wide and far.
What we need now to help get over this is a new terms of employment contract and even a public swearing in of Members of Parliament, so there is no doubt as to their allegiences and conduct.
People know what rules mean & if any basics and basis of any rule is to be extended for any purpose other than what is solely agreed upon & stated, then to do so must incur full scrutiny, acceptance and agreement and be made public.
What we now need most of all is positive ideas, input and agreement from the public and Parliament and the media. It is not good enough just for Gordon Brown & other party leaders to make changes. Any and all changes will importantly have to be agreed by the electorate, even if it means a public vote just on this issue and of choices. If the public have no input and do not perceive themselves to have a proper input, then nothing MPs & Parliament does will go anywhere near to regaining trust and respect of this nation, and without trust and respect our whole society can seriously degenerate into something that none of us would ever wish for.
It's time to come clean and now is the time to change many things that only this opportunity has and can provide, it's time to ask the people what they actually want & how they are prepared to get there.
It's time our MPs & Parliament put aside their fears of the public, it's time our MPs put more trust in the people, only by working together as a nation can we really achieve the goals we strive for and share in all things.
Complain about this comment
oh dear - the beeb is once again the moral voice of the british public?! lets see your expenses?! lets not forget who was taking money from british taxpayers in the form of dodgy phone in's etc - the story was a good one and had valuable public interest but once again you have overdone the hissy fit journalism.
Complain about this comment
#104
"if i was to take a job away from home i would either have to commute or sell up home and move,"
What would you do if, like MPs, you are expected to be in one location between mid day Monday and late Thursday and in another Friday till Sunday, how would you live at two addresses? Sorry but the above comment just goes to show how many people really don't understand what MPs are expected to do, what their jobs entail and what we - the voter - expects them to do, how long would a sitting MP last if he or she never showed up for their contingency surgeries, the 'churn rate' of deselected/un(re)elected MPs would be comical if it wasn't so serious to the ability of parliament to do a job of work... I can hear people say "Why can't they stay in hotels when in/away from London or contingency, how much do you think that would cost over a 5 year parliament?
Complain about this comment
#109
"a very important point concerning the actual number of MPs who remain untarnished by the Telegraph expose. As of last night the Telegraph could not say anything other than it would seem to be a very small minority"
The problem here is, the Telegraph has proven to have a very low threshold of proof, if the 'complaint' later doesn't stand up scrutiny - like the coal-miner who who gets coal dust in a wound - the MP is tarnished for life.
Complain about this comment
The BBC has a cheek in commenting on MP's expenses. The BBC should not exist as we pay for it whether we watch it or not. The expenses claimed by MP's is a scandal and many MP's are dishonest and fraudulent. However the BBC wastes more on ridiculous salaries and manpower than the MP's waste on fraudulent claims. By getting rid of most of the MP's and the BBC the UK would be able to survive the recession. The BBC is a tax which has no place in a modern democracy. Corruption is the norm in all areas of the UK government , quangos, and the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Getting back on-topic - I'm (seriously) afraid that, judging by the rhetoric and hyperbolic comments being made all over the media, before long Newsround might have to attempt to explain what a "Lynch-mob" is to the under 12s...
I really do think that, whilst not trying to hide any of this, the media - and I include the DT here - should pass any and all evidence to the police on the understanding that a quick, full and proper investigation will be carried out, the police have already stated that they and the CPS are prepared to investigate any complaints made. The drip-drip feeding (for nothing but commercial gain) of 'facts' must be stopped before some miss-guided person or persons do more than dig up some MPs front lawn.
Complain about this comment
"patmca" @ #116
Of course you will be able to offer evidence to back-up your assertions of criminal activity, never mind the reason why you have to watch TV - one can actually get all the news, current affairs and good slice of entertainment from the free radio services in the UK...
Now there's a question: is there an equivalent to Newsround on BBC radio, if not, why not?
Complain about this comment
Firstly BBC, I thank you for this platform of Free speech. Which is a precious right, as many have died for being outspoken in other countries.
1:Agast!! At the defensive comments "if we dismissed the MP's that were caught with both hands in the cookie jars, then the void would be open to loony parties",
Stupid comment, as those who get in would be duly elected by the (loony general public).Thank you Mr MP who thinks that we the general bublic are stupid; OOps we did vote you in.
2:I wonder how many MP's will utilise the WUA of £37,281 and retire, instead of facing up to possible criminal charges and lose all. For gentlemen/ladies of character;their was only one bullet in the gun.
Complain about this comment
mps know the rules to claim by, to help them with there job, so how come 50inch flat screen tv,s. bags of manure,nappies,and hanging baskets help them with there job, the majority of these mp,s it seems the people who were checking these claims are as much involved as the mps. time to name the people who actually scrutinize these claims, to see who they are
Complain about this comment
Standard practice was to temove the bad apple in the barrel.
From past comments from MP's, a void would be open to loony parties.
So for the GOOD the Britain we must keep the BAD.
Let us trust our judicial system and be democratic, out with the bad irrespective of title or financial clout.
And elect new blood that has not been tainted by peer pressure.
Complain about this comment
#111
My point was that "bias exists" even with those who should show no bias. It is not just residue of our psychological profile and pitfalls but also of our own responses to hidden atmosphere, both our phobias and our wish to be liked. Whilst the "coolest person" in the world may show conscious calm they cannot shield the unconscious (heat) instinct to survive. Advertisement uses bias to confirm a residue of our profile that is not satisfied which is an entirely different manipulation but works in a similar way. We have the appropriate mechanism to defeat an advert every time but we must also survive it.
#115
"Doesn't stand up to scrutiny" should be written "doesn't stand up to who's scrutiny" and by doing that thus gives the constituent the information and responsibility necessary to make judgements. That those judgements may be influenced by the "baying of the lynch mob" is no different to the "baying of the MP culture" which is how I would paraphrase Teresa May's very wise attack on the errant MPs. When Joe Conservative consults Mary Liberal and his long term mate Fred Labour and decides to "bung in a biggun" (Melton Mowbray size Pork Pie) is he driven by his own conscience or driven by the "crowd" effect?
The DT in this is irrelevant apart from its wish to pass on factual evidence. It has offered us information. Clearly your mindset sees this differently to those you consider as part of a lynch mob. However "lynch mob" suggests each person within that group has the power to hang the party which is something no constituent has - hence the anger and frustration exhibited. The remedy is police involvement something that until now they have been reluctant to take on.
Complain about this comment
#112
Thankyou for an accurate and meanigful comment which certainly accords with my memory of the times.
Complain about this comment
It might come as shock to many, but under cover of a hugely funny radio comedy show, Spike Milligan foresaw the moral implosion of conventional democracy via the expenses scandal and was actually preparing a coup for the GOONS to take over Government!
It is now abundantly clear that Neddy Seagoon was destined to become Prime Minister, with Gritpype Thynne as Chancellor of the Exchequer. At a stroke Gritpype would solve the present financial crisis by inviting Robert Mugabe to take over the Bank of England and privatising/issuing shares in the Fees Office.
Bluebottle would become Minister without Portfolio....in fact without anything at all.
Jim 'Count' Moriarty would become leader of the House of Lords. He hopes to sign up the BBC to schedule a live daily quiz show called "Cash for Questions".
Eccles's is to become Speaker of the House where Milligan hoped he would learn to speak.
Major Bloodnock would have no equal as Government Press Secretary where his standard press release of "its all lies, I tell you" would obviate the need for additional staffing in the Press Office at No 10.
Henry Crun and Minnie Bannister would be cloned to make up compliant MPs. However, Milligan didnt quite bargain with opposition from over 600 x Dolly the Sheep.
William 'Mate' Cobblers could assume a reconstituted Ministry of Transport, with his first policy statement being "you can't park here, mate".
Its gotta be an improvement!
Complain about this comment
When I was young I was taught that just by giving something back that I had stolen did not make me a honest person,I was still a thief.Dont the politicians who have given back the expenses reallise that the public now regard them as thieves?If these people lived in the real world where most of us live they would have been arrested.Parliament now seems to be a club for conning the public.When gordons review is finished (in about 2 years)is complete no doubt they will have a huge pay rise.PS-Who decided the person to lead the review,oh parliament,the very people who are under the spotlight at the moment.Cant wait for the rest of the revelations to come out-the telegraph seems to be saving the best till last.
Complain about this comment
FOLLOW-UP AND CLEAN-UP ISSUES
We should not waste the opportunity for a clean up of public life and the rules as they apply to them and us. Here are some suggestions
Public Appointments
The concerning the process of appointing politicians cronies for jobs are just a flawed as MPs expenses. They are a round about route to be offered a peerage after a few years for services rendered in concealing corruption. Mutual back scratching takes place in due course.
The Church and Politics
Speaking out is one thing but political activity in an official capacity is not a charitable purpose. This must be stopped or they must pay income tax on what goes into the collection plate.
