Originally Posted by Midas

A LABOUR peer who lives in the East End of London has claimed about £100,000 in parliamentary expenses on a flat in Kent that neighbours say has been unoccupied for years.

Baroness Uddin, who worked closely with Tony and Cherie Blair, has been claiming allowances intended for peers living outside London although she resides only four miles from the Lords.

Inquiries by The Sunday Times have established that the baroness bought a two-bedroom flat in Maidstone in 2005 and has named it as her main home to claim almost £30,000 a year in accommodation expenses from the House of Lords.

Residents from the five other flats in the same block as Uddin’s property all say they have never seen her there. They could see through the windows that the bedrooms were unfurnished.

The full story at : Labour peer Baroness Uddin claims £100,000 expenses on empty flat - Times Online

Now remind me why it was that Labour MPs didn't want their own expenses to be looked into?

THe example you've quoted here? I mean it was so obvious it was laughable.

More about the Labour Party and expenses revealed in the Daily Telegraph today:

The Prime Minister is revealed to have paid his brother for “cleaning services” at his private flat in Westminster. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, admitted that he had over-claimed for both his council tax and mortgage bills.

The disclosures show the scale of ministers’ claims and the extent to which politicians have exploited the expenses system to subsidise their lifestyles.

The Prime Minister is among 13 members of the Cabinet facing questions over their use of Parliamentary expenses. On Thursday, after being approached by The Daily Telegraph, Mr Brown repaid a plumbing bill he had claimed for twice during 2006.

Receipts submitted by the Prime Minister to the Parliamentary authorities disclosed that between 2004 and 2006, he paid Andrew Brown for cleaning at his flat. Andrew Brown, a senior executive at EDF Energy, received £6,577 over 26 months. Last night, the Prime Minister’s office said he shared a cleaner with his brother. In a statement, No10 said Mr Brown “reimbursed him [the brother] for his share of the cost”.

The statement is likely to give rise to questions as to why the Prime Minister did not simply lodge receipts directly from the cleaner. He has directly employed other cleaners.

The full story, including many other claims by Cabinet Ministers to be found here : MPs' expenses: Gordon Brown and Cabinet face questions over claims - Telegraph

This is blatant fraud is it not,i wonder how they will sweep it under the carpet?

Its probably pertinent to point out that the Tories and ALL the other parties members are just as guilty. Apparently the media axe has yet to fall on them; the times is supposed to be publishing their 'little extras' over the next few days.

I can see this only getting messier as time goes on.

The Lib Dems will come out of this the cleanest I reckon. The 2nd home allowance is a major sticking point, and they don't have any Greater London MP who claims one. They seem to be more in touch with public opinion on this issue than the other 2. Then again there's probably some swindling back bencher to tar the whole party. I guess we'll soon find out.

On Labour though, aren't you just glad your tax pounds go towards David Milliband's gardening requirements?

The Lib Dems will come out of this the cleanest I reckon. The 2nd home allowance is a major sticking point, and they don't have any Greater London MP who claims one. They seem to be more in touch with public opinion on this issue than the other 2. Then again there's probably some swindling back bencher to tar the whole party. I guess we'll soon find out.

I think the tories and libdems have been the most sensible over this by staying quiet. Conversely the nulab mps are coming out and angrily denouncing the media for telling the public what's occuring; which only shows them as even more self serving and greedy. That party really hasn't got the brains God gave them.

It would seem Phil Woolas is once again acting the 'attack dog' for nulab. He is apparently seeking legal advice as to whether he can sue the Telegraph for publishing the details. he called their reporting "absolutely disgusting" (well he would, wouldn't he?).

Mind you he has his own dirty laundry to hide - apparently he claimed for nappies and women's clothing () on a food bill he submitted. But, sadly for him, it was refused.

Of course we all know Mr Woolas as the kindly gent who seems hellbent on refusing entry to the Ghurkas. Says they'll be a 'drain on the country' - right, and him and his 'snouts in trough' cronies aren't then?

Anyway, here's the link to the article in full. But I thoroughly recommend buying the telegraph.

BBC NEWS | UK | £25k on security in MPs' claims

On Labour though, aren't you just glad your tax pounds go towards David Milliband's gardening requirements?

I have to say I am more than glad it pays for Jacquie Smith's bath plug and her husband's porn.

I think the Telegraph is going to be a 'must buy' today - I'm certainly off to get one this morning! Oh and as it says it will be publishing more details over the next few days I shall probably be buying it for a while.

Got to give a nod to those few principled MPs who have kept their claims reasonable. Well done to Vince Cable (Lib), John McDonnel (Lab) and Lee Scott (Con) none of whom claim second home allowance as Outer London and burbs MPs as "most of my constituents commute, so should I".
And of course no defence of mps ethics would be complete without mentioning Dennis Skinner, a man who will neither let a journalist buy him a pint (because it might compromise him) nor owns a passport (in case he succumbs to temptation of a foreign junket or two). He refuses to "pair up" as well because he sees it as a way of letting MPs get richer through working on the side. They call him a dinosaur, if only more were like that!

Originally Posted by Trouble43

Its probably pertinent to point out that the Tories and ALL the other parties members are just as guilty. Apparently the media axe has yet to fall on them; the times is supposed to be publishing their 'little extras' over the next few days.

I can see this only getting messier as time goes on.

Agreed, I think MPs on both sides of the house are equally guilty of fiddling expenses, very blatantly at times. If MPs were paid a decent salary for the job they do, or at least the job they're supposed to do, this need for fiddling expenses would shrink overnight.

Originally Posted by Midas

A LABOUR peer who lives in the East End of London has claimed about £100,000 in parliamentary expenses on a flat in Kent that neighbours say has been unoccupied for years.

Baroness Uddin, who worked closely with Tony and Cherie Blair, has been claiming allowances intended for peers living outside London although she resides only four miles from the Lords.

Inquiries by The Sunday Times have established that the baroness bought a two-bedroom flat in Maidstone in 2005 and has named it as her main home to claim almost £30,000 a year in accommodation expenses from the House of Lords.

Residents from the five other flats in the same block as Uddin’s property all say they have never seen her there. They could see through the windows that the bedrooms were unfurnished.

The full story at : Labour peer Baroness Uddin claims £100,000 expenses on empty flat - Times Online

Now remind me why it was that Labour MPs didn't want their own expenses to be looked into?

This is why its not healthy for political parties to be in power for too long.

Originally Posted by Midas

Agreed, I think MPs on both sides of the house are equally guilty of fiddling expenses, very blatantly at times. If MPs were paid a decent salary for the job they do, or at least the job they're supposed to do, this need for fiddling expenses would shrink overnight.

