...gone

Not exactly gone then. He's still hanging on until the election. No doubt to continue feeding at the trough for as long as he can.

There you are Nick - as the sun sets on the same day the news broke, David Cameron has got it sorted. What a Leader - what a contrast to Brown.

The next Parliament should be very interesting - how many new, first time MPs will we have?

On the other hand probably a lot more boring - I suspect that 99.9% of the new MPs will be professional politicians who don't know what real work is.

overclaiming expenses should be classed as theft of public funds and should have a serious charge attached to help stop those foolish enough to think they can abuse the post they were elected to.
banning from public office should be a must and their crimes widely reported to shame them.
even if they repay any overpayment if the overpayment could have been avoided then they should also pay interest on the ammount.

1 day - MP gone - WELL DONE Tories - now what has happened to that awful ex Home Secretary Smith - how much did she manage - £116,000 - still, she apologised and thats OK by Nu Labour standards.

Maybe the Chief Whip showed him what the Green Book says...?

I'm not a great fan of Cameron but he does seem to be showing a tad more leadership on this than Brown and Clegg, or at least to be acting more decisively (not necessarily the same thing, of course).

When are the Labour whips going to have a little chat with Jacqui Smith, and hand her the metaphorical pear-handled revolver?

If the average bloke in the street robs his local bank, then repays all the money the following week, he'll still go to jail. Presumably MP's wouldn't - why is that ? Caledonian Comment

Half the number of MPs, give the rest a 50% salary increase, and add genuine penalties for future abuses (eg. immediate by-election and reduction in pensions). Like most businesses, getting rid of job squatters increases productivity. Less is more.

"long line of opportunities for those hungry to enter the Commons (yes, really, there are some)."

I assume it is not the same as genuinely eager to serve Queen, country and people. Perhaps it is eager for networking and doing-the-right-thing-for-the-right-people in exchange for post-political rewards???

*4 delminster

Absolutely right.
Before the next Parliament, new laws must be in place making politicians equally answerable in law to those they claim to serve. Let's have a proper set of legally enforcable rules for expenses.

Nick

Have any MP's decalired or paid Tax on their aditional second homes allounaces amounts that were not nesasuarry inclued as their role as an MP ie duck houses, damp profing then husbands house, mock tudar beams etc

6. At 8:21pm on 15 Oct 2009, badgercourage wrote:

When are the Labour whips going to have a little chat with Jacqui Smith, and hand her the metaphorical pear-handled revolver?
**************

They're more likely to hand her an ermine cloak, a la Gorbals Mick.

Good riddance! Sleazers out!

What about Gordon Brown - 12K trough fest on gardening and his mortgage arrangements 'hushed up' - Why doesn't he resign too!

They just don't get it!

I know this is off topic and deliberately so but why

are the same old banks

paying out the same old bonuses

to the same old people

who were most responsible for this financial crisis

and yet are still ignored by the same old government

and the same old regulators who continue to look away?

What exactly has changed since the G20 met in London and Philadelphia?

Absolutely nothing!

What we need are actions, not words. Gordon? Dave? Anyone?

What about AD's and GB's rhetoric which suggested that they had called time on big bank bonuses and that the government and regulator would come down on them like a ton of bricks?

Absolutely nothing!

I may be a Tory but that doesn't stop me from wanting a windfall tax to repay the kind and generous tax payers who bailed them out from certain bankruptcy.

Back on topic.....

Well done DW, you did the right thing; not by setting up a bogus company but by falling (or being pushed) onto your sword.

May the members of this parliament, of all shades, be remembered for one thing.
By bringing the Mother of Parliaments into such disrepute by their venal, mendacious, squalid behaviour, they have allowed neo-fascists a voice and a constituency in mainstream British politics.
May we all learn from this.

"1. At 8:03pm on 15 Oct 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
Not exactly gone then. He's still hanging on until the election. No doubt to continue feeding at the trough for as long as he can."

Of course like all MPs that havent done the honourable thing, he will get at least 30k loss of seat allounces and the inflated pension for surving till then end of a parlimnet. IF the like all the other honerable members caught with their noses in the trough or members who failed to declair their ecpenses that were not nessusarly required for their role as MPs ACTUALU resignend then tax payer would save millions.

Gone and goodbye forever!
Never to be seen in The Commons chamber,along with most of
the other till-dippers,who are waiting for their multi £
payoff in May ! Spotted Andrew McKay in the Defence debate !

Remember Cameron,red-faced,protesting,wanting to be seen to be
macho tough,setting up a special to vet Tory expenses !!!

Cameron et al, MISSED ALL THE BIG FIDDLES.

What's the Central Office spin ???
Maybe the answer will be on Question Time !!!

"12. At 8:47pm on 15 Oct 2009, nautonier wrote:
Good riddance! Sleazers out!

What about Gordon Brown - 12K trough fest on gardening and his mortgage arrangements 'hushed up' - Why doesn't he resign too!

They just don't get it!"

Just ask your self why the Tax Payer should pay for a new kitchen and cleaning for a flat that an MP has transfered the owner ship to is wife such that the tax athorities, probate athorities will exclude it from aly claims he rases? And she magaged to get a wholw of life mortage above the value of the property?

