<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MPs expenses</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/</link>
	<description>Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today&#039;s issues and tomorrow&#039;s problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:18:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Dobson</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/#comment-13549</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Dobson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2009 09:59:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3279#comment-13549</guid>
		<description>The simple fact is that there is no way back now except for an election (soon) in which the vast majority of current MPs are unseated by their deselection by constituency organisations on a mas scale. Only a very small - perhaps 5% or 10% - of those there now are re-electable. Only this will clear the air. Nothing else will do.  No other path to rdemption. I&#039;m pretty sure our JR would be one of those 5-10%. But I can think of plenty of others who I held in respect until recently who would not.

If you think about it, there&#039;s no real incentive for the current Government to hang on for another year anyway now all this has come out. They were only doing so to get a bit more troughing in before their inevitable demise, and now the troughing party is over, I&#039;m sure that they&#039;d like to get stuck into building their new careers as soon as possible.

Nick</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The simple fact is that there is no way back now except for an election (soon) in which the vast majority of current MPs are unseated by their deselection by constituency organisations on a mas scale. Only a very small &#8211; perhaps 5% or 10% &#8211; of those there now are re-electable. Only this will clear the air. Nothing else will do.  No other path to rdemption. I&#8217;m pretty sure our JR would be one of those 5-10%. But I can think of plenty of others who I held in respect until recently who would not.</p>
<p>If you think about it, there&#8217;s no real incentive for the current Government to hang on for another year anyway now all this has come out. They were only doing so to get a bit more troughing in before their inevitable demise, and now the troughing party is over, I&#8217;m sure that they&#8217;d like to get stuck into building their new careers as soon as possible.</p>
<p>Nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: george r manley</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/#comment-13548</link>
		<dc:creator>george r manley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 22:44:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3279#comment-13548</guid>
		<description>Income tax. your rules say ok. the inland revenue may disagree.
Are MPs outside revenue investigation?

if an expense is not wholly &amp; essential for your business, it&#039;s taxable.  Going back how many years john?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Income tax. your rules say ok. the inland revenue may disagree.<br />
Are MPs outside revenue investigation?</p>
<p>if an expense is not wholly &amp; essential for your business, it&#8217;s taxable.  Going back how many years john?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HJ</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/#comment-13547</link>
		<dc:creator>HJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:15:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3279#comment-13547</guid>
		<description>Mike,

GPs are, in fact, mostly independent contractors to the NHS (even though they get NHS pensions). Their contracts are not subject to price competition, nor renewal. Don&#039;t you wish your company could get this type of contract?

My GP isn&#039;t much good but she gets my money anyway. On the rare occasions I need help, I go to the small injuries unit (good nurse practitioners there).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike,</p>
<p>GPs are, in fact, mostly independent contractors to the NHS (even though they get NHS pensions). Their contracts are not subject to price competition, nor renewal. Don&#8217;t you wish your company could get this type of contract?</p>
<p>My GP isn&#8217;t much good but she gets my money anyway. On the rare occasions I need help, I go to the small injuries unit (good nurse practitioners there).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jt</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/#comment-13546</link>
		<dc:creator>jt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:29:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3279#comment-13546</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s been no discussion on this issue with regard to other income that MP&#039;s earn ~ through work / consultancies / quangos. Or that for many MP&#039;s being an MP is not a full time career.

Reply: An MP&#039;s job is designed around the principle of two jobs, to allow MPs to be Ministers, Whips etc as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s been no discussion on this issue with regard to other income that MP&#8217;s earn ~ through work / consultancies / quangos. Or that for many MP&#8217;s being an MP is not a full time career.</p>
<p>Reply: An MP&#8217;s job is designed around the principle of two jobs, to allow MPs to be Ministers, Whips etc as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toby</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/#comment-13545</link>
		<dc:creator>Toby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3279#comment-13545</guid>
		<description>who gives a toss what american congressmen get paid and represent.. the yank &#039;bigger is better&#039; model/argument is utter rubbish.

bloated, easily corrupt, and even more entrenched in a bigger bubble, the US political system is so far removed from its voters it requires a massive polling lobby and endless streams of hangers on who represent corp interests and not much else.

yes our system needs an overhaul, but not in a million years like the &#039;democracy&#039; accross the pond thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>who gives a toss what american congressmen get paid and represent.. the yank &#8216;bigger is better&#8217; model/argument is utter rubbish.</p>
<p>bloated, easily corrupt, and even more entrenched in a bigger bubble, the US political system is so far removed from its voters it requires a massive polling lobby and endless streams of hangers on who represent corp interests and not much else.</p>
<p>yes our system needs an overhaul, but not in a million years like the &#8216;democracy&#8217; accross the pond thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bill</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/#comment-13544</link>
		<dc:creator>bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3279#comment-13544</guid>
		<description>Jacquie Smith seems to be a nice unpretentious person, with no edges.

She may have been operating within the rules, but you don’t need a GCSE in common sense to see that a stay over arrangement with her sister, a house in which she has no equity, cannot be classed as her main residence and the constituency home that she shares with her husband and children and in which she has an equity stake is not her main residence, is absurd.

What a terrible example for a senior minister to give. Maybe she thinks that her wafer thin majority will melt away and she should build some capital.

A few years ago I had a small flat in Chelsea Harbour I was working most of the week in London and returned to my home in Northumberland, where my wife and kids were, at weekends.

I owned the equity in both houses, but when the time came to sell the London flat (It had a higher value than the Northumberland property) the revenue would not wear the notion that the London property was my main residence, consequently I took a 40% hit on the capital gain. Now this was a significant sum to me a former council estate lad.