Apart from Phil Woolas (who is threatening to sue, sad muppet that he is); everyone else just keeps bleating that they "did nothing wrong". But what they don't seem to realise is that, to the British public (especially the almost destitute working class), the fact they've milked the system for all its worth is NOT a good thing - wrong, right or middling. It doesn't matter. All we want is for them to take their snouts out of the trough and live on their basic wage like the rest of us have to.

I'm afraid O74, that I believe they're being paid over £64K a year (PLUS whatever they earn from 'outside' jobs) is MORE than enough. If they got paid more it would just encourage them. Make them live on a basic wage like most of US have to do, perhaps then it would bring them ALL down to earth with a bump?

Originally Posted by Midas

Agreed, I think MPs on both sides of the house are equally guilty of fiddling expenses, very blatantly at times. If MPs were paid a decent salary for the job they do, or at least the job they're supposed to do, this need for fiddling expenses would shrink overnight.

Oh I think in this case they're all as bad as one another; the recent announcement about how Brown shares his cleaners with his brother, but then claims it ALL back from the taxpayer is an example of why HE won't stop the abuse. He's as guilty as the rest of them.

As for a decent salary; nope, don't agree there. They get over £64k a year, PLUS whatever they earn from 'other' work - and I use the word 'work' loosely. Directorships and the like is not what I would call work; and its believed that some MP's earn over £200-400K. And some of the front benchers can clear up to a cool £800k (william hague - link:Hague tops MPs' earnings list : ePolitix.com).

That should be more than enough to live on - especially when you think about those of us, amongst the plebs the MPs ignore, that have to live on £15k or even less. Oh and that's without expenses too.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

Oh I think in this case they're all as bad as one another; the recent announcement about how Brown shares his cleaners with his brother, but then claims it ALL back from the taxpayer is an example of why HE won't stop the abuse. He's as guilty as the rest of them.

As for a decent salary; nope, don't agree there. They get over £64k a year, PLUS whatever they earn from 'other' work - and I use the word 'work' loosely. Directorships and the like is not what I would call work; and its believed that some MP's earn over £200-400K. And some of the front benchers can clear up to a cool £800k (william hague - link:Hague tops MPs' earnings list : ePolitix.com).

That should be more than enough to live on - especially when you think about those of us, amongst the plebs the MPs ignore, that have to live on £15k or even less. Oh and that's without expenses too.

I'm afraid I disagree on this, however I will add some qualifications to that. Other than remaining largely non-active directors of existing family businesses or having minor consultancy positions which don't conflict with their political role, I don't think MPs should have outside interests or earned income - unearned income is of course a different matter. Then their income from being an MP could more accurately reflect the importance of the position, and I'd suggest enable a far more commercial type of selection process to determine suitability for the position. This is already done for local government (and of course for the Civil Service), so why not for central government?

I don't think that a substantial 6 figure salary package would be unreasonable for an MP by any stretch of the imagination; it's common enough for someone in charge of a large local authority and very common in industry, so why not for those people who run the whole country?

Originally Posted by Trouble43

I'm afraid O74, that I believe they're being paid over £64K a year (PLUS whatever they earn from 'outside' jobs) is MORE than enough. If they got paid more it would just encourage them. Make them live on a basic wage like most of US have to do, perhaps then it would bring them ALL down to earth with a bump?

I'm not sure why this is addressed to me, I certainly think for a backbencher that should be ample financial compensation. Anyone else think a block of dormatories would solve part of the problem, they needn't be like student digs.
There is an argument to be made that if you want the best you have to match the rest (in terms of financial package etc.), but I'm not an exponent. Seems to me a few years getting your face on question time and you can spend the rest of your life making good money on the after dinner circuit. Even MEPs who court controversy can get to America and tour the chat show circuit slagging Britain off.
The more stuff that is coming out though, the more I am getting annoyed that not one of the good ones is being held up in contrast. This is an example of why we get the crap politicians we deserve, pages and pages on the worst (not that they should be allowed to get away with it) - not even a sentence on the best, why bother?

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

This is an example of why we get the crap politicians we deserve, pages and pages on the worst (not that they should be allowed to get away with it) - not even a sentence on the best, why bother?

Because it sells papers. The Telegraph has done something remarkable really, they've dictated the story for 3 days, and by announcing they were saving the Tories for Monday I'm sure they've caused a few sweaty brows in the home counties over the weekend. It is official bash the government year at the moment, so even if Alan Johnson comes off looking good, its not as important as say, the Welsh secretary claiming three grand getting his plumbling fixed. But you're right, there are still honourable ones knocking about, they just don't get the coverage.

I am not in the least surprised at these revelations as I have strongly suspected
for many years that this culture had grown to the level portrayed. So far, we have
probably seen only the tip of the iceburg and I hope that we will see some of the
same regarding the upper house of parliament.
This stock excuse of acting "Within The Rules" does nothing to excuse these
parasites for their shameful STEALING from the purses of the people they are
meant to represent and reminds me of the Nuremburg defaendants, all of whom
claimed that they were acting "Under Under Orders". The big difference here is
that these Bitish politicians had freedom of choice whether to behave abominably
or not.
All seem to be agreeing that the expenses system is wrong and that it needs
reviewing. Why? - because this scandal has been brought into the public domain
through the media and to now say this will go some way to excusing their apalling
behaviour. Name any one of them who has stood up in the past to say this and has
shown any sense of conscience or remorse.
We have recently witnessed the scandals of banking executive's bouses and
pension payoffs. No surprises there when you consider the example set by so
many of their so-called peers.
It is now time to drop the terms HONOURABLE and RIGHT HONOURABLE as
applied to these PARASITES, for "there is no honour amongst thieves" who
have thought nothing of claiming more for what we would consider a normal
personal expense than a pensioner receives as a sole weekly income. I wonder
how much has been ROBBED over the years and how much this total could
have served to improve the well being of the Aged, Sick and Disabled people in
our country.
I hope that at least one of these professional criminals read this post from a
70 years old state pensioner who has served in this country's armed forces and
lives on a pension of approx £100 per week. I will never vote in an election again
unless I see a huge overhaul of our political system and a scrapping of the Gravy
Train. My condemnation applies across all parties and I'm sure I speak for many
fellow citizens of this country.
SHAME ON YOU, FOREVER !

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

I'm not sure why this is addressed to me, I certainly think for a backbencher that should be ample financial compensation. Anyone else think a block of dormatories would solve part of the problem, they needn't be like student digs.
There is an argument to be made that if you want the best you have to match the rest (in terms of financial package etc.), but I'm not an exponent. Seems to me a few years getting your face on question time and you can spend the rest of your life making good money on the after dinner circuit. Even MEPs who court controversy can get to America and tour the chat show circuit slagging Britain off.
The more stuff that is coming out though, the more I am getting annoyed that not one of the good ones is being held up in contrast. This is an example of why we get the crap politicians we deserve, pages and pages on the worst (not that they should be allowed to get away with it) - not even a sentence on the best, why bother?