Public Institutions and Royal Charters
Many public institutions who operate under a Royal Charter do not have any complaints procedures and we the taxpayer are banned from complaining how our money is spent. They simply hide behind crown immunity to conceal their corruption
Complaining About Them
Under Administrative Law set up by the Nolan Committee which set up the 7 standards of conduct in public life. Public institutions must behave in a reasonable way. However, have you tried making a complaint? As long as they play it by the rules that permit the most awful injustice there is nothing you can do. When they have failed to play by the rules they simply tell lies in the knowledge that there are no consequences.
Jurisdiction
Public service corruption has been decriminalised. This government has so deregulated public institutions the excuse they now use for refusing to investigate blatant fraud is that they have no jurisdiction and they have made sure no one else does either. So public service corruption is alright as they hav emade sure they can get away with it.
Unaccountable QUANGOs
Follow on from the jurisdiction game is the unaccountable QUANGO living in fear of being taken into public ownership. So what do they do? They make sure no corruption sees the light of day or would embarrass their political masters.
One Law for Them and Another for Us
Be in no doubt that if you committed any act of corruption that is rife within our public services you would be in court so fast your feet would not touch the ground.
Moreover, where there are no means of complaint it encourages people to commit the ultimate crime of taking the law into their own hands. In which case you would find out the hard way there is one law for a corrupt elite and another for you.
Its called setting an example!
Complain about this comment
I have just uded the link from http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/pay_mps.cfm to have a look at The Green Book. I think Newsround ought to give the gist of the principles when it next covers the story to shw how adults can have The Rules in front of them and still Be In The Wrong.
Complain about this comment
THE GREEN BOOK. IS A GUIDE BOOK IS IT NOT? I in my time was told that when i had to fillin a questionare it went some thing like this.Advice on filling in this form. Be shure to fill in your answers correctly as to remit any un truthfull statement will in turn subject you to a fine of at least £5,000 or a turm of imprisonment or both.Is this not the same law for mps? or do they just make the rules for us and not them?OR DO I LIVE ON A DIFFERANT PLANEIT.JUST ASKED.Were is scotland yard fraud squad?
Complain about this comment
MPs EXPENSES COVER UP
Michael Martin head of the expenses committee and speaker of the commons cannot be sacked. He did everything in his power to cover-up MPs expenses. He even made application to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to keep expenses covered-up. The Court costs was £500,000 for the taxpayer. Michael Martin must be made pay the Court costs.
Complain about this comment
EXPENSES FRAUD MPs MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.
What is the difference between MPs expenses fraud and the case of 73 year old Sylvia Hardy? A retired social worker from Devon became the first woman pensioner to be jailed in England for refusing to pay part of an increase in her council tax.
Sylvia Hardy, 73, from Exeter, was jailed for seven days after missing a deadline to settle arrears of £53.71. Try telling a judge that it was all a unforgivable mistake and hold up a cheque saying you will pay the money back. The only people who want a line drawn under MPs expenses conduct most foul, are the guilty MPs. When MPs are tainted the rest are suspect.
Complain about this comment
#22
"The DT in this is irrelevant apart from its wish to pass on factual evidence."
But that's the point, purely factual evidence doesn't always tell the whole story, for example, just because item 'A' is on a submitted receipt it doesn't mean that item 'A' has been claimed for, or if item 'A' has been claimed for that either the "Green Book" is lacking in precise guidance or that the expenses office didn't 'clear' the claim - indeed there has been cases were the claims office have made the mistake and NOT the MP. The problem is that mud sticks, in 6 months time when the DT realises that it has to publish an retraction (as a small box at the bottom of page 55 no doubt...) few will notice and even fewer will care, the (broadsheet) self-righteous press will have moved onto their next 'marketing ploy' - don't let them fool you that all this is 'in the interests of democracy', it's not, this is actually the biggest threat to democracy for a long time as the only political parties who will benefit are those who do not believe in democracy.
As I said before, if the DT believe they have evidence of criminal activity they should pass all their evidence on to the police. The DT is behaving like investigator, judge, jury and executioner...
Complain about this comment
#125
"the public now regard them as thieves"
Some might think that, if you have proof (and I mean proof, not just a self selecting opinion poll that some self-serving newspaper has commissioned) perhaps you could publish your finding...
Complain about this comment
MPs cannot properly represent their constituencies whilst they fiddle their expenses. When an MP fiddles his expenses he leaves himself wide open to blackmail by his opponent MPs, living in their pockets in fear of their sleaze being exposed. Surly they realize that blackmail and fear of expenses exposure could jeopardize national security.
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments made by "FORENSIC-DEBATE" @ #130
"Try telling a judge that it was all a unforgivable mistake"
My understandings of the cited legal case is that the non-payment was not a mistake, the defendant decided that she would not pay (even refusing offers by others to pay on her behalf). It wasn't a case of "I Can't pay", just "I Won't pay (my tax dues)".
Complain about this comment
#133
"MPs cannot properly represent their constituencies whilst they fiddle their expenses. When an MP fiddles his expenses he leaves himself wide open to blackmail by his opponent MPs"
What utter nonsense, how far would "If you blackmail me, I'll blackmail you - or your fellow front/back bencher" get!...
"fear of expenses exposure could jeopardize national security"
Well perhaps, but not as much as some self-interested newspaper could whilst publishing something in the 'National interest', if the press had a clue about national security there would be no need for the "D Notice"...
Complain about this comment
I have just read in the 'Herald' that former MP Tam Dalyell tried to claim £18,000 for two bookcases two months before he retired at the 2005 election. This says it all. If he thought that was an accepable claim, it only shows the contempt in which the system is held.I fear for the future of the country, if this is the calibre of our MPs. I always thought that he was one of the better ones
Complain about this comment
I can't believe the revelations that are being spotted at the Parliament especially in Britain where people see as devoid of corruption.
Complain about this comment
#136
"I have just read in the 'Herald' that former MP Tam Dalyell tried to claim 18,000 for two bookcases two months before he retired at the 2005 election. This says it all."
Lets, for a moment, put a slightly different spin on the facts;
'Former MP Tam Dalyell tried to claim 18,000 for two bookcases Twelve Months months before he planed to retired at the next (2006) election.'
So unless he knew that Tony Blair was going to call the election early the fact that the claim was made two months before the election was actually called is irrelevant, also his claim was turned down - how many other claims - from who ever, where ever, when ever have also been similarly turned down in the history of MPs expenses claims, it proves that (at least, at times) the expenses office are doing their job!
Also, anyone who knows the cost of industrial quality (of a style that the average person would want in their homes or even offices, not tin shelves) would accept that £18,000 - supplied and installed cost - might not be such an excessive price, obviously as we don't know what these bookcases are it's difficult for anyone to judge.
A bit of a none story then, and most would have never known about it had Tam Dalyell not himself mentioned it.
MPs don't consider that they are either Saints nor mind-readers, it's just a pity that some of the public do...
Complain about this comment
Seems to me that the expenses office were not doing their job in allowing some of the claims even though they rejected the most outlandish.They probably found it very hard to reject the claims of an MP. Are they doing the same or were some of their members more strict than others?
Complain about this comment
#131
If MPs had not attempted to suppress this information the DT would not have got hold of it. The receipts are documents which the DT has said it will not release unless it finds anomallies. Its job is that of a detective (the police dragging their feet has not helped this fiasco at all) piecing together evidence and cross referencing and checking it. It is painstaking. The SFO may have done a better job than the DT but they are not involved - Why Not?
As it stands individual members of the public are entrusted to make up their own minds and about time too. Had this been a potential fraud in the office I work in no one would have been allowed to leave the building; the auditors and the police would arrive; staff would have been interviewed under caution. So why is Parliament treated differently in an affair which is simply eating the heart out of our democracy.
Complain about this comment
#138
Tam Dalyell claimed for telephone calls to the tune of £500 after he ceased to be an MP claiming they were from people who had not realised he was no longer an MP. The bookshelves were downsized to ones from John Lewis and his claim for other expenses almost halved by the Fees Office.
Complain about this comment
I am indebted to the website of Linda Gilroy MP for the following useful history on MP's expenses. Back in 1954 there was furore in the press about a 50% pay rise or alternative motions on expenses that amounted to much the same. There was some pressure on MPs to delay increasing salaries until after an election (with pay being a focus within the party manifestos).
A principle argument was that Neville Chamberlain under pressure to delay a pay rise in 1937 until after the next general election argued against such a delay. He was heavily defeated in the vote.
Back in 1954 there was considerably more openess about what was reasonable. Back then the press were not harangued for strong worded argument, indeed Parliament accepted it as justified.
The whole debate was one of openness and transparency. Where have those days gone?
Complain about this comment
138. At 2:22pm on 16 May 2009, Boilerplated
Also, anyone who knows the cost of industrial quality (of a style that the average person would want in their homes or even offices, not tin shelves) would accept that 18,000 - supplied and installed cost - might not be such an excessive price, obviously as we don't know what these bookcases are it's difficult for anyone to judge.