So he's gone, but Cameron doesn't want to talk about it, sets up a press conferance, then cancels it, what does he know that we dont?

It really doesn't matter, he is a party leader and should be leading, not hiding. Imagine the headlines and what the media would be saying if this was GB! The silence from the media on this, instead of the frenzy this would provoke if it was GB simply proves once again that the media are really running the country, they (with a little help from GB) effectivaly raised a coup against Tony Blair, now they are doing it again by selective reporting. So be honest nick, if this was a Labour MP and Gordon was cancelling news conferances, what would you be saying? a lot more than a few meaningless lines i bet!

These MPs still do not understand the public anger. Take Gordon Brown for example (any offers?). He has lived in Downing Street, since 1997. He still claimed for a flat in London as his 'main' home.

On moving into No.10., he then 'flipped' to his constituency home in Scotland. (details on Politics Show 13th October).

We still have the disgraceful story of Jacqui Smith. A begrudged "apology", courtesy of all Labour members of a committee. She gained the sum of £116,000-00, on the pretext that her sister's spare room was her main home.

She allegedly stated that she spent more time there, than in her constituency home but this did not accord with Protection Police log-books. We have to rely on what informtion we are given and then come to a conclusion.

I have no time for the SURREY Tory MP , who will not stand at the next election. I await the result of the outstanding enquiry into his dealings.

And what of the £100,000?

Nick,
when is Brown going to have a word in Jaqui Smiths ear?

Excellent! Clearly a dodgy MP. And no messing about!

So, here is another one who played by the rules ,so thats ok. What about the 'flippers' who have had their mortgages paid by us and profited to the tune of hundreds of thousends and there has so far been no mention of how that is to be redressed. The cleaning and gardening bills are small potatoes when you look at how much MPs have lined their pockets by buying property and flipping a lot of times in one of the fastest property asset growth periods. I don't care what the rules say, it is immoral, and nobody, except Clegg, wants to mention it and nail those involved. These people are dispicable.

#14 jwilkesnotbooth wrote:

May the members of this parliament, of all shades, be remembered for one thing.

By bringing the Mother of Parliaments into such disrepute by their venal, mendacious, squalid behaviour, they have allowed neo-fascists a voice and a constituency in mainstream British politics.

May we all learn from this.

==========

If you are talking about the BNP and the truth be known, this lot of so called 'neo-fascists' are actually far closer to the left of left wing than they are to the right.

In the European Parliament, they got around the circular seating problem which separated the leftest party and the BNP by a cigarette paper; they put both parties at the beginning and the end of the spectrum as if they were sitting at either end.

However if you join both ends to make a circle as they do in Europe, the obnoxious two sit next to each other in yet another bit of Euro jiggery pokery.

Don't get me wrong. I am a Tory who wants the UK to be part of Europe, but let's tell it as it is, not what we look it to be.

And Wilko, it's not just the right; both ends of the political spectrum are growing unhealthily stronger which is why our MPs and political class have got to stop thinking of themselves but instead start serving the population.

Quite right you are Nick. This idiot of an MP has done nothing wrong, - - - but hey,---he quits! What a hypocrite!

Why does he not resign now and let us have a by-election?

One anticipates to be hearing a lot from certain multi millionaires who are milking our taxes to pay for their interests on their massive loans to buy mansions.

One wonders who this next idiot is going to be!

Any idea who Nick?

Good night Nick.

Is there really no way that this present Parliament can be terminated?
Is there not some obscure emergency law that can be brought to bear to put everyone out of their misery.
Is there no external constitutional body that can call a halt to proceedings.
There is no-one in the House that is honest or honourable enough to do it.
Are we expected to go for another seven months with incompetent Government and a whole house of MPs whose major priority is how to hang on to what they've got and how to get as much more out of the system as they can before being kicked out.
The public deserves better!

There is a suggestion that if there is an early election, that the MPs will be given a 'Get out of Gaol' card and not be chased up for the cash.

It would appear that there is going to be an election before Christmas. The Defence utter debacle (WW1 shell crisis). Eddie Mair was in great form on PM interviewing Lord Raston (? apologies) as he was blaming the system. Even though he had been in charge for 4 years.

Secondly, the paralysation of Parliament with the expenses handle. We could see a genuine backbencher revolt, but for the wrong reasons to save their skins.

Hmmm. Wonder if Gordon's health is going to stand the strain?

So OK today some hapless old Tory Grandee fell on his sword. It is nonetheless very much a Labour Party scandal. I had to laugh though, all sorts of high jinks going on left, right and centre, and the civil servant Brown picks focuses only on a single liberty of which Gordon was the chief taker!Priceless!

Only in the Cloud Cuckoo Land that is this Fraudsters' Parliament would the activities of this... yes another one... MP, NOT SOUND FRAUDULENT!
I have written to the Metropolitan Police, as a taxpaying citizen voter making an official complaint about two earlier examples of senior MPs trousering public funds. Please feel free to cut, edit and use if you want to;

Subject: Alleged misappropriation of public funds by an MP (Insert name of MP there are hundreds to choose from!!!! )

Dear Sir,
As a tax paying UK citizen, I am writing to make a formal complaint and demand that a formal police investigation into the recent allegations of alleged fraudulent claims paid out of public funds by the above MP be initiated.