No, nor am I - I think I had a moment of madness there. Sorry.

But I agree with all you've said - the MP's have got NOTHING to bleat about. They should try living in the REAL world like the rest of us for a change.

As regards the 'dorms' idea - I wouldn't care what they were like; after all, it would only be a 'crash pad' for most of them. In fact make them the more unpleasant the better - that way, anyone entering politics will be doing so because they think they can help the public AND they'll be in parliament a lot more because to stay at 'home' would be too appalling for them to contempate.

Therefore they'd actually be earning their salaries for a change. I mean how many times do we see an almost empty chamber because they're all too lazy to turn up for a debate?

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

Because it sells papers. The Telegraph has done something remarkable really, they've dictated the story for 3 days, and by announcing they were saving the Tories for Monday I'm sure they've caused a few sweaty brows in the home counties over the weekend. It is official bash the government year at the moment, so even if Alan Johnson comes off looking good, its not as important as say, the Welsh secretary claiming three grand getting his plumbling fixed. But you're right, there are still honourable ones knocking about, they just don't get the coverage.

I agree Dr.E., Shock horror about whats been going on for years including the years under the Tories I wonder why the Telegraph has just paid a six figure sum to pre-emt the findings of what wil be published in July?

Would it be that in the current climate under fire Labour MPs and Ministers would appear more guilty because they are under the media fire in and in office.?

The whole expences system was set up by parliament which included by the way, Tories and the Lib Dems , when the MPs couldn't increase their salary and pleaded poverty they were advised to use the expences system for a top I didn't see any party complaining then, up, the Telegraph and the Tories and Labour and Lib Dems saw nothing wrong with it then so why all the self rightious hand wringing now from Cameron and the Telegraph who's MPs have had their share of the spoils and are now the caped crusaders, dupicitous hypocrites.


It's a system which allows general abuse within the regulations, it's a pity we can't go back as far as the Thatcher era when we are researching any "misuse" of public funds.In any case any accusations of misuse should be dealt with on an individual basis, and circumstaces involved, which ever party an MP belongs to, not a general media witch hunt in which many cases claims could be justified.

MPs are not paid enough for the type of job they are expected to perform many are hamstrung by distances they have to travel and time involved. Increase the MPs salary by at least £20.000 and ban all MPs from sitting on company boards where they can at least double or treble their salaries and more when they are supposed to be giving 100% attention to their constituencies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/b...-michael-white



'Flipping' homes, new light bulbs and the heavy cost of gardening | Politics | The Guardian

Originally Posted by blanco

I am not in the least surprised at these revelations as I have strongly suspected
for many years that this culture had grown to the level portrayed. So far, we have
probably seen only the tip of the iceburg and I hope that we will see some of the
same regarding the upper house of parliament.
This stock excuse of acting "Within The Rules" does nothing to excuse these
parasites for their shameful STEALING from the purses of the people they are
meant to represent and reminds me of the Nuremburg defaendants, all of whom
claimed that they were acting "Under Under Orders". The big difference here is
that these Bitish politicians had freedom of choice whether to behave abominably
or not.
All seem to be agreeing that the expenses system is wrong and that it needs
reviewing. Why? - because this scandal has been brought into the public domain
through the media and to now say this will go some way to excusing their apalling
behaviour. Name any one of them who has stood up in the past to say this and has
shown any sense of conscience or remorse.
We have recently witnessed the scandals of banking executive's bouses and
pension payoffs. No surprises there when you consider the example set by so
many of their so-called peers.
It is now time to drop the terms HONOURABLE and RIGHT HONOURABLE as
applied to these PARASITES, for "there is no honour amongst thieves" who
have thought nothing of claiming more for what we would consider a normal
personal expense than a pensioner receives as a sole weekly income. I wonder
how much has been ROBBED over the years and how much this total could
have served to improve the well being of the Aged, Sick and Disabled people in
our country.
I hope that at least one of these professional criminals read this post from a
70 years old state pensioner who has served in this country's armed forces and
lives on a pension of approx £100 per week. I will never vote in an election again
unless I see a huge overhaul of our political system and a scrapping of the Gravy
Train. My condemnation applies across all parties and I'm sure I speak for many
fellow citizens of this country.
SHAME ON YOU, FOREVER !

A very heated deserving outburst, but I would politely point out that as an 80 year old pensioner who has also served his country, the pensioners position to day although not satisfactory is far better than under the last Tory government which should they be elected will revert to form and reduce the value of pensions on the pretext of neccessary cuts.

Originally Posted by Expounder

I agree Dr.E., Shock horror about whats been going on for years including the years under the Tories I wonder why the Telegraph has just paid a six figure sum to pre-emt the findings of what wil be published in July?<sssnnnnniippppp>

Ummmmm......Exp, as nulab are as guilty as all the other parties of snouting through the expenses trough until they were sick; I don't think you can play the 'indignant' card about the tories. They're all as bad as each other on this one.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm afraid I disagree on this, however I will add some qualifications to that. Other than remaining largely non-active directors of existing family businesses or having minor consultancy positions which don't conflict with their political role, I don't think MPs should have outside interests or earned income - unearned income is of course a different matter. Then their income from being an MP could more accurately reflect the importance of the position, and I'd suggest enable a far more commercial type of selection process to determine suitability for the position. This is already done for local government (and of course for the Civil Service), so why not for central government?

I'm sorry Midas your argument here is nonsense, additional earnings on a company board many which are not minor earnings, would be an inducement for money seeking prospective MPs to stand for parliament,particularly Tory MPs, who have closer ties to business and who could "sell" usefull information to the companies involved. They are not paying them for sitting on their backsides.

Prospective MPs are expected to represent their constituents full time and not use the position to line their pockets toadying up to and receiving payment for dubious inside information which would benifit the company from which they are being paid.
There is potential for corruption where an MP with privileged informaton has ties with, and is being paid by a company whose board he/she sits on.

I don't think that a substantial 6 figure salary package would be unreasonable for an MP by any stretch of the imagination; it's common enough for someone in charge of a large local authority and very common in industry.

With regards to pay, a figure of £80.000 would be a start to be reviewed at given periods with a ban on recieving money from industry and business.

Originally Posted by Expounder

I'm sorry Midas your argument here is nonsense, additional earnings on a company board many which are not minor earnings, would be an inducement for money seeking prospective MPs to stand for parliament,particularly Tory MPs, who have closer ties to business and who could "sell" usefull information to the companies involved. They are not paying them for sitting on their backsides.

Prospective MPs are expected to represent their constituents full time and not use the position to line their pockets toadying up to and receiving payment for dubious inside information which would benifit the company they are being paid.
There is potential for corruption where an MP with privileged informaton has ties with, and is being paid by a company whose board he/she sits on.

