Nearing the end of the expenses saga

Hi nick

This is why the party leaders should show moral leadership on this.

For instance David Cameron who for many of his years as an MP claimed interest relief expenses when he did not have two mortgages, - in fact he claimed the maximum allowed and was the largest claimer for many of these years. should accept the findings on mortgages and stop this abuse of the tax payers by selling his house and repatriating the profit to the taxpayers.

It is sad that David Cameron had to be told by a senior civil servant to stop claiming mortgage interest payments, and that he did not himself realise this was the wrong thing to do, but now he has been told he should follow the lead of Kelly.

It is a real shame that Kelly ducked the second jobs issues - because this means that many MP's will be off making money elsewhere when they should be serving the taxpayer. If however the MP's want to show moral leadership they will ban this too.

It is difficult to believe that the leaders will show the moral courage and leadership on this required when some of them have been playing the system for all it is worth.

I would hate to think that our country was being led by someone who had to be told what was right from wrong by a senior civil servant.

I agree that all those who have abused the system - from each party should be banned from politics for some time. Those that have done wrong should face the law. Giving them 5 years to get there act together is unacceptable.

If the party leaders really believe in value for money they have to stop second jobs, and thirds and forths. Basically each party needs to ban their own MP's from holding second jobs. Any other approach will be a moral fudge.

They should not wait to be forced or for the setting up of a commission, they need to act now for the parliament coming and stand for election on this basis.

The biggest abuses of the expenses system always were

1 Claiming mortgage relief - when you don't have two mortgages

2 Using your position as an MP to get other jobs.

The leaders need to clamp down on both of these to show they get where the real abuses were, and that they are real leaders. There was a lot of sound and fury especially from the opposition leaders that claiming for cat food etc was wrong, but lets see if they can really show moral authority on this.

Talk is cheap but if they could get all the MP's that have made money when they should have been working as MP's and who made capital gains on there houses should give th money back to the tax payer.

Anything less will be a pretence at dealing with it.

I saw the report on BBC News. I mean, it's as thick as a telephone directory. Is Sir Christopher paid by the word or something? How much can someone say about the announced reforms?!

Although there was at least one notorious case of abuse, the banning of employing a family member is frankly stupid. It sounds good to the gullible, that's all. Some MP's spouses work intermittently for 7 days for no great salary. What will an employee willing to do such a job cost? Someone who will want holidays independent of whatever the MP wants?

How much will it cost to recruit someone? It isn't just advertising, sorting through applications, interviewing. There should be a CRB check. How the MP will check the integrity of the interviewee is anyone's guess. It'll need a new cross-government or independent department to deal with all this.

As with every job, the employer should choose the best person for that job. If it's the wife/husband you know and trust (and can keep him off the porn channels) then that's how it should be.

1)

Will you give it a piggin' rest about Cameron's bloody mortgage?Its getting extremely boring.

Particularly as you're repeatedly and deliberately glossing over the expenses sins of the current government!

2 balancedthought

"I would hate to think that our country was being led by someone who had to be told what was right from wrong by a senior civil servant."

===============================================

Errrr..... didn't Gordon Brown pay back £12,000 as a result of the expenses enquiry which told him what was right and wrong ............ some people claim that he is leading the country, so the situation you would allegedly hate to happen is actually happening now.

5#

I have a feeling that its another case of political double standards.

The reason that MP's employ their spouses has probably got sod all to do with whether they are best qualified for the job or not. Its almost certainly purely financial.

If you transfer some of your pay or allowances or earnings to your spouse, then you are using their tax allowance as well, which can be a very efficient way of reducing your own tax exposure. Its called Income Shifting.

This used to be a common tactic, indeed one even advocated and permitted by the revenue. Then in 2004, they decided to take on a husband and wife consultancy firm pair called Arctic Systems. It was a one man firm, the wife was company secretary and the income was divided between the two of them, taking advantage of both their full tax allowances.

Labour and HMRC suddenly decided this wasnt on, so they investigated them and decided that Arctic Systems owed HMRC 42 grand in retrospective unpaid taxes, on top of what they'd already paid.

Three years, the case went on for. And at every turn, HMRC lost. They finally took their last appeal to the House Of Lords... and lost. Four-Nil.

And still they tried to bring it in, in 2007.

THATS what they're up in arms about. Its got sod all to do with whether the wives/husbands are any good at looking after the MP's affairs. Its all to do with the folding stuff and tax avoidance. Dont let them fool you!

Why can't this be applied from the next election? There is no valid reason to allow this disgusting misuse of taxpayers cash to continue for five and in some cases ten years. Sixty five thou a year is sufficient in anybody's pocket, that's three times the average wage and probably four or five times what a helluvu lot of hardworking people earn. What should now be done is that the leaders of the parties should show their committment to cleaning up parliament by asking all of those found to have fiddled the system, (legally but not morally) to stand down now and face re election. If as I suspect this isn't in Brown's interest then at least deselect these people for the next election.They do not deserve the position of privilege they now find themselves in.

Finbarr welcome, glad you caught up, the reason I am talking about the fact that David Cameron has claimed the max for a second mortgage when he did not have two mortgages is........

1 Every attempt to mention the difference between his pronouncements and his behaviour has been sat on, this is probably the only last time there will be to mention it and it is topical.

2 I really hate hypocrisy.

3 He has not been taken to account for his moral leadership on this by political commentators not a whisper.

4 I have not glossed over anyone else I have just chosen to concentrate on the difference between his pronouncements and his actions.

5 I think the Daily Telegraph ran a politically motivated campaign deliberately weighted to try and damage the government whilst conserving the real power. The rest of the press blindly followed it.