Please consider this to be a formal complaint by a UK citizen reporting an alleged crime.

I would suggest that the Fraud Act 2006 which came into force on January 1st 2007 be used. The following text from the Act may cover the situation;

1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The sections are-

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he-

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation-
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if-

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of-

(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

The explanatory notes accompanying the Act include the following text;

Section 2: Fraud by false representation
10. Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.

The many and various attempts by MPs to change, obscure, conceal and ignore attempts to 'flush out ' these practices must be held as evidence that those concerned were aware that there actions were dishonest and that their behaviour would be regarded by dishonest by reasonable and honest people.

I note that this case fulfills at least two of the common public interest factors contained in Section 5.9 of the current Prosecution Manual namely:-
5.9
a a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;e the defendant was in a position of trust;
o there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by a history of recurring conduct;
Yours faithfully,

The details of MP's expenses will continue to come out... but the response from some MPs has been extraordinary. One sitting said on Radio 5Live recently that he was claiming for - amongst other items - a shaver. And he genuinely seemed peeved that he had to pay that back...

Either some of them still don't get it - ie, that they still don't understand that expenses should be 'absolutely' necessary for them to do their jobs representing their constituencies... or, that repayment for such unnecessary items is somehow a sleight on their character and therefore must be countered...

I must say, that MP's constant barracking of Clegg (and I'm not a Lib-Dem supporter) during PMQs (this time apparently after saying that the enquiry should be widened) is something of a disgrace, but it is a further indication of the stance that many MPs are taking on this... and all this with many of the people of the country in dire straits financially, and unemployment at 2.5m and still rising...

Pigs. Trough. Snout. Out!

Next....................

No 28: "It is nonetheless very much a Labour Party scandal."
You are saying this on the day a TORY MP has resigned for taking over £100k.
You don't get it, do you?!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

25 olnywayup:

You can bet the next MP to step down will not be a Labour one. Simply because it means they either stand down themselves (and they NEVER do this) or Brown would have to have sacked them (and he's not going to do that, despite what his fabled Moral Compass might be telling him)

18 laughingdevil:

Huh? Do my eyes deceive me? An obvious Labour supporter having the bare-faced cheek to accuse Cameron of hiding and not answering questions?

I could give you a list of all the topics that Gordon Brown has kept quiet on rather than answer any questions, but I'd run out of space to post.

I'm sure we all get that Gordon's byline is "better to keep quiet and have people think you're a {insert Jeremy Clarkson's phrase here} than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". But to have a Nu Labour apologist say that about Cameron strikes me as being a little hypocritical.

Will these people ever get the message, I wonder?

#32

I guess what "downwiththerest" means is that we have a labour government,
(albeit one who are doing their damnest to ruin this country)and a self
nominated Labour P.M.

As for the Tory M.P.who is "reluctantly" going to stand down,good riddance.Fair play to Cameron for that.

Now,whens Gordon going to do likewise with Jackie Smith?

Willy:

"Simply because it means they either stand down themselves (and they NEVER do this)."

Are you certain about your facts here or do you need to do MOREly research, old CHAPman?

No messing about, Cameron acted quickly.
Why do Jacqui Smith, Tony McNulty et al getting appear to be getting away with it though. What is Brown doing?
The only way to clear this mess up is to have an election now!

so ... Cameron throws another of his people to the wolves

a bit rich when you bear in mind his own Home Loan shenanigans, isn't it?

no moral authority

(which is a great pity because he has qualities)

I do wonder if Brown has resigned to losing the next election, marginal seats like Jaqui Smiths in Redditch Labour need to win but they have no chance with her still standing, or is he hoping she is going to do the honourable thing and stand down.

Mr Wilshire was my MP, although I am a not a Tory voter I admired his support for the expansion of Heathrow where many of his electorate work. I fear that the expenses saga has turned into a witch hunt of those MP's who do not follow the Cameron line.

"David Wilshire, the Tory MP facing expenses allegations, has announced that he will not fight the next election. His decision follows what are being described as a series of "lengthy conversations" with the Conservative chief whip."

------------------------------------------

Whatever you may think of this mans previous actions and he obviously isn't the only mp talking the mick, at least he did the right thing for his party, and the reputation of the house in general.

Cameron seems to be somewhat less of a ditherer than that coward brown doesn't he?

I wonder what a labour mp has to do for Brown to get his moral compass out of his pocket and take action.

The MPs still don't get it. Still less do the party leaders. Sacrificing one or more of their 'pals' will not solve the problem, indeed each one may be magnifying the problem!

The people want MPs to pass legislation that REDUCES inequality in the whole Nation - not just in Westminster. I think the people may never again accept these 'jobs for the boys' parties who legislate for the benefit of the friends and claim that they are doing it for the benefit of the Nation - what rot!

Quite obviously the poor have been robbed to finance the rich bankers and it is outrageous and will remain outrageous until the situation is redressed.....

(Firing MPs is not a substitute for dramatically curtailing inequality in the whole Nation. You could fire all 650 odd and the problem would remain!)