I did specifically say "largely non-active directors of existing family businesses or having minor consultancy positions which don't conflict with their political role" though Exp, and I have said elsewhere that any MP who has outside interests shouldn't be allowed to vote on any matters where there's anything which might conflict with or benefit their particular industry sector. At times you have to take people's honesty at face value; if an MP is dishonest there's absolutely nothing to prevent them passing confidential information to anyone in return for a share of the profits. It doesn't have to be a company that they're directly involved in, it could involve a family member, however remote, a near neighbour, a friend at the local club...... Where do you draw the line? OK, in an ideal world I accept that MPs shouldn't have any commercial interests which involve them in any outside work at all, however that brings us on to the money issue......

With regards to pay, a figure of £80.000 would be a start to be reviewed at given periods with a ban on recieving money from industy.#

The well known saying "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" comes to mind here. I know to many, £80k a year sounds a lot, but for the responsibility and the (supposed) professionalism that an MP's position involves, quite frankly it is peanuts. For example even though I'm now semi-retired and only work a 2 day week, my Board still pays me £125k a year and believes it represents good value for money for my knowledge, experience and ability to do the job I currently hold (Chairman) - and I believe I give it; the fact that I also have a substantially larger income from elsewhere is irrelevant to them because there's no conflict. That same criterion of value for money should apply to MPs. If a large local government office for example was to advertise a senior role at that sort of salary (£80k), those people who were most suited in experience and ability just wouldn't apply and the position would have to be filled with someone whose ability matched the money on offer. Hardly a good situation for such a responsible position. Why therefore should an MP, whose job is the represent hundreds of thousands of people and to make decisions which affect the whole country be paid any less than people in commerce who have equivalent (or as near as you can get) positions in either local government or industry?

You might say that people who go into politics do it for the love of the job rather than the money. Yes, some do, but what standard are they and do they represent good value for money even at today's MPs salaries? I'd say far from it, far better to pay top rates and use a stringent commercial selection process to weed out all those unprofessional MPs than carry on with what we have at the moment.

Originally Posted by Midas

I did specifically say "largely non-active directors of existing family businesses or having minor consultancy positions which don't conflict with their political role" though Exp, and I have said elsewhere that any MP who has outside interests shouldn't be allowed to vote on any matters where there's anything which might conflict with or benefit their particular industry sector. At times you have to take people's honesty at face value; if an MP is dishonest there's absolutely nothing to prevent them passing confidential information to anyone in return for a share of the profits. It doesn't have to be a company that they're directly involved in, it could involve a family member, however remote, a near neighbour, a friend at the local club...... Where do you draw the line? OK, in an ideal world I accept that MPs shouldn't have any commercial interests which involve them in any outside work at all, however that brings us on to the money issue......

Payment for privileged information goes on quite openly now, these boards don't pay purely for name association but to keep in touch with the pulse of the commons and also to lobby overtly or surreptitiously if the case arises.

I am not saying that info won't be leaked at times what I am saying is that MPs shouldn't be allowed to sit on company boards and be in the pay of that company no matter what the amount. Instead, remove the inducement for the morally wrong type of candidate to stand. To clean up the commons a rule should be introduced to prohibit any payment from business or industry to MPs. This would be one major step in the right direction.

Any MP has been accused of passing on confidential or privileged information which would benefit any company it was given to, should be called before the appropriate committee to answer for their action and sanctions taken if proved.

The well known saying "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" comes to mind here. I know to many, £80k a year sounds a lot, but for the responsibility and the (supposed) professionalism that an MP's position involves, quite frankly it is peanuts. For example even though I'm now semi-retired and only work a 2 day week, my Board still pays me £125k a year and believes it represents good value for money for my knowledge, experience and ability to do the job I currently hold (Chairman) - and I believe I give it; the fact that I also have a substantially larger income from elsewhere is irrelevant to them because there's no conflict. That same criterion of value for money should apply to MPs. If a large local government office for example was to advertise a senior role at that sort of salary (£80k), those people who were most suited in experience and ability just wouldn't apply and the position would have to be filled with someone whose ability matched the money on offer. Hardly a good situation for such a responsible position. Why therefore should an MP, whose job is the represent hundreds of thousands of people and to make decisions which affect the whole country be paid any less than people in commerce who have equivalent (or as near as you can get) positions in either local government or industry?

If the MPs want to join company boards let them wait for the precribed time after they have left the commons.

You might say that people who go into politics do it for the love of the job rather than the money. Yes, some do, but what standard are they and do they represent good value for money even at today's MPs salaries? I'd say far from it, far better to pay top rates and use a stringent commercial selection process to weed out all those unprofessional MPs than carry on with what we have at the moment.

What we want as MPs are hard working honest people with a decent salary and expences paid where deemed warranted, scrutinised by a proper system.

I don't think that there should be forced resignations as a result of this release of information, constituency selection committees are unlikely to re-appoint a "contaminated" MP if they had the gall to do so they would lose the seat as the electorate would kick their candidate out.

Originally Posted by Expounder

Payment for privileged information goes on quite openly now, these boards don't pay purely for name association but to keep in touch with the pulse of the commons and also to lobby overtly or surreptitiously if the case arises.

This is absolutely true, however Commons information, as well as that from several committees, is openly available anyway. I agree that privileged information shouldn't be divulged, but I firmly believe that if an MP is so inclined to break this rule, he/she will find a buyer for that information regardless of their personal associations with any given company or not. I'm sure that much stiffer penalties for this, including the MP concerned immediately losing their seat, would curb this to a great extent. As regards lobbying, personally I'd prefer it not to happen directly at all, and that any representations to the Commons should follow a set procedure through whatever Civil Service committee is in place to look at the pros and cons of any piece of legislation.

I am not saying that info won't be leaked at times what I am saying is that MPs shouldn't be allowed to sit on company boards and be in the pay of that company no matter what the amount. Instead, remove the inducement for the morally wrong type of candidate to stand. To clean up the commons a rule should be introduced to prohibit any payment from business or industry to MPs. This would be one major step in the right direction.

In an ideal world I agree with you, however I'm certain that should such a rule be brought in now we'd lose a significant number of our more able and experienced politicians - on both sides of the house. But I cannot get away from the idea that the best inducement for top flight candidates isn't so much their local party political history but an industry-comparable employment package going hand in hand with a professional selection process akin to those used by the HR Consultancies employed to select Board members for large companies.

Any MP has been accused of passing on confidential or privileged information which would benefit any company it was given to, should be called before the appropriate committee to answer for their action and sanctions taken if proved.

My view on this is above, but yes, completely agreed with.

If the MPs want to join company boards let them wait for the precribed time after they have left the commons.

Again in an ideal world, yes, but see my comment about losing MPs if that rule were to be brought in right now.

