MPs relatives & expenses

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by whitemouse, Feb 1, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    MPs are 'urged' to declare what relatives they have working with them.

    What's wrong with it being 'required' - some private companies require this information as part of thier company rules.
    These people are receiving taxpayers money, and is it not reasonable, and more honest, that this is more transparent ( but then we are talking pollies here....) ?

    Same with expenses - this is taxpayer's money and should also be open and honestly used (see bracketed comment above !) - expenses have to be justified to a company accountant before being repaid.

    When the leaders of the parties start to use the Whip to ensure that their members are toeing the line in taxpayer funding, they will always be treated with the contempt (that they so readily treat the public) that they deserve.

    And as for that poltroon C***** only being told to repay £13K instead of the full mill he's conned us out of - words come readily to my lips, but I might get done for being rude by the local council Rudeness Controller (publicly funded of course !!!)

    :frustrated: :evil:
  2. WM, this was raised on BBCs Questiontime last night. The usual excuse was forthcoming: that is wouldn't be nice to disclose this information. Of course if people want to work for Parliament, then they should be willing to accept that their names and who they work for be disclosed on a publicly available register. After all, there are usually hundreds of applicants for EVERY POST! I doubt MPs would have difficulty recruiting were full disclosure a requirement. It would also be helpful were constituents given details about those Research Assistants who provide "free" help to MPs sponsored by charities and private business organisations (who of course are themselves beneficiaries of taxpayer largesse in the form of tax concessions, etc).

  3. What has 'nice' got to do with it ? my company accountants are not nice ...

    It's OUR money - it should be OUR rules - but we all know they aren't going to stop the gravy train.

    Come back Citizen Smith - your revolutionary skill are required !!
  4. Any expence I submit has to be complimented by a receipt and a very brief explanation before it is paid - no receipt, no re-payment. I get taxed on my travelling expences to and from Aberdeen - again exactly the same as an MP travelling from say Lincoln to London as they choose to live in Lincoln, MP's do not get taxed like this.
    MP's expence claims which are funded by the tax payer should be clear and transparent for all to see - if they are using the system correctly, then they should have no reason not to show their "accounts".
    If an MP is found to be guilty of fraud in their expence claims, then they should be charged as such and face justice as any other citizen would. They should also forfeit their duty as an MP (be barred for life), be removed from that post and a by-election held to replace them.

    It is time that MP's showed that they are actually morally fit to represent their constituents in all areas.

  5. Any expenses claimed by Servicemen and women are now required to be for "actuals" and receipts for however piddling the amount kept for assessment purposes.

    MPs can claim £250 a time without receipts, up to a maximum of £43000 pa and are also entitled to claim up to £43000 pa towards a second home and they still want a pay rise!

    What's going on???

    And Conway is still in a job!
  6. With all parties complaining about sleaze in politics it is long past time for all aspects of MPs expenses, payments and other benefits to be open to public scrutiny.
    People do not enter parliament for the salary which is dwarfed by non taxable allowances etcetera.
    We the voting public should be demanding open and transparent records. All but the most minor of expenses should be receipted.
    Why do our elected representatives put themselves above the law?
  7. These are publicly funded posts, are we to believe that they have all been advertised, and competed for. If so its an amazing statistical coincidence that the best candidates are family members on such a regular basis
  8. I can see the logic of partners working with MPs - family life and the like, but children, childrens' mates and so on doesn't seem quite the ticket.

    Pollies are crooks, even the ones who don't indulge in this level of theft, because they are the ones who have voted for this level of larceny.
  9. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Yeah, there was definitely something dodgy about William Pitt the Elder and the Younger; and I bet Hilary Benn only got the job as Environment Secretary 'cos of his Dad! You'll be telling me next that his granddaughter was selected to contest East Worthing and Shoreham in the next general election...

    Nepotism, huh?! :twisted: :lol:
  10. I would think most on here know my views on government and this government in particular, but there is one thing I have to say, we are all doing a drip about the payouts to an MPs son etc but we would do exactly the same if we had the chance. And I mean 'we'.
  11. notmechief

    You have that very close to correct.

