By Mike IonThe coverage about the parliamentary expenses of members of the Cabinet in today’s papers generates, as usual, a good deal of heat but precious little light. Of course, as Harriet Harman admitted this morning, “It looks bad,” and it is probably no coincidence that the embarrassing revelations have emerged in a Tory supporting newspaper (Telegraph) only three weeks before the local and European elections.
However, Tory MPs will, in all likelihood, remain fairly quiet. Why? Because they know it is only a matter of time before many of their colleagues are also publicly named and shamed for apparently excessive and possibly outlandish claims of their own.
What really riles the courtroom of public opinion are the expense claims made by MPs that - though within the broadest interpretation of the guidelines - feel like an abuse of the public’s trust.
The truth about MPs’ expenses is that there good reasons for some, some pretty bad reasons for others and occasionally some claims that are just downright ugly. For example:
- Good (fair) expenses: It is only right and proper that MPs who live outside of London should receive an allowance for a second home. However there is, in my view, no justification for such properties to be fitted out with top-range furniture and gadgets paid for with taxpayers’ money.
- Bad (unfair) expenses: I believe it perfectly reasonable for MPs to get ‘Freeview’ so they can watch the news channels and the Parliament channel but there is absolutely no justification for the public footing the bill for Sky Sports or Sky Movies.
- Ugly expenses: Employing your son as a researcher and paying him £45,000 over two-and-a-half year period while he was studying full-time at Newcastle University.
Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is quite correct when he argues that the issue of expenses and pay should not be left to politicians to sort out for themselves. If public confidence is to ever be restored then what is required is a thorough, detailed and independent inquiry carried out by individuals with no political agenda of their own, an inquiry that would look at all the evidence and would be open to anyone who wanted to contribute.
The next few weeks are going to be uncomfortable for many inhabitants of the Westminster village but sadly you cannot have the gain without the pain!
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
With other cases, in which minute details from receipts are causing embarrassment to individual MPs, we are, it seems, dealing with cases less well off people trying to spend up to a limit that Mr. Cameron reached easily.
You tax us at about 50%. I even get taxed on my late Father-in law's savings!
You send round a policeman when my dog messes on the street. You put up cameras where I am doing 10 mph over the new limit. You shout through loudspeakers at me when I am shopping in the centre of town. You stop me smoking in pubs and at work. You put the price of petrol well beyond my means "for your own good". You snoop on me with ID cards and all sorts of other intrusions.
And you insult me with infantile adverts on TV and infantile brochures.
And now you are revealed - all of you, as people with little or no principles who are just in it for the cash.
We are livid: you bloody hypocrites!
No he doesn't, stop being silly.
A nasty Tory has calculated that this works out at £51 per hour for the services rendered.
Somebody is being ripped off...
More interesting is that until gordon and sarah got married the cleaner spent 4 hours at gordons flat and 3 at sarahs.
Very odd that sarah giving up her flat meant exactly the same amount of time was added to the cleaning of gordons flat...
The contract clearly states that holidays will be unpaid...
But why did he actually *employ* a cleaner? All that payroll, national insurance, etc? What other 'staff' does he employ?
It would be interesting to know who the cleaner actually was (if he's got nothing to hide...).
Within that system, clearly cleaning of one home is a cost anyone might have, cleaning of two isn't. There's obviously a puritan argument to say that they ought to clean their own houses, but there's also a practical argument that we want our MPs to work hard at being MPs or Ministers, rather than having their time wasted on admin and housework.
Apology required for Gordon, can you help?
Barbara Follett, wife of millionaire scribbler Ken:
“Security” £25,000 and “Window cleaning” £90 per month
This is the woman who was one of the governments biggest cheerleaders when in Blair’s first term he wanted to cut payments to single mothers. She was frequently on radio justifying it.
At the time it ssemed disgusting to nominate a millionaire's wife to defend the indefensible, now we know this it makes her look, quite frankly, like grasping scum.