6 Today is a good day to bury bad news - flip flop on Europe. I think that is massively cynical.

David Cameron got a free ride with the press because - apart from his dealing with the financial system Brown had been so awful. I just really hate unfairness.

Oh and he is big enough to look after himself.

fubar S @ 6

"Will you give it a piggin' rest about Cameron's bloody mortgage? It's getting extremely boring"

no it's NOT boring - not at all

bet you've played your favourite Clapton track about a thousand times, haven't you?

plus, BT is making a much better fist of it than me

Finbarr

Piggin' ?? are you a brummie?

Hi Saga,

I really like his playing on Roger Waters -Pros and cons of hitchhiking- just so dynamic.

10#

I dont buy a word of it.

There are hundreds of other offenders, who have had aspirations to equally high office who are equally guilty, if not worse, than what Cameron is constantly accused of by you and Saga.

Yet neither of you mention any of the other offenders, who have actually ripped off the public, and been allowed by the system to keep their ill gotten gains and in some cases have even been ennobled as a result.

Or did what they do not bother you because "it was permissable under the rules"?

For someone who alleges that they cant stand hypocrisy, youre doing a very fine line in it at the moment.

Cameron is not a shoo-in as the next PM and he would be very very mistaken to believe it himself. Just "not being Gordon Brown" is no longer good enough.

What do you mean, "conserving the real power"? The information was offered around every paper in Fleet Street. Guido nearly got hold of it but wasnt prepared to bid as high as the Telegraph did.

Are you saying the Telegraph shouldnt have brought this to our attention? If that was the case, why are you getting so steamed up over Cameron? And yet not over Hoon, Darling, Prescott, Brown, Jackboots, McNulty, et al?

Why is your ire only reserved for the blue side of the house?

"Moral leadership?" Are you taking the p??? From someone who tacitly endorses the "Son Of The Manse And His Famous Presbyterian Moral Compass"? You are seriously trying to be funny, arent you???

I'd maybe have the faintest shred of respect for you and what you think if you - and you Saga for that matter, but I think you do it deliberately - just came out and said it.... "I slag him off and dont throw mud at my own benches because it suits my political agenda"

Any credibility to the name "balanced thought", (if it was ever there) is worth absolute squat. You wouldnt know balanced if it bit you on the keister.

12#

Not quite.... Coventry. And piggin' gets past the profanity filter, where as the word I would have used, which rhymes with ducking would not have.

When small businesses, like my tea shop in Brighton, are struggling in the recession, they shoukd get their noses out of the trough. I've blogged about our day to day trials and successes here: https://bit.ly/1xyoT7

@ Balancedthought

THe reason no-one has been up in arms about Cameron, is because there is nothing wrong with his mortgage claim at all, despite what you would like us to believe in your oh so "balanced" way.

The rules are not there for second MORTGAGES, but for those who need a second HOME. Spot the difference? If you need a second home to do your job as an MP then the rules allow you to claim back mortgage interest (and interest only) up to a certain allowance.

You would be hard pressed to find an MP with a second home who WASN'T using this allowance.

If I were you I'd concentrate my fire on those who HAVE done wrong. Maybe paying for repairs on a 3rd home, neither in London or your constituency; maybe continuing to claimon a mortgage that had already been paid off. You know, actual wrongdoing, not just a vendetta against one person.

2 and 10 balancedthought

"I would hate to think that our country was being led by someone who had to be told what was right from wrong by a senior civil servant."
===================================
As I said in my earlier post, it is reassuirng to know that someone is is telling Gordon Brown what is right and wrong as his moral compass doesn't seem to be doing a very good job at it. Gordon Brwon is certainly the PM, leading the country, I don't know about that.


"I agree that all those who have abused the system - from each party should be banned from politics for some time....."
==================================
You mean someone like Gordon Brown who abused the system to the point that he had to repay £12,000 ? I like your idea,, but i think his time in politics will drawing to a close fairly soon anyway.


"apart from his dealing with the financial system Brown had been so awful. I just really hate unfairness."
==============================
Are you for real ????

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

17 Grawth
You would be hard pressed to find an MP with a second home who WASN'T using this allowance.

Would we? How about:

Celia Barlow (Lab)
Philip Dunne (Con)

There, that wasn't difficult.

Finbarr

SP - how very wounding - I can hardly get my breath.

Why you ask regarding expenses do I keep mentioning David Camerons claiming of interest relief when he only has one mortgage.

It is not because he was born with a silver spoon up his nose.

not even because he is the Vanilla Ice of politics.

It is because it is true - it gets the rise out of people like you and it is good fun!

As far as Cameron and his mortgage go ...

There were a relatively small number of MPs who decided on principle not to claim, or to claim only a small percentage of, their second home allowance.

Do you think with hindsight, Dave wishes he were one of them?

You betcha.

g @ 17

"The reason no-one has been up in arms about Cameron, is because there is nothing wrong with his mortgage claim at all"

it's with a full and heavy heart, Grawth, that I conclude you've lost your Moral Compass

10 & 21 balancedthought:


Don't buy 1-6 @10. (esp 2)

Absolutely buy the ss, VI and p*sstake @21.

Quite frankly, does it matter?

MPs are not paid enough to make the best in the land find it a real job - just a job where they could exercise "power".

We may waste a few millions here and there on big-headed, pig-headed prats, but there are rather more serious issues on the block.

Who has voted to support completely waste-of-space bankers so their failed companies can be supported by tax-payers' money that doesn't actually exist, so "quantative easing" (i.e. print it today and somebody could maybe pick up the tag tomorrow) is used to ease their pain.
I rather wish that Henry XVIII was still around. There would have at lesat been a few heads that people could throw stones at, spit on or mock rather than a self-serving bunch of failed capitalists protecting themselves.

