Comments on: MPs expenses

By: Liz

Liz — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:24:54 +0000

Or, as my philosophy tutor at Uni used to say “That may be correct; but is it right?”
A good maxim, I’ve found. Comes in useful in all sorts of dilemmas.

By: Bustop

Bustop — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:44:28 +0000

I agree with the proposal of Alan Jutson 7.08 am. But I want my money back from existing scams. MPs buy second homes because they need them to work in London. We pay for this because it is an expense incurred to enable them to do their job – the Jacqui Smith defence. Logic decrees that when they are no longer MPs they have no need of the home. Therefore it should either be passed onto an incoming MP or sold with it’s contents and the money and any profit returned to the exchequer. Put another way what right do they have to keep it? It is by definition not the family home, it was paid for to some extent by the public. If MPs have made personal contributions this could be retained or if they wanted to keep the property MP’s could ‘buy out’ the exchequer to the value of expenses laimed plus a figure for added value. If MPs argue that they would have bought the property anyway then it is not wholly necessary for theoir job and they have obtained money by deception.
Back to poor old Jacqui Smith, who under this proposal would either lose her home in Redditch or have to reimburse the exchequer for all money paid for it by you and me. Or of course move her family into her main home in London – bunk beds are available at John Lewis!

By: Nick Leaton

Nick Leaton — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:39:13 +0000

I know. So that’s why Brown should be challenged on his plan for expenses to make sure that any rules for MPs apply to the public, as an amendment to anything put before parliament.

It’s a poisoned chalice. If he tries to have it removed, then its clear that he’s proposing enriching MPs at the public expense or that his idea is bonkers.

If it goes through people will rearrange their pay as per diem allowances for the first 175 a day.

Nick

By: D K McGREGOR

D K McGREGOR — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:39:06 +0000

Agree 100%

By: alan jutson

alan jutson — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:46:19 +0000

Bewick.
Exactly my point as well.
I’m up for the job as well.

By: alan jutson

alan jutson — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:43:25 +0000

Simple solution
His place of work is his constituancy, as it should be with all MP’s.
Under Inland Revenue rules they could claim to travel to another Company site (LONDON) which is not his normal working office site, so full expenses would be allowed.
That is why the idea of a fixed allowance is stupid, its not fair on those who live hundreds of miles away, but neither is it fair to not pay them.
Allow them to claim the cost of travel back, but NO TAX FREE ALLOWANCE or PROFIT, that is not what expenses are for.
Expenses cover the cost of expenditure, no more no less.

By: alan jutson

alan jutson — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:35:27 +0000

Nick
Inland Revenue rules for us would stop it.

That is why it is in my view, very important for MP’s to come under exactly the same criteria as the rest of us.
MP’s make the rules for others at the moment, but do, and STILL WANT TO EXCLUDE THEMSELVES, this simply IS NOT FAIR.
We may get better Legislation and Tax policies if MP’s know how they work from personal experience.
You and me cannot claim mileage to and from your normal place of work from home. Inland Revenue do not allow it.
Try putting your mortgage interest on your tax form against and see if you do not get fined.
Try putting the purchase of your furnituire on your tax bill for an alowance and see if you get away with it.
Sell off a second home and see if you are exempt from Capital Gains Tax.
The list seems endless.

By: james harries

james harries — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:50:47 +0000

let’s not overcomplicate.
they have “surgeries”
so pay them a vet’s wage.
give them two secretaries
if they are useless and they want to fire them, let them jump through the same hoops as normal employers.
no london weighting
give them a voting thing (iike your internet banking gadget) to vote
if they want to speak, a vet or GP’s wage will run to national express coach, forget the receipt.

By: jailhouselawyer

jailhouselawyer — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:40:16 +0000

I quite like the idea of MPs all living together in London. In my view, Wormwood Scrubs should be decommissioned as a prison and the cells are ready made bedsits for MPs. There would be room for them all without the need for overcrowding putting two or three in one room. As MPs tend to believe that prisons are already holiday camps or 5 star hotels, the cost of conversion would be very minimal. Perhaps, transport to and from the House of Commons could be via decommissioned prison vans.

Alternatively, MPs may live elsewhere but cannot claim expenses if they choose not to live in this government accommodation scheme.

There should be a clocking in and out machine at the House of Commons, and each MP has a card which they have to punch in and out to register how many hours they work. The basic salary obviously includes an attendance allowance. Unauthorised absences will result in deductions.

By: Bewick

Bewick — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:59:13 +0000

And oh a PS. I did some consultancy for a northern University on staffing and organisational structures.
I made a comment in my report which the Vice-Chancellor and a couple of Deans found both amusing and accurate. It was something like “some of your staff appear to believe that their salaries are actually “attendance allowances” and think that if they actually do any work at all then they should be paid more”

I rather think that the MP expenses debacle is somewhat akin to that. Oh how I wish someone would ask me to do a job evaluation on MPs and Ministers. I’d have a field day.