Alan, you seem to be defending Lab quite often. Please fill in the blank. How about deluded?
I don't opposition for the sake of opposition, nor do I like the gutter press. It's why I don't vote or consume broadcast media. Excessive competition and advertising has pretty much dumbed everything down. I refuse to play that game so just say no. Personally, I hope this whole thing backfires and turns into armageddon for opportunistic politicians and sleazy journalism. They made their choice when they picked up the gun. If it ends in tears don't come crying to me.
You cant disbar jurnos, however honest MPs can do the right thing and force those that have played the system to pay back the sums they have claimed for or stand down.
A Bag of Manure
A Kit-Kat (£2.67 seems rather expensive even from a top London hotel)
Two cartons "Caeser" Dog Food
a 5p Ikea Carrier Bag.
Just how much lower can they go? I think that is the scandal, and of course, cabinet ministers earning £142,000 claiming for "groceries"
The Tories, media, and online trolling follows a similar pattern of accuse, wind up, and bank the profit before repeating the exercise. The lies get bigger, the mob gets more hysterical, and the stakes get ever higher and higher. It's a bubble built on thin air. I just don't buy it nor would I buy it if someone pulled that dodge in my work or personal life.
In other news, I commented that some institute was ppimping itself by shrilly releasing an "analysis" that cast doubt on the recovery. Other media is beginning to start the drumbeat of economic collapse again. I've discussed this in the past and there's been some positive articles but some obsessives are trying to restart the game again. Why? Follow the money.
Personally, I've given up on Labour and tuning out the Tories. Whether one improves or is a pain in the ass is neither here nor there. A lot of life is about plotting a course between the mountains and the lakes. One encompasses the totality, grasping the big picture and tiniest detail, being both in and of the world. Developing self-enlightenment is my goal. The rest is wallpaper.
I can see why Ieyasu Tokugawa made Zen the official religion of Japan. After dealing with the Daimyo, bandits, and creating the Samurai, it was the only way to get everyone to shut up for 10 minutes. These times are no different. Perhaps, it will take a spark of genius and blind luck to get over this mess but Tokugawa had both and Brown isn't dead yet. Sometimes, that's all it takes so the accusations of "fear" from Brown's enemies looks like more like a Freudian slip - and they know it.
* have a free security patrol around your home because your Party cant make the streets safe?
* buy a new loo seat
* install fake Tudor beams
* renovate a flat so you can put a tenant in
* buiy some Tampons
* take your Mistress away
* buy gourmet meals
* bulk buy coffee and bsicsuiots for the plebs in your office
* give your wife / husband a nice little earner for doing very little
* buy some Malteasers
* get a new bathplug
* have cctv installed at home
* buy 4 flat screen TVs (they are for different hosues of course)
* avoid Stamp Duty
* pay someone to pay a cleaner
* buy some women's clothes an nappies
then don't bother opening your wallet or working for them. Just become an MP then you can claim, claim, claim.
Are you utterly mad? Thank god for the leaker who exposed this tawdry lying shower of thieves.
Also reported in the Telegraph today - see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5290923/China-firing-squad-photos-prompt-calls-for-more-executions.html
And why is the Revenue not claiming tax on the profits made by these people. When I was running my business, I had to account for a bottle of whisky which I had bought as a gift for an overseas customer. One rule for the political class and another for the rest of us.
So how seriously do the authorities take this disgusting and - what would be criminal behaviour if committed by non politicos. They call in the police to find out who let the cat out of the bag! Just how low can these people get?
a prospective candidate to seek office (say) 300 miles from Westminster - you pay your own cost of getting to work like the rest of us.
But you know what the most galling thing is? It’s MPs saying “I didn’t break any rules” - that absolutely right - but they know what they've been indulging in is morally wrong because its radically different to the rules that we the people repesented have to follow. MPs need to hold their hands up, say sorry and sort it out!