I guess that includes a certain Anthony Blair. Messed up enough locally, so went off to raise a bit of cash for his missus by cashing in on notoriety. But like Ronnie Biggs, in a way?

When do you intend to blog about the massive over-commitment to stupid bankers, compared with the benefits that could flow from "investments" in building or manufacturing companies?

Brown says he's wanting to develop the UK's potential to deliver new, greener industry. Where's the money? Just disappeared down the gullets of Brown's - NOT Tory or anybody else's - banking friends. The people who coughed up tax-take that Brown p***ed away.

It's a nonsense to talk about Tories having "friends in the City" when you look at the complete shambles of what Brown and his allies have done.

Just tees me off.

saga,

You are an idiot.

Brown (Chancellor during the majority of the New Labour Project) started off with good intentions. In other words a prudent approach that he linked to his Tory predecessor's fiscal policy.

Threw it out of the window. Along with sustainable private companies' pension plans, sensible control over government income and expenditure and any pretence that the UK educational system was a world leading organism.

You can tolerate a flim-flam artist for a while. You can understand that the monkey only lived because an organ-grinder created a lot of noise. But at some point reality kicks in.

Brown created the banking/financial management system that failed. There were no significant failures under the rules that Thatcher and Major endorsed. So every single issue can be laid at the door of Brown.

How many Spanish Banks have required billions of underpinning?

For goodness sakes, if banks an't do their job, let them collapse. If there are assets, they can be saved. If they are just a mess, shame really...

Pity the Brown instigated regulators didn't do their jobs.

23 sagamix

Replied to your last on your Cameron mortgage smear back at the other thread.

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

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

The MPs (far too many of them) will still find ways to continue paying themselves beyond their worth and wealth of this country.
For example: will they be able to purcase a property under a company name and then pay that company the rent claimed through expenses?

#26 fairlyopenmind

" Brown created the banking/financial management system that failed. There were no significant failures under the rules that Thatcher and Major endorsed. So every single issue can be laid at the door of Brown."

Funny that! many pointed to the Lehman Bros and norhtern-rock as the front runners for the banking failure, others simply point too the last tory governments crass policies of allowing those bankers and yuppies to create such a greedy selfserving market.

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

fairly @ 26

I think you mean Brown is an idiot, don't you?

and is he?

no, but he's an over promoted, self regarding, bullying, control freak

there, happy now?

where you go wrong is in overstating the impact of the UK regulatory system on what did and didn't happen; sure it wasn't completely irrelevant but it wouldn't have made much difference if, say, the BoE had remained Lead Regulator or if the rules had been different

the root causes of the credit crunch (and hence this recession) are as below:

(1) lax monetary policy from the Fed
(2) US sub prime lending
(3) securisation and misselling of the above
(4) the bonus culture which drove the behaviour of the key players
(5) the craven collusion of the ratings agencies
(6) poor regulation ... yes, here it is!

believe me, Fairly ... because I know ... we'd have been blown away regardless of precisely what Regulatory system Brown had set up

only thing I'm not sure of about you and your dogged and rather sweet belief that it was mainly a failure of UK regulation is whether it's because of a desire to pin blame on Brown for partisan political reasons, or whether it's because you just don't understand this area too well

on the grounds that the simplest explanation is usually the right one, I'm going to go with the latter

(but you're not an idiot or anything)

21#

OK, no problem, at least I know not to take what you say seriously.

Thats fine, I know where I stand now. I can just take the p*** out of you instead. Cool.

I have been engaging with sagamix on his Cameron mortgage smear on the other thread. Since he has posted his 23 here as if his claims were sound and unquestioned, and since balancedthought is repeating the smear with all the passion of a true believer, it is valid to summarise the points here.

Saga asserted in the previous thread that the facts re his Cameron mortgage smear

"are both well known and undisputed".

The "undisputed" bit is a lie. Saga and I discussed the facts of the case only a few weeks ago. In short, his mortgage story depends absolutely on the perception that Cameron had sufficient cash to buy his constituency house outright, but that he chose to have a mortgage instead to make a packet on his expenses. He quoted Cameron's personal wealth at £25 to £30 millions.

In fact the story of the £30 millions comes from the Daily Mail. They retracted the story here

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191155/Claims-David-Cameron-30m-fortune-sit-uneasily-taxpayers-So-truth-money.html

I also pointed out to saga that if Cameron has significant cash wealth, then the income from it would show up in his entry in the Register of Members Interests (unless he keeps the money in an old sock under the bed, of course!). It does not - I have checked.

Finally, Cameron told Andrew Marr, when he was interviewed and asked about his wealth, that £30 millions was well wide of the mark and that the family houses were his and his wife's predominent assets.

In order to sustain the argument that Cameron could have comfortably afforded to buy his constituency house without a mortgage, Saga is effectively saying Cameron lied on the Marr show and in the Register of Members' Interests, but he shies away from saying so explicitly.

So, first, saga's "facts" are not "undisputed". Second, without this considerable cash wealth, which saga cannot prove and which firmer facts tend to disprove, his Cameron mortgage story is dead. What's more, it has been dead since we had that previous exchange, because it was at that point that he knew it was dead.

Repeating a story that you know to be untrue in order to try to gain political capital is a smear (at least).

I think sagamix owes us an explanation and an apology.