    Whilst chatting to a Captian of Industry, a CEO of a large public company, I posed the question of why did they pay people massive golden hand shakes, pensions etc to get rid of them. When for £50,000 a trifling sum in comparison I would put a team of five together conduct surveylance on the subject for 14 consecutive days, marry his expenses and movements to the items and places he claimed to have spent/be at then providing you conducted the in house interviews correctly, you would in 9 out of 10 cases have sufficent evidence of either Sect 15 Theft Act, Criminal Deception or Section 16, Obtaining a Pecunary Advantage for yourself or another, and just sack him at no cost for committing a criminal offence. No Police, No Courts, No Jury.

    The reply was simple, "Because I may be next"

  12. sorry I think you have it wrong. There are people who are honest - sadly they are the last people usually to want to take public roles
  13. What's the difference between the Benns keeping it in the family, and the two Alexander Daleks who got where they are through their parents being Bezzy Oppos with Donald Dewar, and the House of Lords being crewed by Hereditary Peers?
  14. They are not entitled to claim expenses to pay the capital on a mortgage (see the Green Book, clause 3.3.3) but only to pay the interest (ibid. 3.13.1). If they represent an inner London constituency they can claim inner-London weighting (ILW) of £2,812 per annum. Outer London MPs can choose to receive either the ILW or the Additional Costs Allowance(ACA). They can claim the ACA of up to £23,083 per annum to meet costs of accommodation away from home and additional expenses incurred thereby in pursuit of their Parliamentary duties. Any MP using the ACA to pay off the capital on any mortgage is breaking the guidelines.
  15. MPs have been employing family members as secretaries and researchers for years, in fact when the practice started the ammounts were so low probably only family members would be prepared to work for the ammount on offer.

    Now MPs get a decent allowance for researchers etc it would appear that one at least has seen it as a good way to enhance his sons allowance at Uni. This is clearly wrong and has brought the whole practice undes suspicion. If it is to continue it can only be with some pretty robust way of MPs showing that any family member who is employed actually provides 'value for money'.
  16. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Interestingly Peter (orange man) Hain employs his 81 year old mother as his secretary, does she actually do any work for him?
  17. Very much my point Janner, some family memebers I am sure give value for money, but it must be up to the MP in question to demonstrate that. As an aside my mother worked from home till she was in her 80s, not for a polititian but much good work can be done without face to face contact.
  18. I really think that today this should all be much more transparent.

    Specifically my proposal would be that all MPs be entitled to a specified staff, for example a Secretary, a Researcher and maybe an assistant in their constitiuency and they should all be employed as Civil Servants and paid directly from the public purse on the payroll of the Government, at published Civil Service pay rates.

    This would completely remove this form of abuse of public money.

    I saw at the weekend that Conway was quoted as saying that MPs should be paid more, to which my answer is that if it's just about career options then go and work a something else!

    He apparently was paid £80,000 a year as Chief Executive of The Cats Protention League before he became and MP, which seems a frankly ludicous amount of money for a Charity to pay someone to run it!
  19. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    So they pay the tax payer back the money made when the property is sold? After all we've paid the mortgage.
  20. I'm sure that most of us have been guilty of claiming for bus fares when travelling in with an oppo, or making off home with a pusser's pen or two.

    But this is nowhere as serious as what Mr D was, and had been doing (and no doubt many other pollies, including those in local government).

    No doubt that there are honest people in the houses ( :| ) who do attempt to bear parliamentary office with integrity and decency and honesty, but you only have to see the news on the way that most of them greedily grasp extra dosh (because they're worth it - to quote a current 'oily' TV advert doing the rounds... ;) ) to carry out a job, for which quite a few of them seem not capable of doing without fiddling themselves and their own.

    Always ready, very able and more than willing to grab as much cash and benefits for themselves, yet to deny the basics to others like the elderly, the infirm .... and not forgetting the troops !!

    And the parties can be partly blamed for this because of the way they 'choose' a candidate to fill a vacancy ( a ploy readily used by the current) instead of allowing the electorate to choose, and the MPs because they bleat about 'privacy' for them but not for the rest of us.

    At least there are some MPs who are willing to reveal all their expenses - who will follow ??

    As for employing a family member ? No way would I consider doing so. Some MPs can't keep it in their trousers, and having a member of the family would be a rather dangerous thing to have in your office, wouldn't it

    And they wonder why they are despised :dontknow: :scratch:

    Monday morning (a bad one !!) drip over ......... :) Peace, Man

Share This Page