All the best
I think what you say about flats is fair enough. Maybe there'd be a security issue with a big hall of residence, but certainly I think MPs should now only rent London accomodation, not buy. We might have a bit more political sympathy for private tenants that way, and less likelihood of politicians being boom-blinded by house price inflation.
I'm afraid I think your point about travel is silly. Obviously travel to and from London should be paid for.
But sorry certainly is not enough. It's too late for that now. If this doesn't end some careers, public anger is just going to keep mounting. Some of these ministers and MPs should be sacked immediately, others should have the whip withdrawn, others should resign as MPs, and we should have some by-elections. Many of them should be forced to make repayments. I support the PM, and don't want the Tories in, but I certainly want that Sky money back. It's absurd he thought he could claim that.
I said on this site 2 weeks ago that there was a reason Brown was so desparate to amend the expenses systems before details of him own expenses emerged, and I predicted it was because there were expenses he knew would look bad in the eyes of the public. How right I was! We pay for his cleaning and his food! Does anybody else's employer pay for their house to be cleaned, for the food on their table?
For Labour party members in particular, this is appalling. We want our MPs and Ministers to set an example of good public service, of putting others before themselves, of caring and helping the poor before the better-off. Instead, we've got pigs on the farm with their snouts in the trough. Any defense of "It's in the rules" is untenable, because they set the rules. All MPs should ask themselves one question - have I personally profited through the expenses system?
At the end of the day, an MP who lives in, say, Slough and claims for a season ticket from Slough to Westminster should be no better or worse off than an MP who lives in and represents a constituency in, say, North Wales and stays in London during the week when parliament is sitting, or a minister who lives in a free house or flat in Downing Street.
One thing is abundantly clear, however: MPs should not decide their own salary and expenses system. It should be decided by the Senior Pay Review Body, and they should aim to ensure that MPs are no better or worse off than a senior civil servant, in terms of remuneration and expenses. There's never any shortage of people willing to stand for Parliament - but it's clear that there are a lot of greedy, unprincipled dishonourable members in the house and cabinet currently who are deliberate manipulating their self-determined rules to make as much out of us, the taxpayers, as they can.
I feel like I've been violated. My pocket has certainly been violated. Just thinking about it makes me feel sick. I want my taxes to buy books for schools, to help children living in poverty, to pay for a district nurse or doctor, to help drug addicts desparate to escape their ruined lives. Instead I'm paying for MPs and ministers to make a profit out of pretending to care about the people who voted for them.
Politicians, if you want me to believe that you have principles and honour, PAY THE PROFITS MADE FROM EXPENSES BACK. If you can't bring yourself to do it, or to admit that it was morally wrong, I don't want you representing me. Resign and let us find somebody honest.
Seriously, this money is coming out of YOUR pocket (I'm assuming from what you've said previously that you're paying taxes). Are you really saying that you'd be happy for, say, David Davies (or any other MP) to come to you each month and demand £400 for his food on the basis that "it's in the rules"?
There are 2 things wrong with the system. Firstly, the rules are clearly wrong in many instances. For example, if an MP is staying in overnight accomodation and has to eat out, then they should be able to claim the normal HMRC allowance for overnight subsistance. But if the have a flat or house to return to, then they should pay for their own food, just like the rest of us do. A pensioner gets barely £400 a month for all their living costs, so you cannot justify an MP who's already being paid almost £70,000 getting that amount for groceries. There is just a huge social injustice in that concept. Secondly, many of the expenses might be justified for an MP representing, say, Shetland, but when those same allowances are claimed by an MP representing somewhere like Brent North, then it's clear that the system is being milked 'within the rules'.
When an MP buys a run-down flat, renovates it at taxpayer expense and then sells it shortly after the work is completed at a large profit, it's immoral.