Saga's responses so far have been a reference back to another post that assumes his "facts" are true, so that's inherently not good enough, and, more interestingly, a concession that, in fact, he doesn't know whether or not Cameron could have afforded the house outright (which is progress), but an assertion that the uncertainty allows him to carry on with the smear.

Genuinely balanced-thinking readers will recognise the look and feel of sagamix's story crumbling into the dust, along with his reputation and his integrity.

The time for sagamix's apology has arrived!

If MPs seriously wanted to show some moral leadership here, they could arrange it so that the Kelly report was implemented in full by this time next week. Absolutely no reason why that couldn't be done.

Instead, they will hide behind all sorts of procedural stuff and committees, so that it will take years.

If they think that we, the voters, won't notice, then I'm afraid they are in for a bit of a disappointment.

I am afraid that this report is still not good enough. The rules should change from now. If there was any real political will to do this we could have emergency legislation. Or everybody could agree to apply the rules from now.

The whining from the MP Nadine Dorries on the news was particularly patronising and sickening. I bet there are people from her constituency working longer hours than her for much less. How did we end up being ruled by people who are so out of touch?

jr @ 27

yes, I saw

I think we're stuck until one of us can get hold of his bank statements

did read your virtual reconstruction of what those bank statements might look like, based on the Daily Mail and his Andrew Marr interview, but was not fully convinced - not nearly convinced - not at all convinced - just not convinced, JR, I'm sorry

let's move on to something else ... you choose

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

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

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

The reality of the situation is that only a handful of MP's have acted in an ethical and moral way with respect to the expenses.

The vast majority, over five hundred of them, were sent a letter asking for explainations for dubious claims.

Therefore, at the next General Election there should be a wholesale clear-out, irrespective of whether the 'fiddling' MP in question is currently a high-flying Minister/Party Leader or an anonymous backbencher.

The only thing that can, and unfortunately probably will, save these politicians is a mostly tribal and literally unthinking electorate.

When you ponder that, it becomes a mystery as to why economics is tagged the dismal science, because there can be nothing more dismal for the English people than the tired old Labour/Tory duopoly.

After the robbery of public money by the banks and the ongoing expenses saga it appears that Duff Gordon and NuLabour or still in the brown stuff.

From yesterdays YouGov Poll:

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister?

Satisfied 21%
Dissatisfied 70%
Don’t know 9%

Do you approve or disapprove of the Government’s record to date?

Approve 19%
Disapprove 67%
Don’t know 14%


Roll On 2010 - I hope Duff Gordon is still PM.

No, this does not end the expenses saga, in fact this is just the beginning of the expenses saga.
How much of your council tax goes to paying both the salary of the CEO, the expenses of the councillors and the pensions of both.

These people are elected and employed to serve the community but appear to be only leeching off both.

Are they worth the money ?

How do you change them ?

Oh thats right, reelect or elect another venal bunch with no benefit of recall.

Of course they're going to rip us off, wouldn't you ?

We need a fundamental change in the relationship between the State and the ordinary person.

This change has been a long time in the wings, we all know that it is there, this is the elephant we've been ignoring for so long.

Which bit of THEY ARE NOT LISTENING did you fail to grasp.

I don't give a monkeys what your political alignment is, which party flag you nail your colours to, they have all failed YOU

38 sagamix

Actually, no, we will not move on. You have not established any facts to support your Cameron smear. I, on the other hand, have presented evidence to show that the fundamental basis of your story is incorrect.

The fact that you want to move on elsewhere is understandable. Likewise, I never expected you would concede the dishonest nature of your story and apologise for it. You clearly can't manage the loss of face that would bring. Like I said before - your problem, not mine. But your reputation is in pieces as a result.

Since the story has had a bit of uncriticised airtime on this thread, it seemed reasonable to expose it for the pack of lies that it is, and to expose you as the perpetrator of it. It is a smear and you are a smearer.

If you (or balancedthought, come to that) bring the story up again, I will report it as defamatory - the case for that having been clearly made.

Hi Nick,

As I have to pass the local job centre on my way to work every day, I am dismayed by a couple of things.....

1. I assume that the people outside are signing on as looking for work, yet when some of them can't even stand up with their white lightning can in hand.

2. Can you please suggest to the party leaders that they make people who sign on as looking for work, turn up in the clothes that they would go to an interview in because when I see them, really it is no wonder they can't get a job - either that or they really are not looking for a job at all.

Sorry if this is a bit off message but I just needed to get the frustration of my chest.

mr perry @ 45

JR, okay I WILL say I'm sorry! ... I'm sorry for upseting you to this extent

but you're over egging it by a very considerable amount, in my opinion

he doesn't deserve you

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

11 Saga

Wa hey matey loads singing from the hymn sheet youve been singing from for ages.

I was always with you on Cameron .

12 balancedthought

You go somat against Brummies ?

46 JeremyHorwood

May I suggest you walk for a week in the shoes of those who you criticise on your way to work before you are so critical.

That 30m sure does make a lot of headlines?.

https://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/55105,people,news,samantha-cameron-marks-spencer-polka-dot-dress-the-full-story-unravels

sagamix 47

It's all very well you apologising to me - big journey though I realise that was for you. But, as you well know, that misses the point.

The point is, it's the smear you should be apologising for. I don't know how many times and in how many ways I have to try to make this clear to you. Your story depends on facts - it falls over without them. You can't establish those facts. I have shown you, with sources, that they are unlikely to be true. I did that weeks ago, too, and yet you have persisted with retelling the story. The story is untrue. You can't even show that it is likely to be true. And yet you repeated it in order to try to gain political capital. That is the definition of a smear. And you, the perpetrator of it, you are the definition of a smearer.