What we want as MPs are hard working honest people with a decent salary and expences paid where deemed warranted, scrutinised by a proper system.

I doubt anyone could argue against that!!

I don't think that there should be forced resignations as a result of this release of information, constituency selection committees are unlikely to re-appoint a "contaminated" MP if they had the gall to do so they would lose the seat as the electorate would kick their candidate out.

It's a personal matter, but I do prefer the one strike and you're out approach; it gives people less of a leeway to try to play the system.

But in summary I don't think you can realistically look at any of these possible changes in isolation; they need to go hand in hand with a complete overhaul of the entire political system - a fresh start if you like. To try to do otherwise is just like placing layer upon layer of sticking plaster over a bleeding wound to try to prevent the bleeding without first stitching the wound up.

Originally Posted by Midas

This is absolutely true, however Commons information, as well as that from several committees, is openly available anyway. I agree that privileged information shouldn't be divulged, but I firmly believe that if an MP is so inclined to break this rule, he/she will find a buyer for that information regardless of their personal associations with any given company or not. I'm sure that much stiffer penalties for this, including the MP concerned immediately losing their seat, would curb this to a great extent. As regards lobbying, personally I'd prefer it not to happen directly at all, and that any representations to the Commons should follow a set procedure through whatever Civil Service committee is in place to look at the pros and cons of any piece of legislation.

But in summary I don't think you can realistically look at any of these possible changes in isolation; they need to go hand in hand with a complete overhaul of the entire political system - a fresh start if you like. To try to do otherwise is just like placing layer upon layer of sticking plaster over a bleeding wound to try to prevent the bleeding without first stitching the wound up.

To wind this up Midas, the smell of easy money attracts crooks and charlatans and the less there is to be seen on offer in the form of extras and bribes the better. I see the money paid to MPs on company boards no better than the brown envelope bribes paid to Neil Hamilton just more sedately done.

The revelations on fiddles should not come as a suprise, M.P.s have consistently failed to be honest in every aspect of their lives. That is why we have sayings like "never believe anything until it is officially denied" The innocent politcians in this instance,should there prove to be any, should be revered,heralded,praised for their restraint(they probably have a different scam in operation but if its not our money who cares)

Originally Posted by k.reams

The revelations on fiddles should not come as a suprise, M.P.s have consistently failed to be honest in every aspect of their lives. That is why we have sayings like "never believe anything until it is officially denied" The innocent politcians in this instance,should there prove to be any, should be revered,heralded,praised for their restraint(they probably have a different scam in operation but if its not our money who cares)

MPs are not saints they are elected members of the public who have to be kept in check as do all public sevants by properly enforced rules. There are people in all walks of life who will take advantage of lax rules given the chance. Police, Judiciary,Civil Servants, etc. To be honest I'm not as shocked as the media makes out.

It's the human factor, no one is exempt from wrong doing given the chance that is with the exception of a small minority. Tighten the rules and enforce them, with the hope that those enforcing them maintain a strict regime.

To be honest, i dont see any reason for attacks on members of parliament expenses claim in so far it does not fall outside the statute really, well i dont want to get involve or comment on the saga but it does seem that, that scheme is getting escalated, like the word from labour MP Shahid Malik said that reputations is been tanished in view of those saga but integrity is paramount and it's still intact in actual fact, pay to the charity is the best because if a person has a reason legally there is no reason to sucumb to a pay back rather than pay it to the needy charity.

I'm wondering how our politicians haven't suffocated, so deeply have their snouts been buried into the expenses trough - yet, in the same news programme I watched this morning, we hear that our soldiers are dying because of the lack of equipment.

I have a single question - knowing all this, how do our MP's sleep at night? Roll on the General Election; time to get these greedy snouters out and replaced with people who will do more for the people, and not just themselves.

Let's be honest, no one else gets to claim such ridiculous amounts in their daily employment. These people get paid obscene amounts of money to do very little it seems to me.

Let them use their salaries like the rest of us have to, to buy their massage chairs, widescreen tellies, and scatter cushions. They shouldn't get a single PENNY more. Maybe then we will get politicians who are there for the PEOPLE, and not for what THEY can milk of the system THEMSELVES.

Yeah okay Trouble its all very angry mob with burning torches and pitchforks isn't it? Personally I thought it was disgraceful that someone like Ming Campbell should be jeered on Question Time yesterday. He said that last week he put in 72 hours including travelling, so for an MP to be paid £64,000 a year based on say an average of a 50 hour week, working around 42 weeks a year, thats working out to around 30 pounds an hour (very rough maths there) minus expenses. Yes, many of them have swindled the system, but its obvious that in the culture of Westminster these expenses are seen as a salary 'top-up'. That in itself is wrong, but I for one am sick of jounalists claiming all moral authority of parliament has evaporated because of this, like journalists are experts on moral authority?! Anyone who has an expense account will swindle it slightly, its human nature. There are many wrongs in this story, but labelling all politicans as cheats does the honest ones a diservice.

That said, any expenses other than for travel and basic living should be scrapped. The longer this story runs the more I'm getting pissed off with the Telegraph, they've been able to dictate the news cycle for a week now, with no sign that its to let up anytime soon, meanwhile soldiers getting killed in Afghanistan struggles for any coverage at all. The story shouldn't be about who spent what on what, rather that MPs have had this nice little earner tucked away for so long and have done nothing about it. It seems the real bad guy is becoming the mass media, distracting us with this and continuing the "bash the govenment" bandwagon while the real stories go unreported.

Look, if you wish to think they're an alright bunch overall that's been a bit misunderstood because of a few bad apples, that's up to you. I think the bad apples are most of the barrel though, I think the good apples are the few.

Also as someone whose not having a holiday this year because I can't afford it, who buys only second hand clothes and who buys the cheapest foods I can so that we eat every night; and I'm one of millions in this situation - then I do feel we have the right to be annoyed when we hear an MP has claimed for a moat, or a massager chair and widescreen telly out of OUR taxes.

Especially when you hear, on the same news bulletin, that our armed forces are eating reconstituted 'boil in the bag' food, share body armour and have even guns that don't function properly because of the lack of funds to send the equipment in time. Whether anyone agrees with the war in Afghanistan or not, they must think our soldiers deserve to be able to protect and defend themselves properly and eat some decent food as well.

The reason there are so many burning torches and lynch mobs is because people like Margaret Beckett treat the angry public with open contempt - if you watched 'Question Time' last night you'd know what I mean.

People are VERY angry at being ripped off by these people and THEN being treated like morons because we've dared to show that anger. Beckett is a prime example of that contempt. Theresa May came across better as she at least, real or fake, showed some understanding of the public's ire. Ming Campbell just looked totally bemused by it all, bless him.