Eminating from the scourge of the expenses scandal comes the purge of the MP's.

Good name for Cantata or Oratorio that "The Purge of the MPs".

I reiterate, as a woman, I find this all a bit alarming and frightening (nervous disposition I have). I cannot help but notice that those who are most enraged, phoning in radio stations to splutter out their anger etc., are men.

I have concluded that men are intensely jealous. Far more so than women actually. Insecure. They are incensed if another man makes money, especially if audaciously right under their noses.

It highlight the inability of this stinky government who could not organise a ... up in a brewery. Despite the best brains and expertise available to them they cannot bring about a satisfactory resolution to the problem.

I cannot help but think the MD or Chief Exec. of a highly successful business such as Virgin or Tesco with legal back up could have done it without this fuss.

Government is too cloistered. Too out of touch. Too incompetent for this enigma - or anything.

39. At 10:18pm on 15 Oct 2009, telecasterdave wrote:

...Why do Jacqui Smith, Tony McNulty et al getting appear to be getting away with it though. What is Brown doing?
***************
Exactly - what is he doing?


no moral authority

(Which is not a pity as he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever)

So, David Wilshire is clear he was well within Parliamentary rules in
his huge allowances claims; I note one political web-site examining his voting record states, "Has never voted on laws to stop climate change". Presumably that includes NOT changing the climate of corruption and
sleaze which were the hallmarks of the latter days of the last
Conservative administration ten years after he arrived in the house...

#40

"Camerons Home Loan shenanigans"? You mean like Jackie Smiths,Tony McNultys,Balls/Coopers et al?

You really are getting more than a teensy bit obsessed with Cameron,I think deep down,really deep you like him!

32. At 9:43pm on 15 Oct 2009, Iwilltellyouthis wrote:
No 28: "It is nonetheless very much a Labour Party scandal."
You are saying this on the day a TORY MP has resigned for taking over £100k.
You don't get it, do you?!

--------------------------

You're right it isn't a labour party scandal - they were all at it.

Unfortunately what stands out a mile is that the conservatives and labour are handling this issue very differently.

Cameron is taking action unlike gordon who hasn't the guts to actually force any of his mps to do anything, and considering that Labour is the party of fairness, its somewhat ironic that none of them have the integrity to do anything other than cling to their ill-gotten gains and hope this all blows over.

45. At 10:26pm on 15 Oct 2009, flamepatricia wrote:
Eminating from the scourge of the expenses scandal comes the purge of the MP's.

Good name for Cantata or Oratorio that "The Purge of the MPs"....
**********************

I was thinking more on the lines of a Swansong 8-)

I appreciate the Wiltshire case looks bad but is any wrong doing proven?

Politically Cameron has done the right thing for the Tories, he is appearing decisive however I would like to be certain that expediency has not trod roughshod over natural justice. Even a hardened criminal has his day in court.

Says it all really, Wilshire rightly kicked out, Smith up for a peerage.
How much more grotesque can Zanulabour become?

Its a bit rich (sorry) saying Cameron has taken the moral high ground when with £30M in assets he claims for a second mortgage on a house he could have bought outright.

I will believe he is truly better than Labour when he pays back all his second mortgage payments. Until then he's just another grubby Politician looking forward to a few years in power, being treated like Royalty, grabbing every perk he can and then getting half a dozen non-executive directorships from his mates in the CBI.

Same as the old boss.

40 saggyminx:

Detail one thing that DC has done that's against the rules, either now or in the past, to back up your 'home loan shennanegins' comment.

Nope? Thought not.

Nice try, but wrong.

40 sagamix

There you go again (yawn!).

If there was something in your Cameron mortgage story, someone respectable, somewhere in the massive media industry, would have picked up on it. But they haven't. So there isn't.

It's a total canard (my word of the day!).

There are a lot of posts saying things along the lines of ' they must legislate against this sort of thing etc.' . Just who is going to do the legislating - why those who have trousered what they can from using their positions as legislators!! . It's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas - or just asking turkeys to vote.

Time to stop the witch hunt, even Harriet Harman can at last see the damage this is doing.

57. At 11:14pm on 15 Oct 2009, ChrisCornwall wrote:
Time to stop the witch hunt, even Harriet Harman can at last see the damage this is doing.
*******************

Let them get away with it in other words. Yeah Right!

Another one bites the dust!!!
Stop the witch hunt from Harriet Harman !
Over the years,she has added to the mess.

Get the police in,charge a few till-dippers,
with theft,deceit etc and the remaining
200 to 300 dishonourable will be filling
the coffers !

That will stop the witch hunt.

Make Wilshire repay £100k.
If Jacqui Smith repay £116k and then she can go to the Lords.
But that would be CASH FOR HONOURS !!!

MP's have enjoyed these expenses for years. Telegraph only published them when they did not only to cause maximum havoc to a weak timid Labour government but mainly because it knew the public in recession would simply compare their own financial wellbeing and expense claims etc with the MP's rather than appreciating that the whole issue obscures far more fundamental defects of the system. Similar to the bankers bonuses such extravagent allowances have all been a bribe to ensure that no mainstream party rocks the boat or challenges the role of the markets!