What makes it even worse is that some MPs who have milked the system 'within the rules' are still saying they have done nothing wrong and are threatening to sue people and papers. It's like a person who has pockets stuffed with gold coins walking past a starving child begging in the street and moaning that they make the place untidy - sure, they may be doing 'nothing wrong' by letting the child starve to death, but it shows they are materially rich and morally bankrupt. If MPs can't understand why the expense system is so repugnant to so many people, then they clearly don't understand how the man in the street thinks, and the moral code by which decent people in this country live. Same goes for you, I'm afraid, Charles - if you can't see why it's wrong for MPs to live the high life at taxpayers expense, whilst there are still children living in poverty in our cities and towns and villages, then it shows that you have a lack of moral values as well. Personally, I suspect that you were just taking a controversial view to be controversial, because that's your style. However, when it comes to social injustice, when it comes to the well-off lining their pockets at the expense of the rest of the country, that, Charles, is the time when each of us has to decide whether we're going to be on the side of morals and principles, or wallow in the gutter with the pigs. Please don't side with the pigs, Charles, you'll just get shit on your shoes.
I've commented before that I'd like to see a return to historical norms and standards, so I'm not arguing in favour of superstar pay for routine performance or needing three jobs to keep anyones head above squalor. I'm also in favour of more empowerment and consensus. Bottom line? There's too much comeptitive behaviour and it needs to cool.
People are the same wherever you go. Throw the dice another way and Purnell would just be some wiseguy chav, or the fat slag down the road would be mealy mouthing some blah at a press conference. People are dumb if they think they're special or lose track of the fundamentals. I think, we're all having to rediscover that.
Again we have Charles Hardluck trying to make out that it's only Tory Trolls on here that feel this way. Yawn.
Yes most people want a working economy and social fairness - however I, like a lot of people I know and speak to, feel that having given this government 12 years to sort things out they haven't and whilst the expenses thing is not sufficient enough on it's own, it is one of a long list of things that they have failed to deliver on.
The rest of us know nothing and are not representative of the general population.
The fact that cabinet ministers are at it is disturbing though. It shows that its not a case of disgruntled backbenchers lining their pockets on the sly. It has become a culture in parliament (maybe it always was the culture). The fact the response is "its in the rules" shows that that is all that matters. Whether MPs made the system is immaterial, or whether .
On the details, I don't think it is at all acceptable to claim for a second home, no matter how far from westminster the constituency. Having a mortgage paid by the taxpayer and then being able to retain the property is a disgrace. Why can't Mps rent a place? How is it that they can mooch of the public all the while building a property portfolio?
There should be no second home allowance, rent, council tax and modest expenses I concede should be provided. This does not mean furniture, TVs, plugs etc. While it is true that we want people from all walks of life to be MPs, not just the well off, the salary of an MP will see to that.
If you put them all in a hotel in London, assuming that those who already live in London are prepared to move, with their families, to their constitiuency, the hotel will become the new centre for political discussions. All decisions will be made at the bar or breakfast room of that hotel. Journalists won't get a look in. Is that what we want?
You could just have an elected President - Blair, Thatcher, etc. I would point out that at the last election the Tories considered campaigning saying 'vote Blair, get Brown' but dropped it because they thought that would help Blair win, so popular was Brown at the time. So we might have an all powerful Brown, no Parliamentary checks. George W Bush was elected as an isolationist President - until 9/11 he was going to leave Iraq alone, and the London Mayor has quite a lot of power without any serious checks. Obviously depends which one you don't like - Boris or Livingstone.
MP's have a function - to represent their constitiuencies to power. They need a place in their constitiuency and one near Parliament, thought one only needs to be a flat. If their constiuency is in inner London only then do they not need a second home, I believe those in outer London should be able to have an inner London flat if Parliament can have significant votes after 10 pm, which I believe it can.
It called principle or morality - and seems pretty strong on the right but pretty poor on the left.