I actually don't think £800 on food over two months is a lot in his case - that's a hundred pounds a week. If he shopped in places like waitrose or M&S (prolific in Central London), then it's understandable. I saw a woman spend that in *****'s last week.

However, overall there are MANY in Parliament who have milked this expenses system for every red farthing they can - THEY are who I am angry at. I have a right to express that anger.

As for the Telegraph, good for them - at least someone has made it public. Judging by the pontificating bluster of the speaker the other day, the MP's are running scared; and, despite what they've said to the contrary, I doubt very much we would've seen a FRACTION of what's been released if it had been up to them. Certainly Elliot Morley would've tried to cover it up.

On a final note, I do really hope and PRAY that Beckett is booted at the next General Election - as she showed nothing but contempt and disdain on 'Question Time' for the public views. But still, let her keep her £72k - I'm fairly sure the lady will need it next year when she's unemployed. Mind you at least she can live in her caravan when times get really tough.

Oh yeah I agree about Beckett. I think my problem is that this story has its fair share of bad guys, there's enough bad behaviour to go around. Truth is, for every moat cleaning and massage chair MP there's another one who is applying this system of expenses fairly. There is a lot of anger directed towards MPs over this, and quite rightly, but some of the comment seems to suggest our democracy is now destroyed and will never recover. I'm not saying you shouldn't be angry, I am as well, and I make no where near 64,000 a year. But no one in this mess is solely the bad guy, and the Telegraph are hardly the shining white knight they're potraying themselves as.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

YAnyone who has an expense account will swindle it slightly, its human nature. There are many wrongs in this story,

There's 'swindling it slightly' and there's taking it for everything there's going. I mean £5k for 'soft furnishings'?! £730 on a massager chair, £2,300 for a widescreen telly? 'Flipping' homes to maximise profits/expenses? THAT is more than 'swindling it slightly'.

Under the rules, as written down, the expenses should be for things that are to help them carry out their duties at Parliament. So please, tell me where ANY of the above help these ministers do that?

distracting us with this and continuing the "bash the govenment" bandwagon while the real stories go unreported.

It's not 'bash the government' though is it? Theyve named and shamed ACROSS parties. Its also a real story in itself; I mean how long would this have continued if the whistle had not been blown on it? Some of these claims go back to 2005/2006.

Though Elliot Morley might be grateful if it had never had been made public, as what he's done is more theft/fraud than 'slightly swindling'.

I think, when you pair this with the state of things for our armed forces, then you can see another reason why its a lot more than a 'non story', SHOULD be in the public domain AND why most people are so very angry about it. It is a real story - it certainly needs to be public information, if not to stop it continuing.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

Oh yeah I agree about Beckett. I think my problem is that this story has its fair share of bad guys, there's enough bad behaviour to go around. Truth is, for every moat cleaning and massage chair MP there's another one who is applying this system of expenses fairly. There is a lot of anger directed towards MPs over this, and quite rightly, but some of the comment seems to suggest our democracy is now destroyed and will never recover. I'm not saying you shouldn't be angry, I am as well, and I make no where near 64,000 a year. But no one in this mess is solely the bad guy, and the Telegraph are hardly the shining white knight they're potraying themselves as.

My anger is NOT with the far back benchers who seem to be just doing their job and plodding along. Its most the front and middle benches who seem to be the ones who are milking it the most - additionally they are paid MORE than the far back benchers.

What I MUST add is that PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T vote for the BNP; I know it seems a good message to send to the powers that be - but it will end up coming back to bite us in the end.

Me? I'm voting UKIP in June. General Election? Undecided.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

My anger is NOT with the far back benchers who seem to be just doing their job and plodding along. Its most the front and middle benches who seem to be the ones who are milking it the most - additionally they are paid MORE than the far back benchers.

What I MUST add is that PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T vote for the BNP; I know it seems a good message to send to the powers that be - but it will end up coming back to bite us in the end.

Me? I'm voting UKIP in June. General Election? Undecided.

You have to remember also that some of these allegations are being proved to be false. Claire Short for example (a local MP for me), was accused of swindling a mortage payment by the Telegraph. It turned out that she had claimed incorrectly, (on the whole cost rather than just the interest, in accordance with the rules) AND that this mistake was picked up by the civil service in 2006 when the claim was made, and that she then paid the money back promptly. This happened 3 years ago. Its not a story. Its a smear campaign. Numerous other MPs are disputing the Telegraph's stories, whether we ever get the full truth, as with most things regarding parliament, I doubt it.

The culture of expenses was wrong, and the hyprocrisy of MPs saying "oh the system should be changed" whilst at the same time making unethical claims is not lost on me. But my main feeling about this now is that the Telegraph have capitalised on the current anger towards politics in general to sell more papers.

But I will not be voting BNP.

Isn't a large part of this debacle the fact that "what's allowable" has far too lax a definition, and human nature will always tend to push people (and companies and governments) to make the most of what they're legally able to do under those rules? The same with the banking crisis - the vast majority of the banks were working quite within the rules set for them, it's just that those rules weren't explicit enough.

I can see where Trouble is coming from, although I think she's getting a bit too emotional and personal about it, but on the other side, DrTE is also right in saying that the whole barrel is being tarnished for a (relatively) few rotten apples. This is the sort of thing the media love, and it doesn't matter to them if it's a 100 MPs involved or just 10, it makes a good story and the remaining several hundred are tarnished by implication.

But I quite agree, the whole expenses situation does need a thorough overhaul, but we do need to consider that the vast majority of MPs are on a pretty low salary compared to what they could earn in industry and commerce, certainly for the hours and the amount of travelling and genuine expenses they do incur.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

I'm wondering how our politicians haven't suffocated, so deeply have their snouts been buried into the expenses trough - yet, in the same news programme I watched this morning, we hear that our soldiers are dying because of the lack of equipment.

I have a single question - knowing all this, how do our MP's sleep at night? Roll on the General Election; time to get these greedy snouters out and replaced with people who will do more for the people, and not just themselves.

Let's be honest, no one else gets to claim such ridiculous amounts in their daily employment. These people get paid obscene amounts of money to do very little it seems to me.

Let them use their salaries like the rest of us have to, to buy their massage chairs, widescreen tellies, and scatter cushions. They shouldn't get a single PENNY more. Maybe then we will get politicians who are there for the PEOPLE, and not for what THEY can milk of the system THEMSELVES.

It's an indicative of good governance by the MP's concerned to resign until they're cleared of the allege offence, if everybody spend the money they earn reckonable income atleast our community will be peaceful and they should stop implying things to us rather than cleaning themself first, I think this attitude from the british politician by respecting themself should be extended to most european countries anyway, some of them are doggy, is like you dont support me you dont get council house by your surname from politicians is bezire in ireland.