This Wiltshire chap's claims and how he fed them into his company is the most poignant example of how the House of Commons is merely a mouthpiece of big business not a representative mouthpiece of society as a whole!

Still the same witless arguments back and forth: Tory this, Labour that, Tory this, Labour that. When will the electorate of this country realise Westminster is corrupt and rotten to the core? Neither of these parties care a fig for our people. We are oppressed, taxed to oblivion, voiceless and swamped with unwanted ethnic imports. Our national identity is being deliberately erased to make way for the Superstate in which we will all be serfs.

Unless a new way is found, I feel we may be sliding towards eventual civil war.

@ 48

I think deep down you like him!

like Cameron? ... yep, no secrets on here ... I do

which is why I'd have preferred it if he'd retained at least a vestige of the Moral Authority which a Prime Minister in waiting needs in order to be credible

Is it ludicrous how MP's are portrayed as "victims" of the expenses scandal, I think it most certainly is.
I imagine there are some MP's who have little or nothing to worry about. Well done to them although my hat won't be coming off.
As for the likes of David Wilshire who have obviously used the expenses system for profit and personal gain, words like, victim, angry, dissatisfied, annoyed ect ect are not word they are "entitled too"

Only the taxpayer has that privilege right now..

#55 what our massive media industry of overwhelmingly Tory supporting newspapers and their owners television stations, plus The Guardian (which did break the story) and the politically neutral (despite the tory central office guff you read in the comments here) BBC?

jrp @ 55

it's a total canard

I think you'd be surprised, JR, if you knew how much damage this "Canard" has done and is doing and will do to Conservative prospects for 2010

oh, and how come a retrospective cap for trivial things like gardening but no action on mortgages?

bit odd, don't you think? ... seems to let certain people off the hook

29 johnlbell

My local postmaster recently got sent down for 3 months for borrowing eight and a half thousand pounds from the post office to bolster the general store that the post office was within.Wrong but understandable. If the store failed ,no post office. He was in the middle of selling the business.

He never had any intention of keeping the money and repaid it in full but was prosecuted for fraud by misrepresentation, not theft.

Like yourself I am incensed that MPs appear to be getting off scot free.

Interesting to hear Alan Johnson on Question Time tonight saying that at least three MPs are the subject of police investigations.
Was he speaking out of turn, or is this a carefully planted tactic to make us think something is actually being done?

A lot of short sighted comments here. Yes I am angry that this happened but what do you think wastes more money. The expenses scandal or bureaucracy. If the MPs have to tell someone everytime the spend how much time do they spend working. Similarly if a Policeman has to fill in forms how much does policing does he do ??

Its off the point but at the end of the day it's small change when we could be talking about real ways of saving money. (EH hem, Trident) Either way the damage it has done to British politics is immeasurable. The future holds a third horse ...

#43
"I wonder what a labour mp has to do for Brown to get his moral compass out of his pocket and take action."

I think that maybe because he has his moral compass in his pocket, Brown can't find pocket without the moral compass in his hand...

Cameron is displaying his leadership qualiities by using this scandal to ruthlessly eliminate the old guard. Brown ... well, let's move on, why waste time on Labour's response ? The important thing is that the Conservatives get the mandate they need to do what is necessary.

Roll on the election !

#70secret

Think about it? Cameron asked his MP's to be honest(about expenses) way back in july, he simply didn't want to have this type of dealing in the run up to a general election.

What it also proves is young Cameron doesn't have control over his party.

JRP, wouldn't even argue that point!. (fairly- ruthless might?.)

Mr Wilshire insists that he's done nothing wrong and will fight to clear his name... and so on and so forth.

Any word about Chancellor Darling's flipping, then, Nick?

Any concern that a report revealing the extent of the waste in the MoD procurement processes could be a significant story?

I have no idea who thought that the HoC had any "rules" that any company would recognise.

An MP goes? So what? Happens every 5 years. Ministers being implicated in this stuff is just a disgrace. (Sorry, seems that the Head Honcho is in the pack. You know - the guy who said he would be tough and forced through a completely useless bit of legislation before the guy HE appointed could come up with a different approach.) Makes you weep.

#29, johnlbell wrote:

John,

I think you are right. If a soccer, golf or knitting club, or any other association created rules that are so far away from "conformity" with the normal legal processes, they would be taken to pieces in the courts.

I still have no idea how MPs were allowed to simply "flip" the primary or secondary designation of their homes, without incurring the wrath of the HMRC people.

I still can't work out how Balls and Cooper live in a "second" home - therefore "expenses" attracting - in London. They both work in London. (Fairly well paid.) Their children go to school in London. Far as I can tell, the school terms would mean they would have to be in London for the majority of a year. But we help them to buy a London house?
When both worked in London, where did they choose to have a house? You know, Cooper as an MP (previously a journalist) and hubby as a SpAD?

Or do they take it in turns to go back to the "real" home in Yorkshire, so both can claim they spent more time there than in their "true" home in London?

If - maybe when - they lose Ministerial roles, does anybody really believe that either would go north to seek re-employment or re-establish themselves in their "nominated home"?

I'd be amazed.

Forget the previous Home Secretary. I try to. Just too embarassing to contemplate that the best the UK can offer was Smith - and now Johnson.