MEPs call their system SISO - sign in and sod off - but under our system you can swear in and sod off - if you're a Tory in opposition you can swear in at the beginning of the Parliament and never be seen again until the next election, espacially if your in a safe seat - the Press won't mention it. I suspect that's at the heart of why Cameron didn't like signing in each day to get your allowance.
Labour supporters make excuses, tory supporters get angry.
Your move
You know full well that the Telegraph will be publishing expenses information on the Tories and the Lib Dems in the the lead up to the European elections. In fact, New Labour are in a better position (so to speak) as it will be the other parties who will have their misdeeds revealed closer to those elections. And lets face it, the closer these revelations are to the election, the more they'll be remembered by the voting public. So whilst you're trying to suggest that the Tory press are trying to scupper Labour's chances at the European elections, this is in fact completely untrue.
The reason New Labour were featured first, is quite simple. They are the ones currently in government. It is New Labour that have had the power to amend the rules on expenses at any time over the past 12 years. Their reluctance to do so reflects directly on them. Whilst the Tories and the Lib Dems can to some degree use the excuse that they were only following the rules put in place, the assertion that Labour is directly responsible for those rules cannot be ignored.
With regards to your use of examples for the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, it's quite telling that you choose to use a Tory example for the ugly. Why? There are plenty of examples of the ugly from Labour ministers. You are merely trying to deflect attention towards the Tories. Well, sorry, it isn't going to work. Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of defending the Tories on this. Derek Conway's behaviour was despicable and fraudulent, and I have no doubt that there are other Tory MPs that will be made to look bad by the next batch of revelations. But the truth is that Conway's ugly behaviour is mirrored by many in ministerial positions. I'm not going to list them all, readers are capable of visiting the Telegraph site to see for themselves, but I would like to mention the fact that Gordon Brown changed his "second home" claim shortly before taking the position of Prime Minister in order to maximise his claim for the second home allowance. Considering that the Prime Minister lives at 10 Downing street means that he shouldn't claim a second home allowance at all. Any minister with 'grace and favour' accommodation, also claiming second home allowance for a third property is pretty damn ugly in my opinion. A shame you couldn't mention that as your example of Ugly.
Personally, I look forward to the revelations on the Tories and Lib Dems. But don't think for a second that those revelations will erase the memory of misdeeds on the part of those that are currently in power and subsequently in charge of the system of expenses.
Brown should get on quickly with the reshuffle and get rid of the worst offenders, which includes Blears near the top of the list
When they got married sarah had no flat to clean, but he then started paying for 7 hours cleaning of his flat per week.
I think the flat was actually empty because they use 'grace and favour' accommodation.
But either way - it is hard to see how getting married meant his flat took an extra 3 hours to clean - I know he can appear odd, but he isn't howard hughes (is he?).
If you're offended by four hours of cleaning a week, let's wait till some Tory expenses are revealed.
It's all disgusting. But from my knowledge of Tory MPs you'd better remember your objection to flat cleaning. This will seem saintly in comparison.
I also notice that you made no mention of Brown changing his designated 'second home' shortly before taking power, in order to maximise his use of the second home allowance.
I think the cleaner should be asked directly what he/she was doing for the money. Firstly to ensure that Brown was getting 'value for money' as required for expenses, but also to ensure this wasn't 'pretend employment' as per Derek Conway...
Could brown have the whip withdrawn?
At least we all now understand what re-distribution of wealth means.
Here, you just say "its ok as long as they are all at it".
Tories have principles, labour supporters = immorality.
An extra 3 hours (what a messy wife he must have) may not amount to a huge amount of money, but it shows the immorality of Brown.
I can see that this morality (like truth) doesn't bother you on the left, so will not expect any agreement here.
Maybe this is the big divide between left and right - our principles are absolute, yours are relative.
The Tory gameplan looks like tell a big lie, attack anyone not kissing their ass on a personal level, and when it gets really dirty spring free and pretend you're whiter than white while the other poor sucker gets the blame. I've seen that pulled in the school playground and online, and it's about as immoral as you can get.