It's the story you need to retract and apologise for. Can't you see how dumb your efforts to avoid that make you seem?

44 BobRocket

Calm down my friend.

You are correct, this is the continuation of the saga that will bring down all their houses.

I was saddened when it dropped off the blog sites because it was the one thing that revealed how corrupt our masters are.

I give thanks to Sir Christopher Kelly for bringing it back to the main stage.

Yes in the scheme of things, such as the 5 soldiers killed on Tuesday, it is a sideshow. But it is the corrupt beings that have put those soldiers in the firing line and if their sink plug or love nest dry rot
expense brings them down then that really is justice.

xtun @ 49

"I was always with you on Cameron"

a small but discerning group!

I guess his mind is mainly occupied with "Europe" stuff at the moment ... rather tricky that, as always, for a leader of the Conservative Party; think the "Time For A Change" thing plus the Recession will get him there, though, when all's said and done

derekbarker 52

"That 30m sure does make a lot of headlines?."

Yes it does, but it was also retracted by its source. See my 35.

52 DerekBarker

Perhaps she was living in hope of a new M&S contract so one can understand Amanda Marshall not waving a Churchillian style salute.

But what a story, all that efffort to get a pretenders wife a frock.

A frock that said look I am just like you when in fact it was a special bespoke item.

All part of the smoke and mirrors intended to confuse us I guess.

Mrs Cameron is also very wealthy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Cameron

55 Saga

Indeed Sir.

Thats a bit defeatist of you if I am reading you right !

Although the Brown crowd have had it I dont see Camerons crew as
necessarily any better or the successors.

My hope is for a new party to knock them both for six, failing that a hung Parliament. The last one, Lab/Lib, worked well for a while and then they fell out.

I filled in my self-assessment form today, and it was very depressing knowing how little I can claim simply to ofset against by tax liability/bill, when I see MPs still getting "expenses" for stuff that shouldn't even be classed as expenses and are instead perks.

Most of these things the MPs will still be allowed to claim shouldn't be classed as expenses (they should be taxed and classed as perks), and they shouldn't even be given as perks, they should be part of the standard costs of living that you expect from taking the job. So they fleece us both ways; firstly they get money for something that they should be paying out of their own pocket, and secondly they don't even get taxed on that money when in fact it's effectively extra income/salary.

I can't even claim these kinds of things as costs to my business to get tax relief from, let alone be given the total costs by the government without them even being taxed.

Loads of other people are in the same boat as me, especially the self-employed; they see how MPs will still end up fleecing the tax payer and living by different tax laws to everyone else, and in the midst of a recession that fleecing is just rubbing salt into the wounds.

All of these reports are diversions; they simply need to live by the same basic tax laws as everyone else does. There is absolutely no reason to continue with this farce; MPs are no different to anyone else who has more than one office.

MPs: live by the same laws that you inflict on everyone else. if you don't then you have no right to retain your job. It really is that simple.

56 jrperry

I have re-read your 35 which appears to be an episode of your ongoing battle with Saga but can find no reference to Camerons wifes frock ??????????

60 getridofgordonnow

Right on Brother.

The sooner the corrupt are voted out the better.

It was , I think, in 1843 when the House of Commons burned down and thousands gathered to cheer.

Sounds like not a lot has changed.

Nick you say: Nearing the end of the expenses saga. I have a strong feeling its far from that.

Now MPs want a £40,000 rise! As expenses purge is revealed, our dishonourable members look for compensation.

Grasping MPs demanded a huge pay rise last night after a crackdown on their expenses brought the Westminster gravy train to a halt.

In an astonishing show of contempt for voters, ministers and backbenchers complained that their £65,000-a-year salaries will not be enough to live on.


MPs should get a pay rise - but will lose second homes.

But he (Sir Christopher Kelly) backed off from action against those politicians whose actions sparked public fury - and signaled support for substantial pay rises for MPs in compensation for the tough new rules.

Well it appears that its back to the TROUGH as usual.

In fact next years GE will be more like First Snout Past The Trough (FSPTT) rather than the usual First Past The Post (FPTP).

Found this article at Politics.co.uk:

Miliband 'heading to Europe'.

David Miliband has accepted the European foreign policy minister role he was tipped for, a Labour source has told politics.co.uk.

The foreign secretary could announce his new position within the next fortnight, triggering a by-election in his South Shields constituency seat which might be contested by Peter Mandelson.

Good story but only time will tell if it’s true. If it is then it looks as though the rats have started to desert the sinking ship.

Roll On 2010

Good morning mods.

Re: The Nick Robinson blog

Is there any way you can get your techies to mend the time stamp for each comment. Whenever it is clicked an - - Error 404 - Page not found - - is sent back.

Yet this appears to be okay on other BBC blogs.

24 Blame

well you are entitled to your opinion ice ice baby...

50 Angry of ...

surely you mean

Yow got summat against brummies.


me - Nowt bab

65 2010

I'm totally with you, the new improved system is a bit weird - getting lots of Error 404

EtonRifle

-love the name

This expenses stuff is a load of nonsense anyway.

If it was there and it was legal to abuse it - you would do, I would do, they did do and so would most of the bloggers here.

The accounts end should have stopped it, they didn't and now everyone is having to wear a hair shirt, so what?! Move on.

What is more interesting is the response from Number 10 to the 72,000 strong petition for Gordon Brown to resign.

https://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21213

Gordon with his typical - 'I couldn't care less what the people want' attitude - what a guy.

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

Shame of Britain's cancer death rates: Toll is 20% higher than Europe and getting worse.

Cancer patients in Britain are far more likely to die than those in the rest of Europe - and the gap is getting wider, research suggests.