Where have all the good, socially involved brains gone?

This is the way it's going to be. Honesty, integrity and honour are back in fashion big time.

Best get used to it.

David Cameron RULES OK!

It is even more important that those Tory MPs who voted against us having a referendum on the treaty to establish a Greater European Reich should resign or be deselected.

Until that happens, "Dave" is just a useless, mouthy scrimshanker.

Nick:

That's sad news, but, he is making his own decision after considerations...

~Dennis Junior~

#peterbuss

I assume you are writing tongue in cheek. David Cameron did nothing, it was the Tory Chief Whip (who himself is waiting to hear how much he is likely to have to repay after submitting further information) who fixed it for him. DC was all over the place yesterday, calling the media in for a statement, then keeping them hanging around for hours, then dismissing them. As DC,too, supported Section 28, he probably did not want to get too close to this one. What a leader? What a nasty, bigoted chameleon more like. When did he have his Damascean moment? When his PR instincts told him right thinking people were not interested in bashing people because of their sexual orientation, not because his views had changed. Once a nasty party, always a nasty party, from the top down.

Morning nick and fellow script-ors So the man has shown a bit of courage that in its self is recommendable Its a great pity a few more don't follow suit i/e my old favorite baroness Scotland and uddhi will do for starters
Secondly i notice on my msn front page a headline We are cracking down on benefit fraud so just because you've moved abroad don't think you can get away with it .
What hypocrites.
If they are going to start sorting out the scroungers what about starting at no 10 downing street,? Then traveling over to the house of lords And chatting to the above for starters?

Followed quickly by a few moat and mock-beam members etc etc.
The list is endless so when will we see a few more coming forward thats the question? Morning all. Olden.

This entry is not about David Cameron's morally questionable behaviour in being the largest claimer for additional housing costs when he does not have a mortgage on his London house.

There are two ways for a spiv to make serious money in Parliament.

1 taking out a massive mortgage preferably interest only which you then sell on or flip.

2 taking on other jobs - basically this is just pawning/porning your contacts in parliament, when you should be working for your constituents/ country.

What needs to happen now is a ban on all 2nd jobs / directorships / owning of businesses. They are supposed to be working for us not feathering their own nests.

Once more i notice that the truth is hard to bare mods?

I wrote the day after the Political Party conferences ended that not 1 of the 3 main Party Leaders had had the decency to even refer by way of apology in their conference speeches to 'error' or 'mistakes' in the Expenses scandal - - not only of their MPs but of themselves - - and it would seem that is because none of them are genuinely sorry.

Months ago I wrote that at least 500 of the 650 MPs should be considering resigning and that many of those should be presecuted: Nothing has altered my view of that situation.

Whether claiming for a bag of compost, a plasma television, a tree-pruning handyman, a relative as an assistant who plainly was not, the 'flipping' of houses for Tax avoidance/claims etc. any MP who inadvertently or deliberately misused or made inappropriate use of Public Funds (Taxation) should be gone from the Palace of Westminster. Those at the very steepest end of frauds should be charged, tried and where guilty they should be imprisoned. Indeed those who can be shown to have conned the system over minor amounts should be up before Magistrates who can impose a max 6 months sentence or make orders for appropriate restitution to the Exchequer irrespective of any 'claw-back' demand by Clegg's enquiry.

Those MPs found to have broken the law or to have circumvented Regulations are unfit for Public Office and should not be allowed to stand again: Amongst those I include Speaker Bercow (IMO one of the worst Expenses offenders) whose election as replacement for Martin in my view revealed the duplicitous and generally unrepentant nature of the 650 MPs.

To my mind this is not a Party Poltical issue and the posturing of Brown-Cameron-Clegg is frankly nauseating as certainly all 3 had been Leaders whilst this knavish, venal behaviour was being perpetrated by MPs from across the House. The 3, at the very least, should issue a joint declaration that all 3 Parties are guilty of gross misconduct with Public Funds.

As for the 'Reform of Parliament': It is quite clear that absolutely nothing has changed for the better since this whole debacle began.
Mr Robinson, some months ago you wrote about "..historic changes.." and "..Parliament never the same.." with the ".. Commons facing upto a new accountability.."

Hyperbolic stuff and nonsense!

The 650 MPs with very few exception are exactly the same this sitting as all those months ago, the responsiveness of MPs to Public calls for change is as deaf as it ever was, and the very idea of root and branch REFORM of the Democratic (I use the word under advisement) institution at the heart of the UK's Governance has not and is not to happen.

Brown-Cameron-Clegg-Bercow are guilty of perpetrating an imagery fraud upon the British Public: Frankly, if I could have my way, those 3 would be out too on their exorbitantly Pensioned rears as of this moment. The present Parliament is unrepresentative of the Public at a Political and Standards level: I am not a supporter of NuLab, however, what is almost as irksome as the MPs corruption is that the Conservatives will gain many seats at the next General Election due to Public misconception that it is all the fault of Government. In reality all 3 main Political Parties were and are equally involved in the deliberate misappropriation of Public Funds and have absolutely no intention of seriously addressing the issue in order for it not to occur again (in Commons or Lords).