I'm more convinced than ever that the Tories haven't changed. During this premature election campaign they've blustered and abused anyone that doesn't kiss their ring, and now they feel they're ahead and want to cement their lead they're saints? Pull the other one.
The last thing I would want is for you to start supporting/promoting the tories.
Should that ever happen, it will be time to start looking for where it all started going wrong.
“Mrs Follett, the Minister for Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism, is married to Ken Follett, a best-selling thriller author whose income has been put at £13 million a year (m) by Forbes magazine. They own a holiday home in Antigua, a house in Cape Town, a former rectory in Mrs Follett’s constituency of Hertfordshire - their main residence - and a buy-to-let flat in south London.”
No wonder she can afford to be a socialist.
;-)
Top of the expenses list is - perhaps not surprisingly for an arch-hypocrte -s is JAMES PURNELL the man so anxious to stop the poor "playing the system" he even took a Tory's advice:
He has claimed £143,695 over 7 years for his "seond home" plus £1600 for "cleaning" and "repairs" of a Covent Garden flat, which had to be completely refurbished by the landlords when he gave up the tenancy. he has also, apparently, claimed £9094 for "groceries". If he is so poor perhaps the Red Cross could be persuaded to drop food parcels on the Palace of Westminster just for him. RAF Hendon is quite close by.
Brown himself has roped his brother in for cleaning duties and changed his "second home" from London to his Scottish one, so he could beennfit for extra money for refurbishment.
Hazel Blears wasn't content with claiming for a second home - no - she claimed for THREE.
Unbelieveable, disgusting - One of the greedy bunch apparently even claimed 5 pence for a supermarket carrier bag
There is no excuse for this. Blears is apparently for the chop next month - Purnell and a few others should go the same way. Of course they won't resign because they have "done nothing wrong"
Ed Balls blames the system which is "out of date". perhaps as a gesture he and Mrs Balls (Yvette Cooper) should stop both claiming for the same second home.
Everyone, from MP's, to business, to the man in the street has blood on their hands. The tearing of clothes and gnashing of teeth is just so much posturing and scapegoating. Intellectual and moral pygmies are trying to hide behind a wall of bluster and tears but the whole thing is as cringing as fraudsters or lottery winners soaking themselves in champagne and caviar. One doesn't do that. Standards, dear boy.
Mostly, I'm interested in seeing what sort of incomes and tax policy can be created out of this mess. Ideally, it would reflect the historical norms and standards. That's more in line with how people tick and the world works. No superstar pay for routine performance and, a rise in wages, welfare, and pensions at the bottom would help put some sense and accountability back into the system.
With a better system in place more political time can be focused on business creation and a fair society, and the job of delivering that should be a lot easier.
The 'second home' is a problem. I still think that qualifying MPs should be given state run London furnished accommodation and not have any 'second home' expenses at all.
On the Labourgraph, its a bit weird at the moment, Ben Brogan seems to have sorted things out a little.
As for the press being right wing, that's probably correct because you need to educated to become a Journo, and an intellect used* to be a prerequisite to be educated. Unless you work for the Mirror - Maguire is hopeless and the Grauniad is a collection of moaning ninnies. Polly Toynbee ace Thatcher hater and fact manipulator.
* Now Tesco's offering a Degree Certificate and £25,000 of debt for £10.99. You can be a left wing Journalist.
Bit of a snob, are'nt you, bb j?. It is a great pity we can't all be so clever and intelligent as your goodself, but I am sure you are an inspiriation to us all and we will do our best to emulate you. But your "jokes"(?) do fall a bit flat.
I am a snob. I know my limitations; unlike the apologists who serve the propaganda of the gubberment and ignore the ills. As for the humour, of course it falls flat on the ears of the biased.
What really annoys me though is the number of my posts that get moderated. As it stands this forum has the best part of nobody here.