Where is the justice here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jacquie Smith seems to be a nice unpretentious person, with no edges.</p>
<p>She may have been operating within the rules, but you don’t need a GCSE in common sense to see that a stay over arrangement with her sister, a house in which she has no equity, cannot be classed as her main residence and the constituency home that she shares with her husband and children and in which she has an equity stake is not her main residence, is absurd.</p>
<p>What a terrible example for a senior minister to give. Maybe she thinks that her wafer thin majority will melt away and she should build some capital.</p>
<p>A few years ago I had a small flat in Chelsea Harbour I was working most of the week in London and returned to my home in Northumberland, where my wife and kids were, at weekends.</p>
<p>I owned the equity in both houses, but when the time came to sell the London flat (It had a higher value than the Northumberland property) the revenue would not wear the notion that the London property was my main residence, consequently I took a 40% hit on the capital gain. Now this was a significant sum to me a former council estate lad.</p>
<p>Where is the justice here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ManicBeancounter</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/#comment-13543</link>
		<dc:creator>ManicBeancounter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3279#comment-13543</guid>
		<description>For me, it is not the rules that need changing, but the attitude of some MP&#039;s. The taxpayer should be willing to pay for legitimate expenses incurred by elected representatives carrying out their duties. This includes paying for a second home.
However, for this to work well, you need integrity on the part of those same people. What it is not required are those who bend the rules for their own personal gain. What we will end up with the vast majority of honest MPs having their personal tastes examined for public entertainment. Also, the new rules will, no-doubt mean MPs spending more time form-filling and covering their backs, rather than getting on the job in hand. A bit like teachers and social workers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For me, it is not the rules that need changing, but the attitude of some MP&#8217;s. The taxpayer should be willing to pay for legitimate expenses incurred by elected representatives carrying out their duties. This includes paying for a second home.<br />
However, for this to work well, you need integrity on the part of those same people. What it is not required are those who bend the rules for their own personal gain. What we will end up with the vast majority of honest MPs having their personal tastes examined for public entertainment. Also, the new rules will, no-doubt mean MPs spending more time form-filling and covering their backs, rather than getting on the job in hand. A bit like teachers and social workers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Leaton</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/#comment-13542</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Leaton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:11:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3279#comment-13542</guid>
		<description>There is the obvious question for any MP.

Do you operate under the same law as the rest of us when it comes to taxation, or do you have privileges that we don&#039;t?

If its the same law, I look forward to your support making similar expense claims.

If there are laws just for you, we will draw the obvious conclusion about the HoC

Nick</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is the obvious question for any MP.</p>
<p>Do you operate under the same law as the rest of us when it comes to taxation, or do you have privileges that we don&#8217;t?</p>
<p>If its the same law, I look forward to your support making similar expense claims.</p>
<p>If there are laws just for you, we will draw the obvious conclusion about the HoC</p>
<p>Nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HJ</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/#comment-13541</link>
		<dc:creator>HJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:24:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3279#comment-13541</guid>
		<description>John,

Thank you for your reply. Of course it&#039;s reasonable for you to employ an assistant and, of course, your assistant will pay his own tax - I wasn&#039;t referring to this.

What I was referring to was, for example, MPs effectively claiming £20k+ for the use of a bedroom in a family members home. HMRC wouldn&#039;t allow me to claim this was my main residence and then to charge for my mortgage payments on my &#039;second&#039; (i.e. real) home as expenses. There&#039;s no way they&#039;d accept this. How come they allow MPs to?

Surely the whole problem would disappear if HMRC treated MPs like the rest of us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John,</p>
<p>Thank you for your reply. Of course it&#8217;s reasonable for you to employ an assistant and, of course, your assistant will pay his own tax &#8211; I wasn&#8217;t referring to this.</p>
<p>What I was referring to was, for example, MPs effectively claiming £20k+ for the use of a bedroom in a family members home. HMRC wouldn&#8217;t allow me to claim this was my main residence and then to charge for my mortgage payments on my &#8216;second&#8217; (i.e. real) home as expenses. There&#8217;s no way they&#8217;d accept this. How come they allow MPs to?</p>
<p>Surely the whole problem would disappear if HMRC treated MPs like the rest of us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alan jutson</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/03/31/mps-expenses-2/#comment-13540</link>
		<dc:creator>alan jutson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=3279#comment-13540</guid>
		<description>John
Many thanks for info.
So if MP&#039;s are regarded as PAYE and employees, how can they then Employ their own staff ?.
Is there a fixed allowance to do this ?
If so I assume all of the money has to be spent on staff and office expenses etc.
or
Are Mp&#039;s allowed to keep the extra, if they run their offices under budget ???

Sorry about the Questions, but I am not aware as to the structure of Salaries, payments, allowances, expenses etc in Parliament.

At the moment it all sounds very confusing and inefficient to a simple businessman

Reply: No, an MP can only claim for expenses incurred, and cannot make a profit on it. Any staff employed by the MP are given civil service styke Parliamentary contracts and paid centrally, yet MPs still have to report this as if it were some part of their package.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John<br />
Many thanks for info.<br />
So if MP&#8217;s are regarded as PAYE and employees, how can they then Employ their own staff ?.<br />
Is there a fixed allowance to do this ?<br />
If so I assume all of the money has to be spent on staff and office expenses etc.<br />
or<br />
Are Mp&#8217;s allowed to keep the extra, if they run their offices under budget ???</p>
<p>Sorry about the Questions, but I am not aware as to the structure of Salaries, payments, allowances, expenses etc in Parliament.</p>
<p>At the moment it all sounds very confusing and inefficient to a simple businessman</p>
<p>Reply: No, an MP can only claim for expenses incurred, and cannot make a profit on it. Any staff employed by the MP are given civil service styke Parliamentary contracts and paid centrally, yet MPs still have to report this as if it were some part of their package.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