=======================================================
Thank you so much Boilerplated. You have explained in such an erudite fashion, that I fail to comprehend why I assumed 18,000 was excessive for bookcases. Together with Margaret Beckett, who pronounced that the public have no understanding of MPs expenses, you have made me realise what is in fact going on. The bookcases possibly had, shall we say 18 karat gold fittings, useful in a credit crunch. The books of course were sold by the yard, except for every fifth one which contained paper currency.
Complain about this comment
138#
As I understand it, Tam Dalyell wanted the bookcases to store copies of Hansard as some king of memorabilia of his time in parliament. Surely not an essential aid to him doing his job properly, whether 2 or 12 months before a general election.
My point is that MPs seem to think that the tab for anything even remotely connected to their job should by picked up by Joe public.
Complain about this comment
#143 and #144
Sorry but those two replies do nothing but show that you both don't really know much about either bookcases suitable for office/home accommodation, how parliament works and what is required to for an MP to do their job. Telling an MP they don't need Hansard is a bit like telling a telephone operator from the 1970s that they don't need a complete set of UK telephone directories!...
"My [@#144] point is that MPs seem to think that the tab for anything even remotely connected to their job should by picked up by Joe public"
Next you'll expect NHS doctors to buy their own stethoscopes and surgeons to equip their own operating theatres...
Complain about this comment
#145
I think it is you that needs to do your homework on Mr Dalyell. He wanted "designer book cases" because he didn't want "rubbish in my home". Nothing to do with selecting something that did the job. He was forced to accept standard shelves from John Lewis as has already been noted at considerably less than half the cost of his choice. The piece about Hansard is an afterthought for public consumption as if it would make a difference to our anger!!!
Complain about this comment
145. At 10:24pm on 16 May 2009, Boilerplated
Sorry but those two replies do nothing but show that you both don't really know much about either bookcases suitable for office/home accommodation, how parliament works and what is required to for an MP to do their job. Telling an MP they don't need Hansard is a bit like telling a telephone operator from the 1970s that they don't need a complete set of UK telephone directories!...
==========================================================
I thought I thanked you already for shedding light on my naive and ignorant condition. I thought MPs needed giant TVs, moats, phoney Tudor beams and constant replacements for lavatory seats in order to do their jobs. Couldn't the data from Hansard be inscribed on a disc, or would it vanish because there would be no back ups, as per governmental department custom?
Complain about this comment
147
I intended to add that if a NHS GP runs his own practice, or is a partner in one, equipment, e.g. stethoscopes, etc. are bought by the practice and calculated in tax returns, and accounting. Equipment used in NHS hospitals, is paid for by the Hospital Authority and a budget is expressly set out for such materials.
144. toonheidtam Is correct. Only MPs expect Joe Public to fork out for their requirements.
Complain about this comment
As an ex cabinet maker and joiner i would like to point out that a very nice storage cabinet in brown oak and nicly finished in french polish would not exceed £5,ooo We might allso add a little gold leaf at no extra cost.
Complain about this comment
As long as parliamentary politics is a professional career rather than a vocational activity then, regardless of whatreforms to the system are initiated to allay public outrage, MP's will always be handsomely rewarded for their 'services' as its there deterrence against upsetting this very cosy all party bipartisan neoliberal consensus that has always existed in parliament since New Labour completely marginalised the left.
Behind any major news story or scandal there will always be another scandal that's covered up and this is why these revelations could have been exposed months ago but have been kept in abeyance until now when many people wo are feeling the pinch of this recession. Their natural resentment towards MPs guilty of these wild expense claims will prevent an awareness of far deeper and fundamental defects of our Parliamentary system!
Complain about this comment
#150
Quite correct Sir.
It is to be noted that our first past the post party democracy has not given us a "good" government in years. It is also worth noting that when it comes to setting incomes no MPs seem prepared to look at the earnings of other parliamentary representatives in other countries and how their expenses accounts work. And, once the public have all the information they need to decide on what MPs should receive in salary, pensions and expenses then we should have a PR referendum on the subject. We should also have a PR referendum on the method of nominating and selecting candidates to stand, party budgets, leadership methodology, terms of office, and how peers are selected. And of course we should determine the basis on how our elections are conducted. This should be subject to automatic review by referendum every five years.
The people who sit in Parliament are supposed to be commoners prepared to enter public service and not careerists looking for a soft ride.
Complain about this comment
I have heard it said that the scandal over MP's expenses is in danger of undermining our democracy. I beg to differ. It seems to me that we lost our "democracy" at some hazy, long forgotten, moment in the past. Now, it appears, the form our government takes is that of a kakistocracy. If you need any help with that term then please feel free to follow this link:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kakistocracy
Complain about this comment
152. pogleton
Loved your posting!
As a linguist, I was already familiar with the word. There is a very similar one in Yiddish, Kaki, which (in terms which will pass the moderator's engine) means that waste substance of which most MPs are full of.
Have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
Why not produce a league table of value for money MPs as follows - Divide their 'Total expense claims' by their 'Distance from family home to Westminster' to provide a "Cost per Mile" measure of their value.
Complain about this comment
MPs are falling over themselves to repay illegal/immoral expenses. Are they paying interest on these repayments, as they would if making late payments to the Inland Revenue?
Finally, let us not forget that the swindle MPs have performed over their expenses pales into insignificance to the one concerning the improvements that they voted themselves over their pension scheme. In the past year the government has tried to reduce the pension benefits for new local authority workers because the scheme cannot be afforded. A little leadership from our MPs by reducing the benefits for new MPs after the next election would add some credence to their image - FAT CHANCE!!! I am not a local authority worker.
Complain about this comment
The expences rules as written do indeed seem reasonably OK? It is the application of those rules which have been abused. Who vetted and policed them? Who vetted the vetters? Who guards the guards syndrome?
It is obvious now that the moral bankruptcy of some or perhaps most MP's, vetters, tax assossors, auditors, bankers, etc. etc. ..
Leave the rules as they are and apply the same vigourous rules to all expenses, to all parties, including civil servants, quango members, and others (who don't seem to have been mentioned yet). This shall be policed by a panel of senior citizens and other deserning people.
All expenses on the internet?
Why not then start on freedom of information abouts peoples health records? Massive centralised databases can be replaced with individuals keeping a copy of all their own records, Gp's and Consultants letters and any other health information on their own memory stick, cd, dvd, etc. Oh! and absolutly free of charge, at teh point of delivery, at your own GP. It would only take seconds to download.
Saving £12 Billion (US billion not English Billion? Another gripe for later!)
Complain about this comment
Once again we see the bias even in childrens TV that is rampant within the BBC.
Watch the report again you will see they only point fingers at Labour once again and never mention the fact that all politicans from all parties were doing the same.
Complain about this comment
Those PMs who are doing their job for the people before the party are not open to this so are not told about it.And the more they get involved the more they get as they are weak people open to greed and avarice I have never enjoyed the media so much. And to see these people for what they are and to open the English eyes about these people who cheated on them the taxpayer as they like to tell everyone, now we now why there is no money for schools. road, hospital pensions why they are taxed to death and why their homes cost so much. How poverty is not history in Africa nor here the world is shocked at the British Govenment time for changed from the top down. Now do the Lords I am sure that Lord Archer can not make money from his books to live the life he does, lets go through them all even more interesting life is very exciting everyday now the British are raging at last.
Complain about this comment
Is the BBC going to interview or do some research into whether this was the reason Elizabeth Filkin was got rid of? Before she managed to get to the 'truth' of MP's expenses?
Complain about this comment
Foreign Secretary David Miliband seems to have realised the gravity of the situation by admitting it is a "genuine crisis" in Parliament, with public confidence shattered by the scandal of MPs expenses.
David Miliband may look a complete idiot, with his immature upper lip fuzz and holding a banana like a simple child, but he is a wily character.
The South Shields MP himself has been caught up in the row and has just told the BBC politics show that he will remain money if ordered by an independent panel set to investigate all MPs claims.
But he refused to be drawn on the future of Commons Speaker Michael Martin, which is a bit of a cop-out.
I guess he is aiming high, hopes to come out of this mess, with at least an honours, Lord Miliband of Banana Republic!
Complain about this comment
The thing that really annoys me is the smug and condescending manner of some MP's how they want to blame the system when claiming such expenses. Especially Margaret Becket on question time saying the public don't understand how much it costs to do her job. Why did she need three houses when some people cannot even have or keep one!!!! fraud is the word to be used lets lock a few MP's up and that will certainly stop them once and for all. From a very sad and upset labour voter.
Complain about this comment
With all the lists being made, I would be interested if anybody has calculated what percent of those sitting in the House of Lords, from all parties, are involved in this sordid snouts in trough business? Is there any chance of those guilty being stripped of their honours?
Complain about this comment
#157
"Watch the report again you will see they only point fingers at Labour once again..."