There are now 20 per cent more deaths from the disease per 100,000 people in the UK than across the Continent.

Yep the Lunatics have certainly taken over the Asylum!

Roll On 2010

JRP:

Let 'em get on with it mate, all they're doing is just yanking your tail and then running off and hiding in the bushes when you bare your teeth.

Leave 'em to it. The boneheads aint worth the stress.

68#

You should be careful what you wish for mate.

70 fubar

Point of principle, but sorry to be repetitive.

Sagamix, with balancedthought now grimly hanging on to his coat-tails, has pursued this vendetta over Cameron's mortgage expenses for too long. When it has been shown clearly to be a lie, all he has done is to leave it for a week or so and then come back with it again, as if it is magically restored to the status of the proven truth. If nothing is done, he will just repeat the same cycle, over and over again.

The time has come for saga to admit he has got it badly wrong, 'fess up and drop the story properly. Then we can move on.

Just remember these expenses are chicken feed against this months Extra spending by Brown and Darling:-

32 Billion saving the banks a second time
50 Billion QE by the bank of England
10+ Billion election last ditched push coming in the pre budget report

IE Just under 100billion EXTRA spending on and above the 270Billion goverment debt just to make Brown and Co look like world players.

"67. At 07:09am on 05 Nov 2009, sircomespect wrote:
This expenses stuff is a load of nonsense anyway.

If it was there and it was legal to abuse it - you would do, I would do, they did do and so would most of the bloggers here."

Probably BUT IN ANY OTHER JOB I would be scaked, and the TAX man would go after me for undeclaired income and possibily face jail.

Why are MP's special and above the Law?

Off topic, but has any one else noticed that since they changed the login system and updated the blog pages they are now Very Very slow to load and often end with page errors?

Cameron is certainly not one of the worst offenders in the expenses scandal – nobody is saying he is. But he claimed a lot. It was within the rules, but as Cameron himself has stressed in relation to other transgressors, this does not mean that it is morally justifiable. If it did, there’d be no need to reform the rules.

Cameron could have chosen not to claim his allowance, or to claim only part of it. Other, more principled, MPs did this – a couple on the basis that their personal wealth made it unethical to claim expenses from the public purse. (Ironically, this is broadly the argument that Cameron and Osborne will use to support a policy of withdrawing universal benefits such as Child Benefit from the better off.) Others with constituencies more remotes from London than Cameron’s decided that they did not need a second home at all.

So Cameron’s problem is that his high moral tone on expenses is not backed up by high moral standards – at least not compared to the MPs who showed more integrity. He is not one of the worst sinners, but he is one of the most vocal critics of those who sinned. It’s therefore right that we should judge him by higher standards.

The thing is, by being tough on others and soft on himself, Cameron has reinforced the widely held impression that he more about presentation than principle. It isn’t a clincher, but it doesn’t help his cause.

"60. At 00:53am on 05 Nov 2009, getridofgordonnow wrote:
I filled in my self-assessment form today, and it was very depressing knowing how little I can claim simply to ofset against by tax liability/bill, when I see MPs still getting "expenses" for stuff that shouldn't even be classed as expenses and are instead perks."

MP have a special section and an additional decleration that they HAVE to sign, allowing them to tell the tax man and pay tax on any amounts paid under the second homes allowance that were not wholey, nessesesarly etc incoured in their role as MP's.

The problem is that all MP's claimed that 100% of their second homes allowance was required.

I want the Tax man to go after them, as they would a small business owner, for false declaration on their tax returns and throw the book at them.

I can see no way how a MP can claim that adult movies, duck houses, mock tudor beams, cots, planting of a wood, patio furniture, or even paying the heating and lighting in a house ocupied full time by their faimaly despite being the second home, is 100% required in their job as an MP.

They should be treated for what they are Tax Frauders!

When you one read all the stuff on here (a lot of it deliberate wind-ups) about MPs expenses you can understand why some people think the subject ought to be closed by Kelly being accepted in full. End of story and move on. If I am accused of being a killjoy who wants to deprive some of their fun in posting light-heartedly on a serious issue then I stand guilty.

There is an election not far off, and I respectfully suggest that what each of us ought to want to know is exactly what our sitting MP has done and how guilty they are of playing the system. Or worse - we also ought to want to see those who have cheated charged and arraigned. Now, so that there is no possibility of them walking off with a big pension pot if they are found guilty.

I wrote to my MP asking him to explain why he had done what he was accused of, ie flipping. I was partially satisfied with his full and comprehensive reply, particularly as he had only been an MP since 2005 and had undoubtedly gone along with what the fees office told him he should do. He says his election had changed his view on where he should live to be most effective in his new job. I will have to give weight to his explanation when I vote. Will the rest of the electorate be told everything they need to know about their own MP, and how fair or otherwise the allegations against them may be?

If am I on the wrong board I have no doubt you will all tell me.

"64. At 05:10am on 05 Nov 2009, Roll_On_2010 wrote:

Found this article at Politics.co.uk:

Miliband 'heading to Europe'.

David Miliband has accepted the European foreign policy minister role he was tipped for, a Labour source has told politics.co.uk.

The foreign secretary could announce his new position within the next fortnight, triggering a by-election in his South Shields constituency seat which might be contested by Peter Mandelson."

Roll On,

A change in the law will be required for Mandy to contest the seat, members of the house of Lords are band from standing as MP's.

And Just think how much it would cost us if he stood, as soon as he resugned his place in the house of Lords, which he would have to do before putting his name forward, he would receive redundancy pay for all the committees he was in and lost earnings for his ministerial role etc!