Agreed compassion does clog up the old thought processors
A bit like 9/11 was "a good day to bury bad news".
I think the whole thing is an unmitigated disaster, but just to show I haven't come over all gooey and centrist about it, I do think there are some political points to bear in mind.
It's hard to attract good politicians, given that they can earn far more money in the private sector, or in the media. Fifty years ago someone like Paxman would have become an MP. But with media influence, higher salaries by several factors, and avoiding the regular sackings of the electorate, it's understandable why talent avoids Westminster.
Personally, given these factors, I'm grudgingly inclined to say that MPs should probably be paid more to avoid the problem. Given that my local GP can easily earn 100k, with the security of a job for life, the relative salaries of MPs, given the responsibility they wield, is probably too low. Perhaps extra allowances for select committees, admin, constituency work would be useful. But more than anything they need an independent body to assess their remuneration.
Oh - be still my aching sides. Which of the current crop of venal, useless, corrupt, and intellectually-vacant non-entities do you really think would last more than five minutes in the private sector? Woolas? Purnell? Burnham? Smith? Balls? Harman? Daz? etc etc. Don't make me laugh. They'd barely make it through the week before being chucked out for a gross misconduct of some kind. The only reason these real-world failures climbed to the top of the greasy pole in politics was because they all knew none of them would have a cat in hell's chance of succeeding in the private sector. Running a corner-shop would be beyond their abilities if their mismanagement of the economy is anything to go by.
We've seen Labour's attempts to "engage" with the private sector. It was called the "Millenium Dome" - a catastrophic commercial failure of epic proportions that made us the laughing stock of the world.
It took a private company (AEG) to turn it into a profitable (sorry for using the 'p' word') and successful entertainment venue.
still, nothing new there !
If you're bemoaning the quality of our current MPs, why are potentially more talented candidates not attracted to politics?
Job instability and - relative low remuneration compared to senior private or public sector jobs - might be part of the problem..
Because of the selection process, Peter. You have to be friends with the right people to be selected. Talent is not a necessary attribute when it comes to selection. We only need to look at the support enjoyed by Georgia Gould to realise that talent and experience aren't valued by those involved in the selection process. Having friends in high places and being able to call people like Campbell "uncle" clearly give a candidate advantage.
In this respect, the Georgia Gould example could be counter-intuitive. If able entrepreneurs and professionals could bypass the slow slog of local party hierarchies and patronage that might mean the more dynamic politicians were not deterred.
Way back in the 80s in South London local party member suggested I could have a political career, but that would have to start with several terms as a local councillor. As a father of two young kids and short of spondulics, it really wasn't an option.
However, moving to West London a few years later, I once had to get in touch with my local councillor about some minor issue I've now forgotten. He rang back immediately, and was incredibly nice and helpful. His name - Hillary Benn.
So while I actually appreciate those who work their way slowly up the rungs of public service, you can't have it both ways. If you want to see the dynamism in politics you see in other sectors, then you'll have to made the way less wearisome, and public service both more attractive and rewarded.
Toned down post - for this over moderated site.
As I've said so many times I bore myself - free speech is not guaranteed by one centre left blog. There are other places to go if you want to indulge in libel, abusive rhetoric, or unreasoned and unreasonable statements of your political opinion.
If more is to be paid to MP's the the current lot clearly shouldn't qualify for any of the extra money.
i.e. If you have a rubbish workforce, you may pay extra to bring in new better quality staff, but you don't pay the existing rubbish any extra. (unless it is all unionised, then you have to pay them extra too, but as you can't afford this, you are stuck with just your rubbish staff).
The Telegraph were always going to print Labour MP's first as they are more Tory than Labour, plus Labour are the party in power at the moment.
Have to say I am in agreement with you Peter although I'm not sure I would compare MP's with doctors. They do get a degree of job security as once voted in they are pretty sure they will have the job for the following 5 years, which is something many people can only dream of.