As has been said, "A plague on all their Houses": Would that the British Public could be so lucky although we need not look any further for the origins of 'swine-flu'.

It IS essentially a Labour scandal. ALL high profile MPs and Peers focused upon by the BBC have been senior figures within the party and lesser miscreants like Margaret Moran. The party leader no less has been asked to pay a whopping 12 grand!... only trifling figures have been returned from other leaders- ones we could put down to accounting errors.

David Cameron has stolen a march on Brown on discipline because he can say "I am clean" "all my key guys are clean" so if one or two Torys are found to have their fingers in the till he can banish them forever, safe in the knowledge that no one can cry "hypocricy!"

Brown has his hands tied. If Jacqui Smith, or Cooper/Balls or Darling were made examples of, wouldn't Brown too have to fall on his own sword?

The scandal has left the Conservatives looking pretty clean!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick

As others have mentioned, Jacqui Smith sems to have got off free.

I have yet to see you comment on the curious discrepency between how long Smith said she spent at her sister's and how long the police protecting her said she did.

Surely this is worthy of an investigation by a fearless reporter more interested in the truth than cosy relationships with politicians. If you know one, perhaps you could ask them to investigate?

downwiththerest and #82.

Someone has been selectively reading!

Come on mate! This is cross-Party and the sums involved for household goods, House flipping, duck ponds, assistants living hundreds of miles away etc. were claimed by NuLab, Conservative and LibDem MPs.
The amounts involved do not really matter so much as the principle: If an MP recklessly claims 50 pound or 5,000, or 50,000 it is NOT their Party affiliation, but their Moral and Ethical fitness as devisers of Legislation that is brought into question.
How else do you suppose almost 500 MPs are listed as having made claims that were unsuitable?

If you care so little for accuracy on this Expenses scandal then you really do deserve the 500 or so con-merchants among the 650 Ruling your life!

81. ikamaskeip

Well written. Says it all really.

What concerns me is that with Parliament in such a sorry state, with MPs more worried about themselves than the Country, who is actually running things?
Parliament has been sitting for nearly a week and all that has been discussed is their expenses, a bit about another 500 troops for Afghanistan sometime in the future and a mention for Portcawl Girl Guides.
It cannot go on. The dishonourable members are not going to get down to proper business while their wallets and purses are at risk and meanwhile the Country goes to H*ll in a Handcart.
Any Prime Minister with any honour would accept that the governance of the UK is a stake here and call an election.
He won't of course!!

Sagamix wrote,
so ... Cameron throws another of his people to the wolves

a bit rich when you bear in mind his own Home Loan shenanigans, isn't it?

no moral authority

(which is a great pity because he has qualities)

-------------------------------------------------

The one quality he will never be able to overcome in your eyes though is that he is rich - the ultimate sin!

As you are aware, there is a limit that MP's can claim for mortgage interest relief and DC's claims were within this, apart from the part month payment when his mortgage was repaid.

Your gripe seems to simply be that rich people shouldn't make claims on expenses but instead should subsidise the public sector. If a 'rich' person decides to become an MP outside London then, according to you, they should buy/rent a second property entirely from their own funds.

Becoming an MP is a career decision - not a charitable exercise - and therefore everyone should receive the same remuneration for doing the work.

I would take your comments on DC's mortgage shennanigans more seriously (but still wouldn't agree with you) if you were even closely as vocal on Jacqui Smith's expenses when she had the option of a free grace and favour property whilst Home Secretary but instead chose to bunk up with her sister and receive the monthly expenses as a result.

Interesting how this one MP warrants two blog entries from Nick, yet nothing about Harriet's comments yesterday, nothing about the Gray Report, nothing about continued warnings of public sector spending being unsustainable...

Ah, the scraps that are thrown to the lobby to keep them off the scent of where the real problems are...

I can't expect Cameron and Brown to control the personal expenses or behaviour of all their MPs but their are certain matters that are within their control. Cabinet / Shadow Cabinet jobs, the whip and elevation to the Lords are obvious examples. I

What a contrast between DC and GB on their treatment of their MPs!

Come on mods, what was wrong with that??

It isn't off topic at all, and i found it amusing!! what's wrong with a bit of Friday fun?

I posted a link to a rather amusing article that suggested voters may like to hire a certain accountant and his friends to look over MP's expenses.....however the mod's didn't find it quite so amusing as me.....

What's the matter,

Do i amuse you? you think i'm funny?

Does this mean that Wilshire will now get immunity from restitution, as Blair and Martin and the other gangsters apparently have?

He is NOT doing the honourable thing, he has just opted not to stand at the next election and thus will receive the allowance for leaving MP's (runing to 10's of thousands of pounds) and an uplift in his pension!

Only 2 MP's so far have actually resigned and left parliment forefitting there end of parliment allowances!

Nick,

Can you please please do an artical on the TAX rules and how many MP's have correctly declaired and paid income tax on items that the fees office approved and paid for that were not wholey and exclusivily and nessesary for their roll as an MP.

Did Mrs Smith, declare the power, gass, and coundcil tax her faimaly used at her home when she was away at her sisters?
Did Prescott, declare the mock tudor beams he placed on the front of his house
Did the tory who planted a wood declare that
Was the Duck House declaired?