But on the Plus side there would be 4 weeks of not having him running goverment!

Only that Kelly will finish this whole sorry mess. But we have murmurrings of a committee to approve it, which begs the question why? The keeping mortgage releif for 5 years will create a two tier system...highly unsatisfactory. Stop the relief now, they can then claim the average rental payment. This would allow them to continue to pay the mortgage or sell the house without over much penalty. but because of the history would we trust them to do this.......

The way that MPs are treat for CGT is a travesty, all those who have gained over "flipping" should be forced to repay or be taken to court for tax avoidance. Those that claimed for nonexistant mortgages should face the SFO.

This would show a determination by those who aspire to and allegedly lead the country to restore the faith of the electorate in them.

Another thing that gripes me about this is we the PM declaring he can do no wrong, that the whole world listens to him and jumps to implement his every idea and we find that he can't even claim mhis expenses properly!!! Ok cheap shot.

Save it Davies, you're just having a go at Cam because it suits your agenda. Why dont you just say it?

Has Cam banged on about his strong presbyterian moral compass or any of that cack? And then been found out?

Let me help you with that.

No.

So, why make such a big example of one guy unless its agenda driven?

They're ALL more about style than substance, regardless of the party.

What standards are you judging Gordon by? Or Alistair Darling? Both serial flippers. Or Hazel Blears the CGT dodger? Not the same standards that you judge Cameron by, obviously.

Is it because Cameron happens to be loaded? And you aint?



More NL class warfare bulldust.

It is amazing how that duck house was promoted by the media.

I have a feeling that its claim was disallowed by the fees office but hey! its a great tale of " nasty Tories" and fits in nicely with the "politics of envy" promoted by the media.

And I was sooooo looking forward to a blog by Nick about the stupid Tories and the EU , or about "autistic "Tories , or indeed about the OECD report which puts UK recovery flat on its back at the bottom of the table behind the ARC OF INSOLVENCY of Iceland and Ireland , well behind Denmark, Sweden and so far behind the leader of the pack ,Norway , as to be absolutely terrifying!

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

72. jrperry

C'mon jrp, get over it... this is an open forum. If you can prove they are being defamatory then refer them. If it makes you feel better respond in kind with Brown's flipping or a list of other offenders from the Cabinet; if Saga is your main antagonist dig up some dirt on Harman, her other half is a good place to start, and she's fairly easily discredited anyway. Be a bit more creative.

The Opposition leader is fair game. If there is no alternative position being offered by those who single him out don't bother having a running debate. I'd think 99% on here have made up their minds on this issue anyway.

66 balancedthought

yow wotchit mate !

81 FS wrote:

Save it Davies

Took me right back to the playing fields of Eton, that comment! Thank you. Very nostalgic.

Anyway, if you can be bothered, you really should read my post again and respond to what I actually wrote, rather than to your own silly parody of it.

#33, sagamix wrote:
"fairly @ 26

I think you mean Brown is an idiot, don't you? and is he?
no, but he's an over promoted, self regarding, bullying, control freak
there, happy now?
where you go wrong is in overstating the impact of the UK regulatory system on what did and didn't happen; sure it wasn't completely irrelevant but it wouldn't have made much difference if, say, the BoE had remained Lead Regulator or if the rules had been different"

Saga,
I apologise for the ad hominen comment. It was a cheap shot. I did slap my wrist as soon as I'd pushed the send button.
However, looking at your comments:

"the root causes of the credit crunch (and hence this recession) are as below:

(1) lax monetary policy from the Fed
(And the UK government?)

(2) US sub prime lending
(And the well evidenced UK sub prime lending, which was evident to regulators - if I could see it, they surely could! Brown's regulators did absolutely nothing to throttle back on credit for any types of purchase, did they?)

(3) securisation and misselling of the above
(Approved by - or not understood by the supposed regulators. Regulators presumably accepted that some of that junk represented "real assets", otherwise they'd have forced banks to hold additional assets in reserve? And it seems, not even understood by those who claimed to be "running" the banks?)

(4) the bonus culture which drove the behaviour of the key players (Agreed. But that wasn't a hidden fact, was it? Should not UK regulators have worried that retail/mortgage organisations were lending vastly more than they actually had and stamped on the short-term borrowings to fund what should be long-term lending?)

(5) the craven collusion of the ratings agencies
(Absolutely with you on that. I'm just surprised that those guys haven't been sued into bankruptcy and oblivion, along with the auditors who signed off bank accounts...)

(6) poor regulation ... yes, here it is!
(Well, saga, all your points from 2 - 5 should have been very much within the scope of regulators in the US and the UK to pick up on. Brown bragged about his "light touch regulation" while banks generated profits and paid huge bonuses - both of which drove up his tax-take. It was only after the flow stopped that he began to complain about the appalling greed of finance houses...)

"believe me, Fairly ... because I know ... we'd have been blown away regardless of precisely what Regulatory system Brown had set up"

Saga,
As soon as the US situation was recognised, it was evident that there would be a global crunch. I contend (without your evident understanding of the inner workings) that the extent to which UK banks were shown to be tottering was simply evidence that they had been badly run and under-regulated.
Not ALL were equally affected. Standard, Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds all took hits, but seemed far less exposed than some of the rapid-growth seeking basket-cases like RBS, HBoS, Northern Rock, etc.

I complain about Brown because I find him economically and politically inept. I've moaned a lot about that rediculous 10p tax rate withdrawal.
I was aghast when he could even have considered the MoD trying to chop a couple of hundred million from TA training, then within days supported another 30BILLION being shoved into banks...
I agree with the BoE that as long as the "jeopardy" is removed and finance houses are told they can't fall over, you relieve them of the need for self-discipline.
And, I still believe that Brown's pushing of HBoS into LloydsTSB was a stupidly bad decision. Forget EU "interference", the UK's Competition body would have had some very sharp words to say about giving one group such a massive slice of the retail and mortgage markets. Who stopped them having a say? Brown.