Try noting the date of the blog, the date of the Newsround report, then note the date when the first reports were published by the Telegraph, the BBC is good but it can't report what doesn't yet know!
Complain about this comment
#163
If "the BBC is good" then I look forward to an update on Newsround that deals not only with the "new" evidence released by the DT but also with some of the issues surrounding the original item as outlined in this blog.
We are constantly reminded how fast kids grow up these days so I reckon most under twelves will get a grasp of the idea that most of our Members of Parliament are not people to trust your pocket money with.
Complain about this comment
#164
Why should they, the report was to explain what the problem is about, not a detailed account of MPs accounts. Quite frankly politics should be kept away from young kids, I was not that happy when I first read this blog, that Newsround had decided to even cover the issue - now people are suggesting that young kids should be exposed to point-by-point accusations and counter accusations it's becoming even less palatable.
I've also just about had enough of these sorts of 'rantathons', one 'side' claiming that the BBC is bias to the other - the only thing these people are really claiming about is that the BBC is unbiased and never biased in their own political direction, the BBC doing their bidding for them, this is the REAL complaint here.
The ONLY bias is in the eye of the observer...
Complain about this comment
#165
Yes, well thank you boilerplated. We all know your views on rants - everyone but you allegedly.
We are talking about twelve year olds and under many of whom are a tad more streetwise than you I dare say. The original report did outline the controversy - "all within the rules" three times if I recall - but really did what the BBC always does - talk down to its audience. "You're not really old enough to understand this" in this case. The excuse on this occasion is the age range of kids who watch Newsround I guess.
I am tired of cant, especially of the BBC variety and of the type you frequently use - your last sentence which must be the oldest "says nothing-at-all" in the world has been repeated how many times? It does not make it pertinent you know? But of course you have your own bias.
And if the "rantathons" are not your thing then why put yourself through the agonies of reading them - have you no self control?
Complain about this comment
#165
I think you underplay both the subject matter and the people who watch newsround. At seven years old I knew a little about mortgages, bankruptcy, expenses and what dour people lawyers and accountants were. No fun at all. You see my father took me with him to discuss the contents of a will and its ramifications and I listened. Of course a lot went over my head but not all by a long way.
The BBC does itself no favours by targeting audiences and using ball park comments like those in the blog heading this. If the subject of expenses doesn't concern young kids than how does the BBC think they manage their pocket money? I have fifty pence and that "what-I-want" costs more. How do I make up the difference? I know I will ask Dad. Ring any bells?
Parallels of our childhood exist in every walk of life because kids are just little adults trying to make sense of it all. Bit like the bigger adults trying to make sense of how these supposedly trusted people could make such a hash of our trust.
Complain about this comment
EXPENSES FRAUD MPs MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.
What is the difference between MPs expenses fraud and the case of 73 year old Sylvia Hardy?
A retired social worker from Devon became the first woman pensioner to be jailed in England for refusing to pay part of an increase in her council tax.
Sylvia Hardy, 73, from Exeter, was jailed for seven days after missing a deadline to settle arrears of £53.71.
Try telling a judge that it was all a unforgivable mistake and hold up a cheque saying you will pay the money back.
The only people who want a line drawn under MPs expenses conduct most foul, are the guilty MPs. When MPs are tainted the rest are suspect.
THE MICHAEL MARTIN COVER UP
Do you know that Michael Martin head of the expenses committee and speaker of the commons cannot be sacked? He did everything in his power to cover-up the abuse of his and other MPs expenses. Even whilst in possession of Constructive Notice and Constructive Trust he made a vexatious application to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to keep expenses under wraps. The legal costs for the taxpayer was £500,000. Why should the taxpayer pick up the tab? Michael Martin must be brought to justice and made pay these costs. In principle and in law proceedings can also be brought against: legislation; the rules and any orders and decisions made. When all other legal processes fail to get conviction Constructive Notice and Constructive Trust will do the trick.
NO MAN OR LORD IS ABOVE THE LAW
TREASON
Any Lord who asks for, or accepts, a retainer to influence legislation on behalf of clients is guilty of breaking the rules and the law, it is a form of treason and a criminal offence.
When a Lord becomes a member of the House of Lords, he accepts, that he has a duty of service to the people. He must not use his power or privileged position to serve himself.
Where one man is more powerful than another, it is inevitable that he will try to use his power to gain his ends; and if his power is much greater than the others, he might, perhaps, be said to be using it oppressively. If he uses his power illegally, he must of course pay for his illegality in the ordinary way; but he is not to be punished simply because he is the more powerful. In the case of the government it is different, for servants of the government are also servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service.
Rooks v Barnard (Lord Devlin, H.O.L. and Privy Council. (E) [1964] A.C., Page 1226).
Lords Take Notice.
In principle and in law, and at all times, you Lords, are in possession of a Constructive Notice and Constructive Trust.
Perhaps members of the Lords should accept a retainer to influence legislation to strip any Lord of his title and to dish out mandatory and appropriate jail sentences for breaking the rules. After all a retainer of £120,000 would be cheap for this service and to get rid of such unscrupulous Lords. What sentence would Oliver Cromwell have dished out for such behaviour most foul, had he been alive?
HOW TO PROSECUTE YOUR MP -for free.
Any Voter or Taxpaver can make an OFFICIAL complaint against an MP at the local Police Station The Police are OBLIGED to act on this and you will be issued with a Crime Report Number;
Any MP can be charged under the '2006 FRAUD ACT' sections 2,3.&4.(MPs are not 'exempt');
Alternately, any Voter can take out a Private Prosecution against any MP on similar grounds. Your application should be made in the public interest and on equitable grounds.
If you are unemployed, or on a low income, claim for Free Legal Aid. There shouldn't be any problem.
EXPENSES FRAUD MPs MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.
What is the difference between MPs expenses fraud and the case of 73 year old Sylvia Hardy? A retired social worker from Devon became the first woman pensioner to be jailed in England for refusing to pay part of an increase in her council tax.
Sylvia Hardy, 73, from Exeter, was jailed for seven days after missing a deadline to settle arrears of £53.71. Try telling a judge that it was all a unforgivable mistake and hold up a cheque saying you will pay the money back. The only people who want a line drawn under MPs expenses conduct most foul, are the guilty MPs. When MPs are tainted the rest are suspect.
MPs cannot properly represent their constituencies whilst they fiddle their expenses. When an MP fiddles his expenses he leaves himself wide open to blackmail by his opponent MPs, living in their pockets in fear of their sleaze being exposed. Surly they realise that blackmail and fear of expenses exposure could jeopardise national security.
Complain about this comment
#167
"The BBC does itself no favours by targeting audiences and using ball park comments like those in the blog heading this. If the subject of expenses doesn't concern young kids than how does the BBC think they manage their pocket money? I have fifty pence and that "what-I-want" costs more. How do I make up the difference? I know I will ask Dad. Ring any bells?"
Err, do you know what expenses are, I think not - why - because what you describe above is about income not expenses!
My point wasn't about telling kids as such about expenses nor the general facts of a political issue - BUT - the comment (#164) I was replying to was suggesting that Newsround should get into the Party political nature of this issue - "(we have been told so far, by a Tory supporting newspaper that) the Tories have 5 bad MPs whilst the Labour Party have 20, the Lib-dems have 2" and so on - Newsround has explained what the 'fuss' (the issue) is about, that is as far as they should go, morally it doesn't actually matter who or how many MPs have abused the system, just that there has been abuse.
As it is, even though I do have serious concerns about the media trying to explain political issues to kids, when I viewed the video clip I actually think that the BBC did a reasonable job of explaining the issueWITHOUT getting to far into the party political aspects of the story.
Complain about this comment
#168
"What is the difference between MPs expenses fraud and the case of 73 year old Sylvia Hardy?"
One was a tax that she knew had to be paid, she (if I remember correctly) refused to pay the tax (not even a case of can't pay, just won't pay), the other is an expenses claim were the rules as to wait can, should and shouldn't be claimed for is about as clear as thick mud - in comparison...
"TREASON"
Sorry but you obviously don't know the meaning of the word.
Complain about this comment
I hear much talk of reform, new rules, greater transparency etc, regarding MP's expenses I haven't seen anyone call for a COMPLETE BAN ON EXPENSES. Why on earth do they need them? There are many people who live away from home in order to perform their jobs (I did it for six years). No-one offered to pay my travelling expenses. No-one offered to reimburse my mortgage costs on the one bedroom flat I used during the week. No food expenses, no 'office supplies' expenses. No 'hedge trimming', 'moat cleaning' or any other expenses. MPs earn too much as it is. Ministers earn around £100K a year! If they can't learn to budget their lives on that amount of cash then how the hell can we trust them to run an entire country? MPs should wise-up and realise it's not a career [being a politician], it's a vocation they are two very different concepts especially when it comes to earning potential. BAN EXPENSES. Simple, probably naively idealistic, I know given the 'criminals' that are currently masquerading as representatives of the British public, but why not?!