I've never been Alastiar Campbell's biggest fan however I think anyone reading this post on expenses should read his post on his site ( http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog.php ) as it addresses a lot of the issues around MP's expenses.
I think eventually MP's WILL have to be paid more, but I think first they need to prove they are worth it as anyone working in the real-world has to prove they deserve a payrise before they get it. They also need to realise that it's not going to happen for some time yet.
I also agree that they need an independant body to review things like their salaries, expenses and who they employ. The issue of outside jobs and positions also needs to be looked into as a non-executive director of 5 companies may have more time to be an MP than a Managing Director of 1 company.
I knew my opinion would be unpopular. But you can't simultaneously complain about the lack of talent in Parliament, and not compare with what talent is awarded elsewhere.
Not me. The problem with comparisons is they don't stack up; GP = intelligence, years of training, have to turn up to work every day, MP = brass-necked chancer with only a passing grasp of how to be honest. And the private/public sector comparison is nonsense, if they weren't in Parliament Jacqui would still be a mediocre economics teacher, Purnell would be thrashing the serfs on his estate and the Hoonster would be on JSA because, lets' face it, there really is nothing that fella is capable of doing.
Seriously, I have been thinking about your point and I can see what you mean, parliament really are a bunch of no-talent losers (Hoon!! Ffs!!), there are two solutions, attract some talent (which I am not sure would involve money) or my preferred option . . . . do without. I am not talking anarchy, I am sure the army/police and juidiciary can run itself (ACPO who see themselves as the political wing of the provisional TSG would need to be disbanded) and parliament only sits for about three weeks a year and its always empty! Sack them all, doing without can't be any worse.
Obviously I can hold my licquor
Some of us... we get expenses...
From my experience, I have worked for longish periods of time away from home and expenses policy is something you learn off by heart.
For example, hotel laundry, one week stay, no, two week stay, yes. Films? Pay for those yourself. Food - £40 a day receipted. Alcohol - forget it.
Is it so difficult to work this out?
What I see here are tantamount to fraud... expenses claimed on things that are a bit more than a £10 dodgy flesh show.
Mandelson's hedges.... are having his privet hedges trimmed essential to his job? Especially as he'd recently resigned and also sold the house only a few months afterwards.
He is so tight with his cash?
Or Brown's brother getting a small fortune to clean Brown's flat.
These aren't reasonable claims - they are an abuse of the rules.
Abuse of the rules is fraud. Simple. End. Of.
There are no degrees of grey here - it is morally wrong and an abuse of the guidelines.
I disagree - MPs do not need a "second home", they need London accommodation for the nights when they stay there. The idea that it's a "home" is why they get away with such troughing. They should get reimbursed for rent (capped), but if they're paying a mortgage and claiming it back they are making a personal gain from taxes that I can ill-afford to pay.
It disgusts me to see my MP building up a property portfolio at our expense whilst claiming more for his second home than I earn in an entire year!
Absolutely.
I've had to do this, when the only job I could get was north of Edinburgh. I live in London - and it was not possible for my then partner to relocate. So I spent three years of weekly commuting between London and Scotland, on top of an average 60-hour working week ... and, of course, having to pay my own B&B accommodation and travel bills. *That* is what one sometime has to do, to have a job during a recession. Feather-bedded (even without the immoral additional expenses claims) MPs have little idea of real life: we do ourselves no favours by continuing to indulge their isolation from the harsh economic realities that are part of the daily lives of most people.
No, seriously, Mike get your head out of the sand and look at what YOUR people are doing, the people YOU support and YOU vote for and YOU help get elected.
And then explain why there are no consequences whatsoever to criminal actions from members of this LABOUR government and then tell me why these people are special and not held to the same standards as the rest of us. Without mentioning the tories. Thanks.
What about paying your husband £40,000 every year to watch gay porn? Not that the price of the film came out of the £40k, that was claimed for separately.