Please bring this ethics to ireland please, and one more thing is that, when they're doing it they should set aside racism and discriminations and treat people with respect from the ''yobo's gate'' in the investigations by all means ?

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

You have to remember also that some of these allegations are being proved to be false. Claire Short for example (a local MP for me), was accused of swindling a mortage payment by the Telegraph. It turned out that she had claimed incorrectly, (on the whole cost rather than just the interest, in accordance with the rules) AND that this mistake was picked up by the civil service in 2006 when the claim was made, and that she then paid the money back promptly. This happened 3 years ago. Its not a story. Its a smear campaign. Numerous other MPs are disputing the Telegraph's stories, whether we ever get the full truth, as with most things regarding parliament, I doubt it.

I wouldn't say they're false, more misrepresented in a very few cases. To be false would mean it hadn't happened at all - which of course it did. Its more misrepresented because she paid the money back as soon as she knew what had happened, but this wasn't reported.

The culture of expenses was wrong, and the hyprocrisy of MPs saying "oh the system should be changed" whilst at the same time making unethical claims is not lost on me. But my main feeling about this now is that the Telegraph have capitalised on the current anger towards politics in general to sell more papers.

Oh it is indeed - the Beckett woman seemed to think it was there to 'top up' their salaries (not that either Campbell or May agreed with her theory). If that's the case the MP's are still in the wrong as surely they should be paying taxes on this unofficial 'bonus' system?

As for the telegraph doing it to sell more papers - well, of course they are; that's their business after all, to sell more of their own papers. It's not some kind of public service as a few seem to want to believe. I'm afraid I'm too cynical to buy that load of baloney.

However, I do think the Telegraph - whatever their motivation - has done a good thing. Yes, it's destroyed the public belief (what little was left anyway) in politicians and politics; but it's also exposed a terrible abuse of a flawed system, that probably would've continued unabated without this exposure.

So whilst I don't think the Telegraph should get a medal for something they did purely to increase their circulation - neither do I think they did a bad thing. In fact I think its very good.

There will be many 'bad' politicians that will not be back after the next General Election, because of this exposure - indeed I'm still not sure that the likes of Morely and Chaytor won't be facing criminal charges; hopefully this will leave the way open for the more 'honest' MP's to come forward and fill the front and middle benches.

All in all I honestly don't think what has happened has been a bad thing - yes, I am VERY angry about it, but I also realise (when I've calmed down) that the ramifications will only be good for the British public. And, after all, THAT'S what is most important - what is good for US.

According to the report, the onus of the argument is that, an MP must report anything that is of a conflict to their secretary, in this statement what have they breached ?

What is a conflict to be reported to a secretary that lead to all these saga ?

Can anybody form a subject matter on this statement because i seems not to be clear on what they have breached by law on allowances, which a judge in criminal law said mr justice O' dalaugh in ''j henly'' about the wording of an offence, indictment summary, upon convictions, in the wording of what brought about this is still not enough to suggest all the noises.

who are you to tell some race or human being that they're old ?

Maybe you need to visit old peoples home and see the elderly people there if i might correct you sir/madam.

Originally Posted by angelcountry

According to the report, the onus of the argument is that, an MP must report anything that is of a conflict to their secretary, in this statement what have they breached ?

What is a conflict to be reported to a secretary that lead to all these saga ?

Can anybody form a subject matter on this statement because i seems not to be clear on what they have breached by law on allowances, which a judge in criminal law said mr justice O' dalaugh in ''j henly'' about the wording of an offence, indictment summary, upon convictions, in the wording of what brought about this is still not enough to suggest all the noises.

who are you to tell some race or human being that they're old ?

Maybe you need to visit old peoples home and see the elderly people there if i might correct you sir/madam.

Okay I am half Irish, my dad hails from Cork - but even so, I still don't have a clue what you're talking about!

Could you clarify your point a little more, preferably into a statement the rest of us can understand as I'm really struggling with comprehending you - and I can't believe I'm alone in that.

I am more than happy to debate with you, but I just need to understand your point a little more.

Commons Leader Harriet Harman has vowed to "end the gentlemen's club approach" to MPs' expenses.

Ms Harman announced plans for consultation on a new independent Parliamentary Standards Authority suggested by Gordon Brown and approved in principle at cross-party talks.

She said the new body would revise and update codes of practice for MPs, investigate complaints about members and implement the recommendations on allowances from the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

She told MPs in a Commons statement it would "end the gentlemen's club approach where we set and enforce our own rules".

Ms Harman added: "There is a consensus across all parties that we need to put the reputation of parliament above reproach - and we will."

She confirmed the new interim measures to tighten the existing allowances system announced on Tuesday by the Speaker would be brought in straight away - including a ban on claims for "furniture, household goods, capital improvements, gardening, cleaning and stamp duty".

No MP will be allowed to change the designation of a second home during 2009-10, in an effort to stamp out the tactic of "flipping" to maximise expenses.

A monthly limit of £1,250 is to be placed on claims for mortgage interest and will also apply to rent and hotel bills.

Tory leader David Cameron earlier renewed his calls for a General Election, saying a vote was necessary to end the "paralysis" in government.

Gordon Brown rejected his calls as the pair clashed at Prime Minister's Questions and said paralysis would be Conservative public service spending cuts which he warned would lead to "chaos".

Source : Harman vows to end expenses 'club' - Yahoo! News UK

Originally Posted by Midas

Commons Leader Harriet Harman has vowed to "end the gentlemen's club approach" to MPs' expenses.

Its not just the 'gentlemen' (and I use that term loosely) that are guilty though is it? As I see it the likes of Blears and her cronies are just as culpable - and they're female unless I'm very much mistaken.

Personally, I'll believe all these promises when I SEE them carried out - all it sounds to me now is a load of crooks, caught with their hands in the till, rushing to find a way out of it with being imprisoned.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

Its not just the 'gentlemen' (and I use that term loosely) that are guilty though is it? As I see it the likes of Blears and her cronies are just as culpable - and they're female unless I'm very much mistaken.

Personally, I'll believe all these promises when I SEE them carried out - all it sounds to me now is a load of crooks, caught with their hands in the till, rushing to find a way out of it with being imprisoned.

I absolutely agree with you, but I think this boils down to two main things; human nature and poor pay and conditions.

In respect of the first, it's in human nature to take advantage of anything which comes our way which is either not illegal (or not overtly so) or is not specifically prohibited by rules which might have a direct adverse effect on our position. Politicians are exactly the same as everyone else in this respect, and if the system in place for expenses gives them leeway to claim for X, Y and Z, they'll damn well claim for them! The answer's simple; change the rules as is hopefully being done, but as you say, we'll see!

In respect of poor pay and conditions, I know several people disagree with me on this, but if MPs were paid a decent salary for both the time they spend and the responsibility they have, and they were provided with the equivalent secretarial and administrative services that someone of a similar level in commerce might expect, the majority of the expenses issues would go away.