Complain about this comment
Cameron calls for a general election & so do we...
http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/the-queen-to-dissolve-parliament-and-call-a-general-election/signatures.html
Complain about this comment
#171
"I hear much talk of reform, new rules, greater transparency etc, regarding MP's expenses I haven't seen anyone call for a COMPLETE BAN ON EXPENSES. Why on earth do they need them?"
Because unlike you and me they are expected by US (the electorate) to live in two places at the same time - London and their constituency - how would you like to run two houses on one income?
"No-one offered to pay my travelling expenses. No-one offered to reimburse my mortgage costs on the one bedroom flat I used during the week. No food expenses, no 'office supplies' expenses."
Then you should get yourself a better job then! Sorry, but had you kept to just your first sentence your comment would have been a simple miss-understanding but your subsequent ramble suggests that the real problem is - 'I'm not getting any so why should they'...
Complain about this comment
#172
"Cameron calls for a general election & so do we..."
Cameron calls for an election because he wants to be PM, fine. but that alone won't solve the expenses problem. I would prefer that this expenses problem be sorted before any general election is called otherwise people will be voting on a very narrow parliamentary issue rather than what is best for the country as a whole.
Complain about this comment
#169
Boilerplated you are such a disappointment.
Expenses not just because of your job but for many other reasons and this row is about income. The rules were changed by Mrs Thatcher in the early 1980s when a pay rise would not have gone down well with the public. She believed that expenses would redress the balance.
To look at my example of the child, their Dad and pocket money. Dad says "well you've spent it and you can't have any more". Child retorts with "..but Dad I had to spend x on new football trainers, and you know my pocket money isn't meant for that." Dad thinks about this and acquiesces.
Do be a little more thoughtful when you are having your little moments of high blood pressure and trying to make yourself look clever.
Complain about this comment
I think we really need to put the party political aspect of this to bed. It is across all parties and all kinds of people but the most crass examples of "expenses" (I think "income massaging" is a better phrase) will always appear to be from people who have a lot already for they appear to be much greedier.
As for the two home "allowance" then we know that there is wholesale abuse when MPs do not live in their second (or in some instances even first) homes. Greater London MPs do not need two homes. As for others then the London home needs to be very basic and not "owned" (there is no need to "own" something unless you choose to and if you choose to then you pay).
And in case anyone is still doubtful about the reason for this then our kids should be told that it is sheer greed. I think kids of school age understand the word "greed".
Complain about this comment
However many times we hear "we were claiming within the rules" (Actually legally they were not)we will all be able to plant a the kiss of death "X" to their clammy careers very soon. Right now I think there should be a 'hung parliament' !
Complain about this comment
In reply to a comment made about expenses @ #175
"..but Dad I had to spend x on new football trainers"
In relation to MPs expenses your analogy would be correct if the boy said "..But dad, I had to buy two sets of football kit because you make me play for two different teams!" That is the issue here, it's not just the running costs of a normal family life but that of a life that basically has to be doubled up.
Complain about this comment
#176
"As for others then the London home needs to be very basic"
Would you, and possibly your family, want to live the majority of your time in a 'slum' (not equal to your main home). Why do you think MPs should, remember that their London home (which is all cases should be the second home in my opinion) is not only some place to sleep but it's also a place of work.
"(there is no need to "own" something unless you choose to and if you choose to then you pay)"
Err, they (in the main) do already, it's only maintenance and mortgage interest that most seem to be suggesting should be claimed for - again, this is about having to run two homes because we (the electors) expect your MPs to be in two places at the same time in effect.
Complain about this comment
#177
"However many times we hear "we were claiming within the rules" (Actually legally they were not)"
Actually, most MPs are claiming within the rules and (more importantly) the law, the problem is that the rules are (morally) wrong.
Complain about this comment
#180
The rules are explicit. They have been breached when people put in claims that do not conform to "wholly necessary and which would not appear to be be controversial within the meaning of the rules". Trying to "avoid" taxes seems to stretch this way into the immoral vacuum of laissez-faire financial deals that got us into an economic meltdown.
Remember this is a bunch of greedy human beings who consistently argue, on the subject of ID cards, DNA and surveillance society etc, "that if you have nothing to fear...etc" and yet moved heaven and earth NOT to have these details published. I think, aside from yourself, most members of the public have a pretty good idea of what went on.
Complain about this comment
#179
When MPs start to "practice what they preach" including working sixty hours a week for the NMW (which I have done) whilst living in a home encroached by damp walls, inadequate heating and ventilation, rodent infestations, with gangs for neighbours and lawless streets, I'll take it that we won't have slums ever again.
I'll also take it that we will not have such a vulgar NMW, unsociable hours, no holidays because if you try to take them you are threatened with the sack, and employers that are a little more thoughtful about what may happen if they get turfed up in front of an Employment Tribunal.
To coin one of your "oft worn phrases", you obviously do not have a clue about what life is like for most ordinary people. Silver spoon MPs are never a good idea.
Complain about this comment
My only worry about this story is that considering the Daily Telegraph's reader base and its bias towards certain issues, I would feel better if other newspapers and media had access to the records. That way I would feel we got a more balanced view on what expenses have been claimed for.
Complain about this comment
There are two problems. Firstly those who clearly broke the "rules". They should be deselected and forced to repay funds. Secondly the rules themselves are a problem. MPs should not be permitted to have second home allowances. I work as an NHS consultant on the mainland. My family home is not in the mainland although it is situated in the UK. Each month I have to spend upwards of £1000 for rented accommodation, council tax, electricity where I work, as well as on air fares so that I can spend time with my young family when not working. This is my own money. I receive no allowance of any kind. I do not earn more than the average MP. What I and others like me do is just as important to the public as what any MP does, if not more so. This is not debatable.
Complain about this comment
The MP's expense's scandal will run and run. It doesn't matter which government will be in power as confidence in all MP's is at an all time low.
Michael Martin seems to be being made into a scapegoat with this being an opportunity to deflect the public away from the MP's expenses scandal.
The general concensus of all MP's seems to be the Fees Office and the system has allowed this disgraceful situation occur.
The way to resolve the whole expenses and second home issue is to have a block of flats maintained by the government to a set standard. When you become an MP and require a London residence a flat is assigned to you. There is no need to claim anything as the flats are maintained for you. The only allowance is a daily set amount for meals. There are no travel, hanging basket, pool cleaner, mock tudur beams etc allowances.
Once you loose your seat in the commons you loose the flat. There are no allowances at your own constituency.
In the current climate of people losing their jobs and the 'credit crunch' the MP's should be thankful they have very well paid jobs and not try to milk a system that needs change. Also all those who have claimed huge sums should pay it back as I'm sure they can. It may start to build some confidence.
Complain about this comment
Thank you to the Daily Telegraph, The BBC and all our press, many times we berate them for being speculative and intrusive and yes downright coldhearted at times but in this mp mafia mess they have shown that our press gets it right at times to and knows what the public should be told and so thank god for them.
Complain about this comment
In times like this what we need in addition to satire is a Jolly Good Protest Song ...
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhsuLfFQSGM
Complain about this comment
I suspect what we are seeing at HOC is just the tip of the Iceberg. When the thieves have been rounded up and kick out there. The MEP's should be next followed by local councillors. Only those who have resisted the trough should be allowed to continue. Morals are the most important asset a MP (MEP / Councillor / Civil servant) should possess. Without morals there can be no trust and therefore judgments are impaired. I for one do not want these people representing me !!
Complain about this comment
I wonder what governments have in store for the kids aged five to eleven around about now when they leave school? Will what we are seeing in public life also be replicated deep into private businesses? Is it there already? Many civil servants have been fast tracked into "high flying" jobs because they have worked in the private sector including some who work in the Commons.
Prior to the economic collapse of GB plc the Government were wittering on about 80 per cent employment, not 100 percent like an old fashioned Labour Party would have done. So get the message kids at least one in five of you won't get a job. Actually the figure is down around 70 percent so it is one in three of you at this moment and the ratio is falling.
Does Newsround personify this in an "easy to follow" script as in "imagine only two out of every three of you could go to school. What would you say? What would you do?"
When I was at school it ended at fifteen (fourteen for some who got booted out never to return). There were jobs around if you wanted the money and if you struck lucky you could go places without qualifications. Now we are stuck in a vacuum of tedious paper sound bites, league tables, and patronising drivel from our public media.
We haven't progressed a darned millimetre.
Complain about this comment
If the PM, as he recently stated, finds the behaviour of such as Blears, and Goddard "unacceptable". How on earth can he keep such people in the Cabinet? Hopefully he will find that those who treat a parliamentary career as a smash and grab raid are completely unacceptable to the public, along with his own warped reasoning.