The inflexibilty of these proposals means that the bill for the taxpayer might actually increase.

It would be better to retain flexibilty, between buying and renting accommodation for example, but to enforce the rule requiring claims to relate to expenses "necessarily and wholly" incurred for parliamentary duties, much more rigorously. MPs could be required to refund to the treasury any incidental personal profits that they made.

81 Fubar
Is it because Cameron happens to be loaded? And you aint?

To coin a phrase, I am intensely relaxed about Cameron's wealth.

@81 Fubar

Give Hazel credit she did write a cheque for the full amount when it was pointed out. Her boss allegedly through his toys out, funny he did not do the same for Hoon and others.

To me this shows double standards and a total lack of morals. Never mind the compass to show the way.

90

Yeah. Course you are. I dont believe you.

I find it touching the way the Tory types on this blog leap to the defence of David Cameron. There's a lot of 'he did nothing wrong', 'it's class envy' and 'let's draw a line under this and learn lessons'. The last bit is very New Labour. But then David Cameron admires Tony Blair portraying himself as his 'heir'.
Expect more of the same when DC gets the top job.

84 sagamix

Your post, sadly, remains inadequate in the extreme.

You have concocted a smear, and repeated it chronically over several months. You acknowledge that you can't establish the factual basis for it, and I have clearly shown you, with sources, perfectly credible evidence to show that what you have written, tens of times now, is very likely to be untrue. Any sensible person would have dropped the story ages ago. But you didn't and you won't. So, there you are, to all intents and purposes, a self-confessed pedlar of smears, adicted to your smears, unable to stop yourself.

It is a shame that you can't get over that final hurdle, retract the story, suffer the necessary five minutes of ignominy and move on. That is your failing, your problem.

So, you remain a smearer. Nothing you write can be believed or taken seriously. It is all tainted by the known (and admitted) dishonesty of your postings here, and your inability to face up to that.

I have no wish to carry on this kind of battle and it is tedious in the extreme for everyone else. So, all I shall do is remind everyone from time to time of your record. And, of course, report any further repeats of your mortgage story, or any further efforts on your part to drop in little motifs of it. It's best left to the moderators now.

93#

Pop, the reason I get into a lather about Cameron is not because I'm a tory, which I am not, I have questioned his leadership ability on many occasions - but because I find that the left leaning selective smearing is so hypocritical when they are equally as guilty.

Its all about glass houses and stones. Very few things make my p*ss boil as much as people being two faced liars who are equally as bad.

And they know it as well. They're just too weak and spineless to admit it publicly for loss of face.

91#

Yes, she did. The only thing I dont know is whether it was under duress.

Her boss? If he told me it was raining outside, I'd have to go and see if I got wet before I believed him.

81 Fubar

Are you saying that you can only criticize Cameron if you are as rich as he is, otherwise it's just envy? Really?

I know that wealth insulates you from many things in life, but criticism too?

Come on, you can do better than that!

And I am not a class warrior, thank you very much, I am a champagne socialist.

pdavies65

For me you are the biggest hypocrite apart from balanced thought on this blog.

Let me explain something to you, in a lot of companies I have worked for, because people move around so much, they have a maximum of how much you can claim either for rent or for a mortgage. Now how many people do you think claim the minimum. Even members of the public understand that they will get the best they can within the money offered. How many of them sit down and think I will get a small inadequate property just to keep at the minimum of claiming. The answer is no one does.

Now Camerons Mortgage was quite in order, as far as I know he was only claiming for the interest on that mortgage. There was very little else he was claiming for. To be honest for a leader of the opposition I expected his bill to be a lot higher.

You may very well be angry over MPs expenses, though I doubt it is true anger, more like making political points for no reason. However put your anger where it belongs with those that deliberately set out to make money by devious means. Such as Darling who hired an accountant to find ways round the system.

I will tell you this, I am beginning to wish that this expenses scandal had never reared its ugly head, because quite honestly, I believe the measures kelly has put in place overall will cost the tax payer more money. A lot of wives and members of MPs families do help out MPs for very little reward for a start. Also if MPs have to pay rent instead of buying that will cost more. Along with this I believe MPs will have to have a pay rise to compensate for receiving less expense money. Thats before we get to people like you trying to smear the innocent ones amongst the MPs. So I am starting to wonder if starting this whole sorry mess was worth it.

Brown and his Government have committed us to the biggest gravy train of all, without any chance of reform, that is the EU. If you think our MPs are on the make, I suggest you look at this little money earner for most working there. Now they have so much power in so few hands I do not expect to see any reform in the near future, do you?

I think in the end you will have to pay MPs another 40 thousand a year. Otherwise as the saying goes 'if you pay peanuts you will get monkeys' and we have enough of those already. Balls and Cooper being a good example.

of course these MP's want an end to the expenses saga becouse they want to settle things down and get back to normal.
do those running this country believe a few words and quick fix promises will make the problem go away, sadly they are misguided and foolishly thinking the public are easily fooled.
these people need watching very closely as if they are not watched they will revert back to as they were.
may be the parties can be penalised for the behaviour of its members as well as members been removed and charged, corruption should be stampped out fully.

Nicholas

Where's the update on the Tory EU fiasco??
Hannan's left as spokesperson... who's next?
Davis to resign again??
Come on, Nick, you know you want to...