Originally Posted by Midas

In respect of poor pay and conditions, I know several people disagree with me on this, but if MPs were paid a decent salary for both the time they spend and the responsibility they have, and they were provided with the equivalent secretarial and administrative services that someone of a similar level in commerce might expect, the majority of the expenses issues would go away.

I have to disagree - with their outside interests and their salaries as MP's they're getting paid more than enough for what they do. The expenses fiasco are just greedy people showing that greed.

The only reason they're all rushing to apologise now is because they've been caught - if they hadn't been, they wouldn't and the whole sorry affair would've rumbled ever onwards.

There's also a difference between cheekily claiming for the odd meal on your expenses as opposed to claiming for the moat in your back garden, your massager chair or even a floating DUCK house.

The claims rules states that you can claim for things that aid your work as an MP - I don't see where any of those do that? Is a working moat absolutely necessary to being an MP? Does a massager chair suddenly make you more able to attend parliament?

Does a floating duck house on your pond ensure you can go to work at parliament with a sure and certain knowledge of all the ways to help run the country efficiently?

Does claiming for a mortgage that has been paid off, paying you over fifteen THOUSAND pounds, make you more able to represent your constituents?

I very much doubt it on all counts. The only difference between this lot and fraudsters is the fraudsters get jailed. This lot will walk away, as the speaker has done, with a nice little nest egg of a pension (and in his case even a bloody peerage!)

(I have to say though that the moat might come in handy now!)

Originally Posted by Trouble43

I have to disagree - with their outside interests and their salaries as MP's they're getting paid more than enough for what they do. The expenses fiasco are just greedy people showing that greed.

The only reason they're all rushing to apologise now is because they've been caught - if they hadn't been, they wouldn't and the whole sorry affair would've rumbled ever onwards.

There's also a difference between cheekily claiming for the odd meal on your expenses and the moat in your back garden or your massager chair or even a floating DUCK house.

The claims rules states that you can claim for things that aid your work as an MP - I don't see where either of those do that? Is a working moat absolutely necessary to being an MP? Does a massager chair suddenly make you more able to attend parliament?

Does a floating duck house on your pond ensure you can go to work at parliament with a sure and certain knowledge of all the ways to help run the country efficiently?

Does claiming for a mortgage that has been paid off, paying you over fifteen THOUSAND pounds, make you more able to represent your constituents?

I very much doubt it on all counts. The only difference between this lot and fraudsters is the fraudsters get jailed. This lot will walk away, as the speaker has done, with a nice little nest egg of a pension (and in his case even a bloody peerage!)

(I have to say though that the moat might come in handy now!)

In essence I'm not disagreeing with you at all, however I suspect you might have missed a few posts on this subject during the last week or so.

One of the conditions that I'd impose on MPs having a commercial equivalent employment package is that they don't have any external fee-paying positions, in particular directorships or partnerships with companies or organisations which might benefit from privileged information (the only thing I'd exclude here are small family run businesses and even then with certain conditions). I'd also insist that MPs had to meet exactly the same type of recruitment criteria that their commercial equivalents have to, which I'm sure you know all about from your HR experience. Only by combining those with good modern working conditions, full supporting secretarial and administration services, and very strict limitations on what expenses are allowable and what aren't - they must be directly related to the job and that only - will we get people of the quality and calibre that this country deserves.

As far as what's been going on with expenses to date, I totally agree much of it is illegal and none of it has anything to do with being a better politician. As I said, it's all down to human nature and the tendency we all have (some less than others I'd better say!) of getting away with whatever we can once in a position of power. If it was up to me I'd sack every MP who had flouted the rules, no second chances, and let them face whatever legal consequences there might be for their actions.

Originally Posted by Midas

In essence I'm not disagreeing with you at all, however I suspect you might have missed a few posts on this subject during the last week or so.

One of the conditions that I'd impose on MPs having a commercial equivalent employment package is that they don't have any external fee-paying positions, in particular directorships or partnerships with companies or organisations which might benefit from privileged information (the only thing I'd exclude here are small family run businesses and even then with certain conditions). I'd also insist that MPs had to meet exactly the same type of recruitment criteria that their commercial equivalents have to, which I'm sure you know all about from your HR experience. Only by combining those with good modern working conditions, full supporting secretarial and administration services, and very strict limitations on what expenses are allowable and what aren't - they must be directly related to the job and that only - will we get people of the quality and calibre that this country deserves.

As far as what's been going on with expenses to date, I totally agree much of it is illegal and none of it has anything to do with being a better politician. As I said, it's all down to human nature and the tendency we all have (some less than others I'd better say!) of getting away with whatever we can once in a position of power. If it was up to me I'd sack every MP who had flouted the rules, no second chances, and let them face whatever legal consequences there might be for their actions.

Sounds good, but would never happen. That's the trouble and the public are so angry now that if you said "we should pay the MP's £100,000 a year and that's it." all that would be heard by the people would be "£100,000" and the next thing you would know is you're asking St. Peter "how the hell did I get here?"

Right now the tide is so far against the politicians I'm surprised they're even able to keep swimming. A few have drowned admittedly, but on the whole the rest are still doggy paddling away. Though Blears' smile has become a lot more forced I've notice.

It seems to me that most people I talk to (well, alright most patients spoke to, so they're going to be grumpy anyway) - want the the MPs in a barracks style apartment block over the road from Parliament. Sparse and utilitarianly furnished; basic pay and food not much better than bread and water or gruel in parliament. No restaurants, bars etc.....

VERY angry people who feel impotent about bein able to do anything about it. To be honest some people were so angry I found it quite scary. Honestly, I mean I'm annoyed - but not to that point.

It does truly worry me what this has all done to democracy. Damaged it obviously - but by how much? Anger, resentment and disbelief do not go well with people voting. SO therefore the...not extreme....but the...sort of outer limit parties will do better, if only be default. Not a problem with the green party, even the monster raving loonies.....but what of extreme ones like the BNP? VERY worrying. It bothers me a lot Midas.

Originally Posted by Trouble43

Sounds good, but would never happen.

I agree that it'll probably never happen, certainly not in the foreseeable future.

It does truly worry me what this has all done to democracy. Damaged it obviously - but by how much? Anger, resentment and disbelief do not go well with people voting. SO therefore the...not extreme....but the...sort of outer limit parties will do better, if only be default. Not a problem with the green party, even the monster raving loonies.....but what of extreme ones like the BNP? VERY worrying. It bothers me a lot Midas.

It bother me a lot too, but what's even more worrying in a way is the fact that British people seem to be so reluctant to challenge authority and have such short political memories. I'd bet a substantial sum that after a while all this will go away as some new crisis is manufactured to take our minds off MPs and their expenses - probably over the summer recess.