Complain about this comment
I have just seen the Prime Minister assure the public that there will be total transparency about MPs expenses. Will he also ensure that the same rule will apply when Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Health, next appears before the Commons Health Select Committee on the issue of Independent Sector Treatment Centres - their costs and their outcomes. The CHSC was unable to scrutinise whether or not ISTCs are good value for money as it was told that the price of procedures in ISTCs is "Commercial in Confidence", so rendering the Committee useless and helpless. In addition, ISTCs are not keeping records of outcomes in the same way as the Dept of Health. Comparisons are impossible, therefore. Finally, we are paying out millions of pounds to ISTCs for procedures that have not been carried out.
So, come on Mr Brown. How about some transparency there, whilst you are supposedly cleaning up?
Can I look forward to Alan Johnson providing data and values on ISTCs in the near future? (Don't bet on it!)
Complain about this comment
Let's get some perspective here. MPs are not mad axe murderers.
On this blog alone they are likened to thieves, gangster, fraudsters etc. Others are calling for the Queen to step in. Although I suspect some of these comments are not meant to be taken too seriously, I find the tone alarming.
MPs are our representatives. We should not have allowed their salaries to fall behind. They certainly should not have made up the difference using expenses. With or without a freedom of information act, this was always going to lead to trouble.
However, if we do not pay a decent salary to MPs we will end up with the parliament we deserve. We will end up with a downward spiral where the quality of the intake will go down and therefore the quality of the government will go down. MPs will be held in even lower esteem and so the cycle will go on. Ultimately and we all suffer.
They should not supplement their income with these expenses claims. Yes there were excesses and these should be dealt with. However, the only way forward is to pay MPs a decent wage and not to treat them like criminals or to put them up in a block of flats or do any of the other unsavoury things that have been mentioned.
Things may well have gone too far for the current crop of MPs. It may be time to dissolve parliament now and hold fresh elections. If and when this happens we must have a new start and also start to treat MPs with some respect.
Complain about this comment
We are paying for MP's second homes therefore why can't they be passed on to the next MP in that constituency.Those properties could be paid for in 15 years or so. Another alternative is to pass them on at a discount to first time buyers or homeless who have no hope of owning their own property.
Mike, Redditch
Complain about this comment
#192
I beg to differ.
We have shown our MPs enormous respect for a very long time and what have they done with that? They have largely treated us with contempt. This is not about salaries; it is about fiddling rules to bolster incomes. MP incomes have increased almost five fold since Thatcher and yet the quality has fallen apart because the argument that you get what you pay for is fallacious.
There are plenty more important things in life than having money, especially if you want to be a decent human considerate to your fellow travellers on this planet. How can someone who has no real grasp of the issues of the common person represent them? Careerist politicians are not in the least interested in what those issues are and certainly have no great problem with the horrors that lie in store for our children as long as theirs are okay thank you very much.
So please think twice before trying to play the victim card.
(BTW I still admire greatly those handful of MPs who have shown us great respect by not fiddling, by not engaging in theft or fraud, and by trying very hard against all odds to bring this to our attention. We should hail them as heroes.)
Complain about this comment
Vote Online: www.haveyoursayonexpenses.co.uk/
We have setup a website for people to record their anger at the MP's expenses scandal. You can vote online "Should Her Majesty The Queen dissolve Parliament allowing us to vote for honest MPs at a General Election". The results will be sent to Her Majersty at the conclusion of the poll. The standing as of 9:00AM 20 MAy 09 are YES; 88% NO: 12%
www.haveyoursayonexpenses.co.uk/
Complain about this comment
#195
As I wrote on HYS the Queen should dissolve Parliament in a vat of super-concentrated hydrochloric acid....
Complain about this comment
#191
Didn't we have a similar problem with private funded educational establishments which had no checks and balances on their financial versus performance outcomes? It sickens me to think that we have a Labour Party who could not be further removed from the common person if they tried.
I don't really care who leads this country as long as they are honourable people interested in serving their constituents and not in making a career out of politics at our expense. Add up the disasters in the last half dozen or so Parliaments and you get the picture that we no longer have a democracy or a choice of policies. We just have a vote for the best of a pretty bad bunch.
Complain about this comment
Detail of letter written to my MP:
.....
I am sorry to bring you yet more gripes from the Shires but one thing which has recently occurred to me, and has not yet been mentioned in the press/TV so far as I am aware, is the confidence trick played on the electorate by successive leaders whilst in office, in announcing (quite stupidly to my mind) that MP's salaries were being frozen time and time again, in the name of solidarity with the electorate. Of course they were, when alternative means were being employed by some to "milk" public funds seemingly with the knowledge of Commons authorities and approbation by silence, of many in the House.
I was very pleased to hear my own views being echoed by the likes of Lords etc. Roy Hattersley and Shirley Williams that party politics is thankfully almost dead, the power of the Whips is to be severely diminished and those wishing to be politicians might have to start delivering to their electorate (if the House of Commons actually survives). Perhaps ignoring EDM's will be consigned to the past and efforts to protect children, wherever they are. (REFERENCE TO THE JERSEY HDG TRAGEDY AND COVERUP)
I pride myself as often being slightly ahead of the game with these comments to you. (You may refer to previous postings about the fact that MPs (and Judges) were out of tune with the lot of the citizen). Attention will soon go to the passing of recent laws, to name but one area, freeing up alcohol licensing making city centres real no go areas at night time for all but the likes of Kate Adie... and the fact that now even smallish villages are affected in a similar way. One assumes that it was largely the less than benign influence of the licensed drinks trade which brought this about, and to see the mess that they collectively have made of the good old English pub. - once a licence to print money, for the free landlord, is yet a further disgrace unaddressed by Parliament.
I feel for those excellent Parliamentarians (but who are they?) who have always done a good job and whose collective reputations have been dragged in the mud by the recent revelations, and the fact that many of these people will be lost for the future if they seek to give up politics and pursue less daunting jobs.
Finally I repeat, please give more attention to the usual areas of concern for the State: Infrastructure, Health, Roads, Railways, Postal Services, proper policing, and general fairness in all dealings by the likes of the banks and insurance companies (who have clearly run riot for many years, unbothered by an Parliamentary scrutiny even where Acts have been passed), consumer protection.... Without wishing in any way to be offensive, one wonders why brave troops give us their lives and safety for what they have been coming back to. I could never have fought in a campaign foisted on us by Blaire/Bush, indeed I anticipate I may well have been a conscientious objector if ever called up to "defend" the State given the views expressed above.
Yours
Complain about this comment
I would like to know why the public yet again have to pay for MPs messes.
The enquiry should come out of MPs pockets not from tax payers pockets.
It is wrong that yet again we end up paying for their mistakes and wrong doing. MPS should fit the bill for their mistakes as they are the ones that made them not the rest of us. We have already paid enough for their greed.
Complain about this comment
Now this is scary....
Wed 12:45 A headline news article about asylum seekers coming to the UK increasing 'by 37% during Jan-Mar this year' which was on this site 2 hours ago has been completely removed and replaced with "Eastern Europeans leaving UK double".
What's all this about? Surely not BBC editorial censorship?
Complain about this comment
Here we go again. The MPs have managed to get a scapegoat. Yes Michael Martin has to be shamed but do these so called MPs think that by getting rid of him will take the emphises of how much GREED we have in our government. Lets not forget they have robbed the British Public and now we have to pay for the Inquiry. OBSURD. How can we be assured that (WE, the British Public), this wont happen again????. The structure of MPs expenses should be the same as those in the Private Sectore. MILEAGE 0.40p Per Mile. Lunch £3 or Breakfast and Lunch £5. It seems that Great has gone out of Great Briton and its been replace with Greed. If these MPs say all this is a mistake, is this country being run by idots? DONT THINK SO. THEY NEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
Complain about this comment
Whether Michael Martin is a scapegoat or not, it happened on HIS WATCH. He was head honcho, so he had to go. Now the rest of them must go, mopping up operations must commence as soon as possible, clear out the perpetrators, the Blears, the Smiths, all of 'em. The Main party leaders seem to have just slapped the wrist of some of them. This infuriates me, get a move on for heavens sake !
Complain about this comment
So it seems the House of Lords is equally adept at spin. They have suspended 2 Lords for abuse of priviledge for 6-months. I thought that the House rises fairly soon for a summer recess .. sometime in June I thought? Then it reconvens sometime in October or November ......
6-months from May/June that runs out in November ..... Mmmmmmm?
I wonder - how many effective days will they have actually been excluded from the Lords for? Certainly, not 6-months? Answers on postcard please!
Complain about this comment
The solution is simple; build a block of basic flats, enough for one per m.p. with basic furniture and fittings. The m.p to pay for any improvements from salary. All utility bills to be paid direct to the companies concerned. A season rail ticket to be supplied to enable them to visit their constituency. No other expenses allowed or needed. I know this will not happen but as far as I am concerned it is the only solution to prevent their future fraudulent actions. I cannot trust anyone who's sense of right and wrong is so false. As many have pointed out the m.ps would not be trying to pay back/change the system if they hadn't been caught with their fingers in the till. Please can we have on the ballot paper a place to tick that I have voted but will not give my approval for any of you.
