Comments on: MPs expenses

By: Harem Pants

Harem Pants — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:48:30 +0000

I think people who argue that if MPs got a fair wage they wouldn’t need to subside their income with expenses are missing the point.

How many people in the UK earn over £50k? Only 10%. MPs should be grateful for getting the £60k without the need for more expenses.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:16:01 +0000

I live in Cumbria and I find it really striking how different this issue looks from up here to down in Wokingham.

If I want my MP to represent me properly he needs to spend decent time here listening to us AND a decent time in London representing us in Parliament. For that he needs 2 homes. Far from being unreasonable I think it’s absolutely necessary. It takes 7 hours to get to the Houses of Parliament from here (door-to-door). A hotel room simply couldn’t cut it. And besides, it also means his researcher has somewhere to stay when he needs to be in London (therefore saving hotel bills).

If an MP could win an award for having the strongest ties to his constituency it would surely go to our MP who can trace his roots back to at least his great grandparents – if not further. The fact that his family live in the constituency is surely a GOOD thing. It means that he is better able to represent us because he is – in a very real sense – “one of us” in that he is directly affected by local issues in the same way the rest of us are.

Therefore I think it’s right that his main home is in his constituency and he claims for a home in London. I can’t quite see why MP have to buy rather than rent beyond the fact that sometimes interest-only mortgage payments are cheaper than rental payments. I certainly don’t think MPs should be allowed to pocket the proceeds of increased house prices, but unless we had some sort of expenses/allowances system in place, I’m quite sure that our MP wouldn’t be the only MP who couldn’t afford to do his job.

The only other alternative is a substantial salary increase, but that would unfairly benefit MPs who don’t need second homes.

By: Bazman

Bazman — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:17:38 +0000

A pattern often evolves when I eat jam sponge and custard. The telegraph being involved in destroying parliament is just as stupid.
You are right in the fact Fred would have existed whatever his name might have been. The state allowed this to happen. What we are dealing with banks MP’s and companies is a culture of entitlement and “What can we get away with and how long can we get away with it?” Anyone with any principles soon gets it kicked out of them or sacked. The conspiracy lies in the fact that they are all in it together with MP’s passing laws that they as a body do not have to live with supported by a rich elite that many MP’s and middle class fantasists, aspire to be, not living or believing they live in in normal society. Adam Collyer below must be on more than 90 grand a year. Society is not interested that he cannot afford more than two holidays a year and has cut back by driving a BMW instead of a Bentley that he was planning to buy. ie the bleating upper middle classes.
In a nutshell MP’s are perceived to have taken the P. If any of them do not get this then they have forfeited their job as they are not politically aware enough to carry out their business. They are in short professional bankers.

By: Alan Wheatley

Alan Wheatley — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:21:41 +0000

Well that certainly puts a different take on things. What we need now is the MP perspective – how do they see it.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:43:32 +0000

I disagree with your basis: MP’s normal place of work is supposed to be Parliament, and many also have government roles that require them to be working in London. Moreover, every MP has in principle the same requirement to work in London. It is their constituency presence that has a variable cost. Therefore, all MPs should be paid the same as those who are not allowed to claim ACA currently (i.e. including the London allowance that those MPs receive).

Payment for a constituency home should be confined to those outside a commute from the HoC, defined say as a journey time exceeding 1.5 hours from the principal railway station serving their constituency as measured by the TfL website (and therefore including transit from London terminus to HoC), provided there is a service to get home leaving the HoC at 10:30 p.m. It should be an allowance based on the average house price in the constituency, and fixed for a parliament.

Those who have government duties and shadow ministers should be paid for an additional constituency staff member to handle constituency matters, reflecting the reality that they will have less time to hold surgeries themselves.

By: sm

sm — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:22:58 +0000

Interesting how the official version differs from the leaked version under the FOI law?

The conclusion i draw from the official report concurs with my general opinion of HMG government presentation and spin so as to obfuscate or mislead.

The major worry for me , who to trust.

For example:
In my opinion , MP expenses and tax avoidance are quite closely related and the link between them and the future development of a general anti avoidance rule, anti abuse rule seems clear. This can be interpreted by the courts, if principal clear guidance is given to the courts.

In my opinion ,that is not to say that vast sums extracted by tax have not been immorally wasted e.g. PFI schemes etc

All comes down to lack of transparency and lack of good people making honest policy based on complete and proper disclosure.

What other linkages are unseen or hidden from the public?

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:11:49 +0000

Having the properties within walking distance was a good idea.

Will look out for the 10% reduction.

By: Adam Collyer

Adam Collyer — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:09:42 +0000

Forgive me for being slightly off topic, but obviously MPs’ expenses are ultimately paid for by taxes.

My marginal tax rate is 90% (comprising 40% income tax, 1% national insurance and 39% withdrawal of tax credits).

My boss was a little taken aback when he offered a salary increase this year and I shrugged my shoulders and told him the government would take most of it. But that was true.

Do MPs really realise just how redistributive/ Socialist Gordon Brown’s tax credit system is?

By: Adrian Peirson

Adrian Peirson — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:41:38 +0000

Sir Fred Goodwin is being demonised because of recent events, people think it outrageous that he has been given what appears a huge sum of money whilst being seen as responsible for the financial collapse.
This financial collapse was not Fred Goodwins Fault, the city, in my view was deliberately turned into little more than a Casino by the Govt precisely so as to create the very problerm which would demand a world Bank, in order to ensure such a catastrophe never occured again.

Had Sir Fred said No, he would have been replaced with someone else and the same result would have been encouraged to occur.

Similarly with the MP’s expenses, I cannot help but feel the Telegraph is involved in destroying the Sovereignty of Parliament as I understand as a result of the Expenses scandal, an OUTSIDE body will now dictate to Parliament.

Naturally an ourtaged Public who are never taught at school about how our Sovereignty and Constitution are held together will agree to this.

This means that Parliament is no longer Sovereign.

There does appear to be a pattern evolving here.

By: figurewizard

figurewizard — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:06:58 +0000

The danger is that there does not seem to be a perceived difference between MPs who have quite legitimately claimed expenses necessarily incurred in doing their job properly and those who have manipulated the system for personal gain or the evasion of tax. However posting copies of claims with large parts of the forms blacked out will do nothing to reassure the public in this respect and in many cases might even create a false impression that there is something to hide.

This is not only unfair on the majority of MPs on all sides of the House who have not abused the system – It runs the risk of taking the country’s eye off the ball that really matters; which is the dire condition to which our economy has been driven to and the importance of getting a new and more competent government to address this as soon as possible.