All four examples fall into the catagory of expenses claimed and paid by the fees office, but needed to be declaired on the MP's tax return as not really required for their job as MP's

Come on TAX MAN why are you not going after these Tax Cheats! The Telegraph has published all the evidance you need and you have 600+ names to go after! Or are MP's exempt from the laws governing self assesment if so why is their an explicit section on their special tax forms for them to declair that the expenses where wholly required for ther Job?

71. derekbarker:
" #70secret

Think about it? Cameron asked his MP's to be honest(about expenses) way back in july, he simply didn't want to have this type of dealing in the run up to a general election."

I'm sure that he'd not want to be dealing with it at any time, same as Gordon Brown didn't. The difference is that whilst Cameron IS dealing with it, Brown is actively sticking his head in the sand, whilst the main protagonists in Nu Labour (namely Smith, McNulty, Balls-Cooper, etc) are all not only getting away with it but in some cases receiving reward, such as offers of peerages and the like. Very definate difference between the two parties, and there's no doubt that the electorate will prefer the Conservative approach to the labour one.

"What it also proves is young Cameron doesn't have control over his party. "

Whilst I'm sure you'll agree that David Cameron's age has nothing to do with the matter at hand, what this actually shows is that he IS dealing wit this issue, and therefore IS in control of his party - certainly to an extent that Gordon Brown cannot possibly claim about Labour.

"Iwilltellyouthis wrote:
No 28: "It is nonetheless very much a Labour Party scandal."
You are saying this on the day a TORY MP has resigned for taking over £100k.
You don't get it, do you?!"

I agree that this is far from just a Labour party scandal, however the big difference between the parties is how they are seen to be handling it.

A Tory MP stands down (rather than actually resigns) for his troughing but a Labour MP who fiddled over £100k moans when she is told to say sorry (but not hand any money back). This judgement was made by 6 Labour MPs - so not so much a jury of her peers but a jury of her friends!

The deputy leader of Labour addresses the party and says how unfair it is that they have to pay back money because the rules have changed. Which I might actually agree with if it wasn't for the fact that the main rule they had to stick to was to confirm the expense was as a direct result of being an MP (now I am not sure about other people but I don't think that MPs require a cleaner!)

One MP apparently claimed for a shaver for his second home! Most shavers I have seen are very portable why couldn't he just take the shaver from his first home with him?

All parties appear rotten, but some parties are handling the fallout better than others.

We should be aiming our ire for the junior defence minster Lord Raiston (?). Who was so shoddy on R4 PM programme, it was incedulous. If you have high blood pressure, I suggest you don't use listen again.

Here is some one who has been in the MOD since 2005 and has just found out that the procurement progress is 'not fit for purposes'. He has proved incompetent, not only in his office and he has let down not only the soldiers in the armed forces, but the whole country.

The FT had a rather good graph showing how defence spending is not going to be able to match the commitments that the Government's planning. Either they are going to have to find some money from somewhere to pay for this difference. In an uncertain world, this lack of resources is going to cause problems not now, maybe not tomorrow, but in the future.

All Parties are having problems with their MPs, but at least some of the leaders are trying to do something about it. Still don't why the voters have to pay gardening costs for MPs, even a £1000 a year?

Election, soon. then we can clear out the whole rotten lot of scammmers, thieves, charlatans, hypocrites, useless parasites, and then start on the tories and lib dems.

96#

Agreed. All of this is merely a smokescreen to keep the lobby away from the real issues.

65 Saga:

"how come a retrospective cap for trivial things like gardening but no action on mortgages?

bit odd, don't you think? ... seems to let certain people off the hook"

Err... no?

Because there's no 'hook' for anyone to be let off regarding claims for Additional Mortgage INTEREST Payments.

You seem incapable of grasping this point, even though it's been explained to you so many times on so many threads. It's just a shame I can't write this in crayon for you, to make it simpler.

Interest on Mortgages taken out on a required Additional home in order to carry out the office of MP are allowable, up to the specified limit. Legg's inquiry and report did not suggest in any way that this limit should change.

The requirement for an Additional Home (with the resulting financial commitments) is clear, and the fact that David Cameron has no mortgage on his first home, or that he has personal wealth, makes no difference at all - he is still within the letter and spirit of the regulations, both as they stood before and as they stand now.

Unless of course, you're suggesting that it's OK for a less well off person to claim allowances and expenses, but the rules should be different for someone who's got a few quid. That if two people act in exactly the sdame way, but one is a wealthy Conservative but the other is a poor socialist, then somehow the socialist is simply living within the rules whilst the Conservative is a tight-fisted oppressor who should be flogged and then sacked.

I'm sure that this kind of double-standards (which we are all too used to seeing from this government) isn't what you are saying at all, is it?

"ChrisCornwall wrote:
Time to stop the witch hunt, even Harriet Harman can at last see the damage this is doing."

Harman isn't doing this for any other reason to approve her chance of being elected the next Labour leader.

There is something rotten in the heart of government, and I for one am happy for it to be brought to our attention.

Every MP who stands down or loses their seat because of their troughing means another MP who might actually be elected to serve the country and not themselves.