In the DT there has been a, sadly, very short list of m.ps with NO expenses claims for the past 4 years. These few should be returned unopposed in any future elections.
Complain about this comment
I've just been listening to the MP who claimed on a non-existent mortgage - apparently an "administrative error, claimed on the wrong house".
One thing that depresses me about all this is how the MPs view the public they represent, judging by comments of that type.
How gullible do they think we are? How would it be if a house thief just arrested, said "well, I walked into the wrong house by mistake and took some of their belongings instead of mine. It was just an administrative error in recognising the house though, so I'm sure there's no problem?"
When someone says sorry, why don't they say it as if they really mean it and take the consequences, rather than just trying to explain it away? I think it is a distainful attitude.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Has anyone thought about applying the same rules that we all have to abide by when it comes to getting extra subsidies/tax relief/extras????
MEANS TESTING!!!! This would then sort out the MP's who are millionaires in their own right and frankly do not need extra to do their so called public duties, and those MP's who rightly so have gone into politics to respresent us. I am amazed that an MP can have several paying jobs as well as being an MP surely if this happened to us, we would have to declare our income for all taxes and perks!!!! Come everyone, let's not go down the road of one rule for us and one for them!!!!My question to them would be how do they find the time, and perhaps if they just did the their MP jobs they would be able to get a great work/life balance and not at our expense.
Complain about this comment
re the rejected, at time of writing, comment #206
Oh right, so one can accuse someone of an act but one can't defend someone - great 'modding', mods! Can the BBC supply a list of 'bad words' please, then we can all avoid correct but problem words (other than swear words the list is not obvious) and phrases.
Now, in reply (again) to comment @ #205 about MPs expenses;
With two properties, one with and one without a mortgage it is quite possible that a wrong box got ticked, to do so on purpose, considering that there was a mortgage that could be claimed for would be a bit silly don't you think - again the facts are in the detail and not the DT headlines...
Complain about this comment
#207
"do not need extra to do their so called public duties"
Except that we (the electorate) require these people (and their families), of what ever wealth, to have two places of work and 'live' in both at the same - even if they are not physically present at both - why should the wealthy be penalised just for being wealthy, next someone will suggest a 90 percent tax band (well we do seem to be in a 1970s era resurgence)...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Why has Nick Robinson blog been closed for editing after 182 published comments? This only contributes to an increasing impression of bias. An explanation is required, or comments need to be re-opened.
Complain about this comment
"It's all within the rules" - I discovered at work that it was all within the rules to break wind in the elevator. Why should my colleagues and customers object?
Complain about this comment
In reply to comments made @ #211
"Why has Nick Robinson blog been closed for editing after 182 published comments? This only contributes to an increasing impression of bias. An explanation is required, or comments need to be re-opened."
Judging by the slowness of all the BBC blogs today I would guess that there are either technical issues or a lack of moderation staff...
Complain about this comment
#207
When it is proven that "the wealthy" contribute as much as do "the not so wealthy" (i.e. over 90% of the taxpaying public) then you may proclaim the advent of a society that really does value all its members. However, the past thirty years have taught us that people can "cheat" their way into wealth. Solve that conundrum and you may have a point.
Complain about this comment
These stories about MP's expenses make me feel so cross!!!
While the "normal" person is having to be SO careful with their money, MPs's who have CHOSEN to put themselves in a position of RESONSIBILITY are taking money they are NOT entitled to have!!!
WHY are these MP's not just sacked, anyone of the rest of us would be SACKED for doing something simular in our jobs. I don't think it is enough to say MP's have been given a final warning, sack them, take the money back and make an example of them for all to see.
We cannot TRUST these people, who called themselves MP's, to make laws about what is RIGHT and WRONG anymore!!!
Complain about this comment
It might be even trickier explaining the BBC's finances to the Newsround viewers.
Possible questions might include:
Why do people who don't watch or listen to the BBC have to pay for it?
Who is Carrie Gracie, and why does she get £92,000 a year?
Do other BBC television presenters get £92,000 a year?
Why don't they all get millions like Jonathan Ross?
If the BBC is short of money, how can it afford the £17.5m it paid in bonuses last year?
Will your staff be publishing their expenses at all?
Complain about this comment
I think we (the members of the public) should all go out and go on a spending spree, buying new cars, hollidays, fitted kitchens or even a new wardrobe. And then charge all the expenses to the MP's. Because thats no different to what they are doing. They are buying things and we're paying for them. I also find it hard to believe that no one has made this point. The money they used to pay for their expenses came from the tax payers, as we all know. Some of them have agreed to pay some money back, but where do you think that money is going to come from? The tax payers, thats where. So not only are we paying for their expenses, we are also going to be the ones who pay the money back.
Complain about this comment
It is time that the public is outraged that no prosecutions have been announced yet for what is effectively wealthy thieves. None of us would be able to just say "I will pay it back" and we would get away with it. They play with our money. As a obedient tax payer that exercise my right to live in this country and pay dearly for it I cannot vote against these dishonest MPs and I beg the british public to see sense and treat them with fairness. Fairness in this issue is for them to be prosecuted, get a criminal record if found guilty of fraud (which is exactly what falsifying expenses is) and be put in jail if the amount is the same or more of the value that petty theives go to jail for every day.
Complain about this comment
MP's fervently believe they are worth more than the paltry £60k+ salaries that they receive. The bent system they work for has encouraged them to be greedy. After all, they are worth it! Let's face it, if they all do it they think the little people can't sack them all! MP's now know what fate awaits them if they play fast and loose with public money. The only reason they have got away with it for so long is because their chicanery was hidden from us - by design!
Complain about this comment
You can hardly believe all that has happened these last few weeks. I think the Telegraph's main agenda was to publicise and embarress the government. Then they thought they would just publicise the Labour one's first in the hope that it would all die down by the time they got around to outing the Tories.
What I don't think the Telegraph anticipated was the very real anger that emerged from the Public and if anything it has increased as each day has gone past.
I am going to list them in my order of seriousness because you cannot reply on the press to do that one, as there is a political agenda going on here.
1. Those MP's who have claimed for interest on their Morgages, even these either didn't exist or had been paid off. (Sorry errors in accounting don't wash)
2. Those MP's who have sold homes that have been maintained and bought by the taxpayer and not paid any of the profits back to the tax payer; plus capital gains tax.
3. Swapping of homes to re-furbish at the expense of the tax payers. (your second home should be in London end of story)
4. Those MP's who have looked at the maximum amount they can claim, and milked the system; making sure 'they needed items' just before the end of the tax year.
5. Those MP's who have seen fit to use every single penny of their allowence towards staffing cost without consideration for the taxpayer. Having researchers in London and their constituency.
6. Those MP's who have used every single catagory of expenses and seen fit to make sure they claim up to the maximum, once again without any consideration to the Taxpayer.
The sheer lack of integrity of the MP's who have done the above is breath taking. Only a few has looked at trying to minimise the expense to the tax payer.
All the leaders of the parties have found wanting in my view; what they also need to be asking themselves as well as their own MP's in their parties is this; if you can afford to not claim (a few MP's fit this catagory) why would you want to burden the tax payer? If the answer is well I claimed because I could, then they should not be in public life. You should be coming into Politics to make this country of ours a better place, you are not their to claim every single penny you can get your hands on. I am not saying they should live in poverty, but on the other hand they should always be looking to minmise costs. I have not see this in the majority of cases and that includes party leaders.
Party leaders are not picking and choosing who they will condemn and who they won't depending on whether their face fits or not.
A General Election will not cure this. We need time to sort this out, I want to know who I am voting for much more than the party at the moment, I need to know I am voting in someone who has integrity. This is not something you can acquire overnight, as the trust has gone. I think the situation is so serious that a National Government may well be needed. Not only to sort this out, but to look at the whole political system, so that public becomes more engaged in politics, as well as addressing a number of serious issues that need addressing within the country.
Complain about this comment
The ability to whistle blow is feared by those in power, who will do everything they can to track down and punish those who fight for integrity and democracy, whether they be in Parliament or in the FSA.
Honest whistle blowers may lose their jobs and become unemployable.
I therefore believe that they should be protected at all costs, and if that means that the public have to subscribe to a fund to protect honourable whistle blowers, that may be the only solution.
Whistle blowing should be encouraged, and may be the only way to protect democracy on occassions.
Complain about this comment
The British public and media are entirely complicit in the expesnes nonsense for taking so little interest in the detail of parliamentary politics, other than poorly turning out and covering elections every 5 years.
We have had years to reform government (national and local), parliament and 'the system' and we all have chosen not too by voting for the two main parties,who have vested interests in the current system not changing. If we voted for the person and got to know the people we vote for, given they are personal representatives to parliament this might improve things, instead we vote for parties and manifesto promises which often get broken. Get to know your MP!
Additonally and finally the actual cost of expenses debacle is nothing compare to public money wasted on poor decision-making and inefficiency at the heart of national and local government, on short term unworkable inititive after initaitive like Private Finance Initaitives, NHS IT projects, ID cards, Trident, unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, quangos, unelected House of Lords to namea few.
Complain about this comment
222 has a number of good points, namely we, the electorate, have to take more responsibility for ensuring OUR democracy is run in a manner above reproach. Unfortunately electing a whole bunch of independents won't give us an effective means of maintaining our standard of living and place in the world. While Joanna Lumley ran a very effective campaign for the Ghurkhas she was only interested in that one topic, and as such, could not care less that else was disadvantaged by this concession. Fortunately, for her, the opposition parties were more concerned with the embarrassment it caused G Brown for the topic to be fully debated. Standing for parliament requires a much more widely stated positions on a number of issues, thus something akin to a party manifesto will need to be presented to the people at a General Election. Hence we will have to vote along party lines at the end of the day.
While some of the individuals who are selected to stand for election may be of dubious character, expenses wise, they will nevertheless progress the manifesto presented to the electorate.
I am tired of hearing that the electorate are 'turned off' politics, and that it is up to the Government, and opposition parties, to resolve this problem. Bovine Scatology, as Stormin' Norman once said. If the electorate are not turned on to the political agenda then they will end up with the MP they deserve, not the one they need. Many of the items you listed as examples of poor governance I would have to remind you, have / had a majority electorate approval at the time of decision, which we should take on board when reviewing the effectiveness of the policies. While it is convenient to blame the Government for the financial situation G Brown and A Darling did not twist anybodies arm to take on debt they could not service, a lesson I learned during the Tory created depression of the 80's and 90's.
Complain about this comment
I would certainly concur with a number of your sentiments 223; however trying to 'turn the electorate' onto Politics once again cannot be achieved overnight.
It is too easy to look a the Government and find them wanting; financial melt-down etc etc., when you look at what other parties are saying they will do it is a bit barren to be honest. Are the Tories saying they wouldn't have borrowed money to bail out the economy? they are making the point that we should not be in this position in the first place we should have been more prudent in the abundant years? These are all views that are perfectly valid, but cannot be tested out as these events have all happened. None of us would step out of the front door if we knew what was ahead of us in our lives. We have to live with what we know and plan accordingly. We no longer live in 'little ole England' we live in a global economy which we on our own cannot control. In the end it all comes down to trust, who do you trust to make decisions about the next five years?
The reason I was advocating for a National Government to be formed is this. I think we need not only an immediate plan for the future, but we need a long term plan for our country 15/20 years. For that to take place we need an all party/views full debate. Whereby MP's can debate the long term issues free'd up from party whips and party tribalism. We vote the MP's in on the basis of integrity and their willingness to work for their respective constituencies, under whatever party/banner they feel most comfortable, but under no illusion that they are there for the electorate and to tirelessly work for the British people.
In times of uncertainty and revolution there is a need for whole country to be behind Parliament; normally only undertaken when the country is at War. Well the way things are going, the electorate is at war with the whole of parliament and the conduct of its MP's.
Complain about this comment
MP,S, LORDS AND THEIR [HONOURABLE GENTLEMEN ]
This just about sums it up they all had a hand in the design of the rules
If they are just rules ,it does not matter its not like breaking the law is it!
Its like an other bun fight right,wrong as i speak mp,s are employing lawyers to try to slide out of what is clearly for any of of us great
unwashed a prison setence for fraud [mortgauges paid up =still claiming]
cg tax avoidance /buying god knows how many properties kiting them out
on the ex,s then floging them on the list is endless,
But my question ,apart from [ HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON ]
And how many millions has this cost the tax payer ,
Not to mention [MONEY FOR QUESTIONS],
Is do you think anybody with half the brain ,you know the only half you think we posess is GOING TO VOTE FOR ANY OF YOU,
I for one am not and i know a lot of others who are like wise ,
You and your honourable friends have shown everybody just how rotten the the system is,
I fully expect the BBC WILL NOT PRINT THIS COMMENT ,but they know it will
Not stop 10,s of thousands writing the as i do,
the house is the government if the house is corupt the government must be suspect, what price democracy.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the most significant question to arise from the expenses scandal is "do we need parliament of this kind?".
Joanna Lumley's actions with the Ghurkhas suggests that our leading politicians are not especially "bright or talented". The consistently falling turn outs in elections suggests that the public are not convinced that democracy "works to produce change". The vapid presence of a more powerful body over which we seemingly have little influence or control in Brussels is a more significant threat to our lives compared to Westminster and yet who is fighting against it?
So who is orchestrating this demolition job on democracy in the UK? Certainly a temporary and National government will buy time to investigate just what has gone wrong with UK politics. We should also investigate the civil service and public services to root out the vested interests and the "target culture" that has failed us all.
We all know the risks of "powers" that fall into the wrong hands. We all know that when you neuter one participant in a debate you give unfair advantage to all the others. We all know that when you debate the detail you miss the bigger picture. Are MPs expenses "detail" or "the bigger picture"? Have our MPs who sold themselves for silver been caught in a carefully designed trap from which there is no escape?
Should this affair mark the beginning of the end of party politics in the UK?
Complain about this comment
I dont think party politics will ever end. This is because elected members will always form blocks in order to (i) get their message across; (ii) achieve their broad aims.
When blocks (or parties) are formed, this inevitably leads to collectivism and compromise. This is the chink in the armour that the media will exploit. They know full well that some MPs, although agreeing broadly with their own partys aims, will have differences of opinion with one or two policies.
Michael Crick, a BBC journalist, heads his blog with the strap line: "My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out."
I find that kind of thing despicable and I would certainly not want to see my MP telling Michael Crick things that Michael Crick should not know, especially as such revelations might damage me, my community or the wider community.
I am afraid that, above all, I blame the messenger. I blame the tv and radio programmes that orchestrate a debate between two opposing politicians and then follow up with a journalist summing up the situation, as if the journalist is the judge mediating between naughty miscreants.
I blame the BBC for passing comments on our politics. No other publicly funded organisation takes it upon itself to do this. Who elected Nick Robinson? How did we get ourselves into the situation where this man can go onto prime time tv and lectures us about the people that we elected? Where is the right of reply? Can we put our MPs on tv every night so the People can put their side of the story?
For what it is worth, I think the immediate solution is for MPs, including government and shadow ministers to stop dealing with the media. The Parliament Channel should be taken over by Parliament itself by passing a simple law and the only information coming from members of parliament, including government should come directly from Parliament (or through private communications to constituents). Material from this channel should be freely available, as long as it has not been edited in such a way as to change the context or meaning of the output.
It may not stop the speculation and gossip but at least my MP can get his views across (that is our views) without interference from quango journalists.
I dont think any democracy could survive over time without a free media. However, I also think democracy will not survive if the free media abuses its power, especially the BBC with its 50% share of broadcast media. The BBC has the transmitters, microphones and cameras, but I do not think it is right that they should use these to get their own message across.
As the BBC itself said on Monday 29th September 2008, 9:23am BBC Radio 4 ("Inside Stories"):
"How people feel is to a large extent down to what people like us say and write" (Mark Easton, BBC's Home Editor).
I certainly blame the messenger right now. However, if elected politicians do not take the initiative and bring democracy back under their control and away from the media, I will start to blame the politicians themselves.
Complain about this comment
In the case of the BBC "the messenger" is certainly to blame as they, unlike other mass media outlets, have no competition. I also agree that "engineered discussion" destroys meaningful dialogue. And I would not trust any of the BBC's senior staff on anything.
It is interesting to note that despite the huge rise in output hours that BBC growth has generated the coverage of "lower key" news has not increased at all. The failure to carry anything of Danish Scientific Symposium's discovery of unspent super thermite in the 9/11 dust is just one example of neglect. And yet this same BBC will spend hours covering the wedding and death of Jade Goody on more than one channel.
If the BBC gave us real choice and depth then independent politicians trying hard to start on the road to election may just have a greater chance. Remember thirty independents in a close run election could run riot. If such power falls into the hands of the BNP next time around then will the BBC be at least partially responsible?
Complain about this comment
Having just taken a long trawl through the list of "errant" MPs I did notice that there was a preponderence amongst Labour MPs to blame the Fees Office.
'Flipping' was also obviously rampant, could the Fees Office not sense that this game was afoot? This is the prime misdemeanour.
Meanwhile..
The Conservative MP who denied such, saying 'and then my son had to attend school in London' was being disigenuous to the point of absurdity.Perhaps he was too busy serving his constituents to notice the little lad's age.
MPs do not get paid as much as GPs or bankers etc, they are their for the contacts, power and influence. So it always shall be; but whilst they bask in this sunlight, they should behave themselves.
Our insight into ducks, moats and plugs are pure rays of sunlight, to be welcomed and praised.
The commitee which is looking into these things is chaired by a Sir Christopher Kelly who appears to want to take his time. There is no long grass, only more expense!
MEPs next.
What will become of our democracy?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS