The Kelly Report

Excellent,, now lets see who's first to complain they're being hard done by.

The prize for the most inapropriate complaint so far goes to the tory who compared the treatment of MPs to Jews in Nazi Germany, but I'm sure someone can go further with the hyperbole by the end of the day.

So 'flipping' is to being kicked out but not the 'flippers' who filled their boots while they could (Without breaking any rules, of course!)

I think it's very good news that Kelly hasn't stopped MPs from having outside employment. Those with broader business backgrounds and experience in the real world have a lot to bring to parliament and the country. Career politicians who have lived in the Westminster bubble are too removed from every day life to make realistic and reliable policies.

Well, its certainly a start.

Lets see how it pans out over the coming days and weeks...

Perhaps those MPs who have outside jobs should not receive their 'resettlement allowance' when they are kicked out at the next election!

Does anyone know whether there is anything to prevent or limit 'expense' claims from second, third, 'n'th jobs? Or any limit on the number of other paid jobs being performed while still claiming a full-time salary from the state?

What's the betting that our MP's will do everything they can to water down these proposals.
The gravy train will still keep rolling along

For those fearing that politics may become a rich man's game, this will be some comfort. To those who fear snouts in the trough, it will be a source of real concern.

Nick I don't understand what proposal is snouts in the trough?

It seems very sensible to me.

Anything on the new wad of money Labour are handing to the bankers while they are still been given bonuses for failure?

Can we afford it?

I believe it is extra to the stupid forecasts on borrowing so we could be into 235 Billion this year.

Even the Tory plans to inflict pain and save 7 billion pale into significance when someone is running debt up for you of this magnitude.

At what point do we become insolvent and have we already passed it?

I give it 2 hours till theres reports of MPs complaining and trying to get bits changed and taken out.

So long as they do their second jobs in their own time and not during the time I'm helping to fund. And it does not compromise the MPs independence and integrity.

What happens to the basic salary?

Can't wait for 4 o'clock. Will Kelly get hit into the long grass by a radical new Tory EU policy or will he give us all something to talk about when Cameron comes up with not a lot?

Odd it should all happen on the same day. Mudddying the waters again are we?

Why such a bloomin fuss?

Would any business go through this rigmarole? I doubt it.
If the gov isn't going to buy a block of flats to accommodate MPs who live too far away to commute, then surely it's rent or mortgage payments for a one-bedroomed flat, or hotel costs; subsistance, travelling and a few other things that can be set out on a page of A4.

I mean, just this palaver is costing us all money that could be better spend elsewhere.

#6 probablynogood wrote ""Does anyone know whether there is anything to prevent or limit 'expense' claims from second, third, 'n'th jobs? Or any limit on the number of other paid jobs being performed while still claiming a full-time salary from the state?""

Does it matter what expenses they claim from ancillary jobs so long as the taxpayer is not paying for them? Presumably such expenses will be incurred in the fulfilment of their job specification, and, if in the private, sector, the problem of the employer and not the taxpayer. As for how many jobs, surely an MP should be entitled to have as many jobs as he wants, provided that there is no reduction in the contribution he makes to his constituents as their MP, and does not use a secondary job commitment to avoid attending at the House when necessary

#10
'... And it does not compromise the MPs independence and integrity.'
(Sprays monitor with tea and chokes on biscuit!)

Well, reform has been a long time coming. Let's hope these long overdue changes are implemented without rancour and any deviation is stamped on immediately.

My only concern is MPs not being allowed to employ members of their family. I would have thought this contravenes some European law, time will tell. Providing all expenses/payments are declared and electors have a clear and transparent view of where and how taxpayers' money is being spent I see no problem.

Gone are the days of the avarice lifestyle, the gravy train and "think they can get away it" attitude that has beset this nation for decades, indeed, let's hope so!!

I think the BBC should keep its opinions to itself. I guess if you have microphones, cameras and transmitters, the temptation to say a few words and influence our political process is just too great.

I believe that MPs are ridiculously underpaid. They should never have agreed to suppress their salaries and they should certainly have not made up the difference through underhand expenses arrangements.

If MPs are not given decent salaries I fear that the quality will decline and democracy will be further damaged. I can also see corruption creeping in. We may end up with Nick Robinson and Esther Rantzen running things.

The difference between what Kelly has proposed and what will actually happen will soon become all too obvious. If Gordon thinks he will be able to implement all the proposals as recommended by Kelly then he ought to think again. There are enough disguntled Labour MPs already kicking up a fuss behind the scenes to ensure that Brown will eventually waters some of the proposals down. If he doesn`t its curtains for him. Harriet has already fired a warning shot across his bows and there is plenty more from where that came. After all, she wants his job and wants to be seen as being on the side of the MPs and not Brown in all of this.

Nick Robinson:

Thanks for the overall summary of the Kelly Report...How long will
it before someone complains about some part of the report...

=Dennis Junior=

Nick (or anyone else who knows)

Do MPs become technically unemployed at any time after Parliament is "prorogued" and (if they are re-elected) before they are sworn in in the new Parliament? Or do they have continuity of employment

If tthe former, what happens to their staff? Is their employment de facto or de jure ended, so they are re-employed on new contracts by the "new" MP?

If that is the case, then surely family members have no right of continued employment if their spouse / parent is re-elected?

This is relevant to the Kelly recommendation that family members be banned from working for MPs and the campaign by existing MPs for this to be resisted.

15. At 11:20am on 04 Nov 2009, DavidHankey wrote:
Well, reform has been a long time coming. Let's hope these long overdue changes are implemented without rancour and any deviation is stamped on immediately.

My only concern is MPs not being allowed to employ members of their family. I would have thought this contravenes some European law, time will tell. Providing all expenses/payments are declared and electors have a clear and transparent view of where and how taxpayers' money is being spent I see no problem.


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

As long as its properly scrutinised i have no problem with MPs employing family members - as long as the work exists and needs to be done, why shouldn't an MP employ family, Small businesses are allowed to, why not MPs.

I want to see them subject to the same rules as everyone else, no more, no less.

Wow…. Apparently Kelly has found that Westmidden is Expensive and Leaky:

Watchdog takes swipe at party leaders over leaks.

Standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly took a swipe at party leaders today over "frustrating" leaks of his MPs' expenses reform proposals.

Well I never…. i’ll go t’foot of our stairs

Roll On 2010

The other thing that really is going to annoy me is that we are going to get MP's moaning about how hard done by they are when 5 of our soldiers (who get paid next to nothing for they risk) have been killed this morning.

I have nothing but utter contempt for MP's

Certainly good news. Trouble is, though, we already *had* rules on expenses and a regulator, who simply got ignored.

I forget the exact wording of the official guidelines on MPs expenses - somebody posted extracts recently on another blog about the MPs expenses issue - but it goes something like "All claims made must only be for things directly related to carrying out your duties as an MP" and "all claims must be justifiable to the taxpayer and beyond any reasonable reproach".

And from that, some of them managed to interpret that it was ok to claim for things like having their gardening done, or getting their private moat cleaned, or to claim mortgage payments for London homes they didn't really need.

And when they asked the regulators - the Fees Office - they too interpreted the existing rules to mean that some of these ludicrous claims were acceptable. Now, ok; the Fees Office shouldn't have given that answer. But why the heck were the MPs even asking these questions to begin with? I don't need to ask anyone's opinion to know that any company expense account I'm given to help cover the costs of doing my job, probably doesn't extend to having my damn lawn cut!

And the man in charge of the Fees Office at the time, Michael Martin - who should have been the one to take one look at some of these claims and say "look, these have nothing whatsoever to do with your ability to do your job" - despite being forced from his position as Speaker over his handling of the affair, simply moves on and gets a nice cosy seat in the House of Lords! Wow, I wish I was completely incompetent and involved in borderline-fraud, so I could get a promotion, too...

And, so far, none of the MPs involved - barring a few isolated cases where the miscreant in question has resigned to save him/herself further embarassment - has any real action been taken to punish those who abused the system.

So, whilst I applaud the tough new restrictions announced in the Kelly report, I have little confidence that once the furore around MPs expenses has died down, and the public's attention is captured by some other scandal, they'll just start ignoring them and getting their noses back in the public trough the same as they did the first time around.

Rules are only effective if there is some sort of come-back for breaking them!

#16
'If MPs are not given decent salaries I fear that the quality will decline and democracy will be further damaged.'
(Sprays monitor with tea and chokes on biscuit!)
And I'd just cleaned up after the last one!

We still going to be providing MP's with housing expenses, only now they are looking to pull the wool over our eyes and retitle the expense as rent based on the rentable value of their homes, Surely all of this should be stopped immediately and we either supply a block of flats for them to use or have a floating accomodation module built for them and berthed close by on the Thames. In the short term we could get a good deal on on hotel accomodation based on a block booking retention fee, this could actually work out to be the cheapest option of all. This would put this whole matter to bed immediately.
The properties that they have bought with and & that have been maintained with the tax payers money should be returned to the tax payer.
Why is HMRC not overseeing their expediture claims, why are we looking to pay for yet another dodgy quango office to oversee this.

The most apposite comment is "only want to see them treated the same as everyone else". I echo and support that. I am slightly disappointed that those who profited by flipping have not been asked to repay their ill gotten gains. Or is my recollection that the PM berated the MP for Salford then kept quiet when it cam to light that Mr Hoon managed to do it as well.

As always the "committee" syndrome rules. Kelly seems to have done his best with the bucket of slime he was handed.
Once the dust settles, and we have the luxury if time to look at all the proposals in full (extermemly unlikely), then we can make a measured response.

I hope we get sensible proposals that MPs who are paid a salary to do what seems to be a job, do get just that. I don't object to them moonlighting, but only if it doesn't have an adverse effect of their ability to discharge thier primary duty.

they should be allowed expenses for travel to and from their constituencies (subject to similar rules that apply in business, generally), including accommodation. It cannot be beyond the wit of a sophisticated civil service in the 21st century to come upon an idea of getting communal lodgings, and avoiding the problems we have now found out about. MP's who represent constituencies within an hours public transport travelling time would be expected to go home, since their travelling costs are paid. In the case of a late sitting, or vote, in the house, which may cause them to miss their last train (which happens to real people occasionally) I'm sure that government cars (and drivers) could be found and provided.

However, I'm sure some avaricious lobby fodder will find some reason to object. the good thing is, we will know who they are, and re-act accordingly at election time. the people will have some real power at this election.

Come on Gordon, bring it on now

Poprishchin #14 & 24

I'm glad I'm not the only one wiping down my monitor...

No, not another independent so-and-so. What will this regular depend on?

MPs are public servant entrusted with the greatest responsibility for for the welfare of the country, therefore, their rewards must be closely tied to the welfare and the majority of the people of this country.

MPs' salaries and pension should be tied to the cost-of-living related to state pension, crime statistics, national debt, health and inflation.
So they deserve a big salary if state pension goes further, the streets are safer, no national debt, low inflation and a healthy population.

Cabinet ministers and PM should not be paid more because pwoer is its own reward.

can we please have a blog on the "sellafield" question please as this looks like the thin end of wedge

where next a Mp is band from visiting and RAF base for fear of seeing
helicopters sat there in peices when £500+ has been spent on them ?

Nick:

He also says that the new independent regulator should set MPs' pay and pensions.

That sounds like a wonderful idea; But, will it be FULLY independent....

=Dennis Junior=

No 16
Talking of the BBC, remember that Carrie Gracie (a hitherto obscure BBC News24 nightshift newsreader) admitted to hauling down GBP 92K per year - presumably plus expenses.
If the House of Commons is ever cleaned up I'd expect far fewer people actually wanting to be an MP. There's far better money in the media, talking about MPs.

Here's my prediction about how this will play out:

MPs will make a lot of noise about how they accept the Kelly report in full, how it's important to tighten up the rules, they are committed to behaving properly etc etc.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, they will make sure that it gets so mired down in interminable procedural stuff that the current crop of MPs are all long since retired by the time any of the recommendations actually get implemented.

For any Gilbert & Sullivan fans out there, I'm thinking of "Yes but you don't go!" from the Pirates of Penzance.

If that lot is applied in full we will be back to "Tory Toff's" and "Union Rep's" for MPs, back 30 or more years - why - because only people of either independent means or sponsored will be able to afford to work in two places at the same time, as we expect MP's to do so.

Also, why is the 'Expenses Tsar' (possibly) going to be paid more than MPs are? Not only that but he isn't even an accountant, nor holds any financial qualifications, talk about "Job for the boys" - he obviously moves in the right civil service circles!...

I think you are getting ahead of yourself here Nick. You seem to imply that everything is done and dusted when it's not.

The Kelly report is just that - a report. Nothing will see the light of day this side of a general election.

I agree many of the comments here, who've seen through the sham summed up by 7: "What's the betting everything will be done to water down these proposals."

The proposals should have been accepted in full and MPs given the chance to vote on the review recommendations. In that way MPs would have to stand up and be counted.

Instead it's down to yet another unelected, unaccountable quango or committee.

Setting up another quango in Kelly's wake was not the best way to build trust. When all the fuss dies down, won't voters and taxpayers still be left out in the cold?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/kellys-heroes-and-zeros.html

Rigid rules, such as those suggested by Kelly, would certainly be unfair. It would be better to rely on the one rule about expenses being necessarily and wholly incurred for parliamentary duties being applied firmly but flexibly and fairly by the Fees Office.

The problem in the past was that the civil servants in the Fees Office knew that if they got a reputation for interpreting the rule too strictly, they were likely to be moved out of their jobs, in the congenial atmosphere of the House, very quickly.

Supervision of the Fees Office, general management of the House and disciplinary matters should be in the hands of a body truly independent od both MPs and government.

The very interesting point will be what Harriet had to say. I noticed in scanning the online PMQ's that GB said a committee would have to approve Kelly befor Kennedy implements it. Long grass or what?

To stop further procrastination why not treat MPs as self employed under HMRC regulations. Then they would have to live by the rules that they put in place for we mere mortals.

"two surprises" ?

Well, the surprise to me was that the Kelly report was just another layer of beaurocracy, and that it's still going to be referred to yet another committee who in turn will come up with their own report which may or may not pass into law.

Sir Christopher said he "recognises the unique circumstances of an MP's life" - since when was having 2 offices unique to MPs?

There's absolutely no need for any of this rubbish; all they need to do is say:

"see the hmrc laws/guidelines that everyone else in the country who has more than 1 office has to follow? we'll use those" - job done.

I can't see why MPs shouldn't have outside jobs.

After all, our Prime Minister has a few:
- MP for a specific constituency - even though he is only responsible for a fraction of the legislative and regulatory impact of his voters because of the powers devloved to the SCottish Parliament),
- PM - first amongst equals of the Ministers of the Crown (and that must be a separate job, as it has a separate pension scheme!),
- "author" (though in his case "forest abuser would seem more appropriate)and
- sometimes journalist.

Wouldn't you prefer an MP who understands and has to be involved with the "real world", rather than someone living in a Westminster Village?

They don't bother to read all the legislation anyway. So when not spend a bit of time doing something useful?

So the head of the committee that oversees expenses is to be paid £100,000 whereas a backbench MP receives less than £65,000.

I realise our MPs are a much-derided bunch, and in some cases deservedly so. However, in the long term it really does our democratic system a disservice to hold MPs in such low regard.

Perhaps there are many civil servants, especially the quangocrats, who should have their pay cut in half. Come the revolution, that is.

I realise £65,000 may seem a lot of money to many, but for a professional job based in Central London is is not really.

Some of the problem with second homes is that when Parliament is sitting MPs should be based in London, whereas when it is not they should be in their constituencies. MPs with families should expect their families to be with them, not living in hotels. I know other people work and live away from home, and I have done 6 months stints myself, but that was about the limit.

As in many walks of life the majority will be affected by the irresponsibilty of a minority. Given that, reform is lonng overdue as we are talking about public funds.

I'll be surprised if not being able to "employ" a member of your family will pass certain laws but we'll have to wait and see.

As for this stupid notion that MPs will need higher pay to cover loss of some expenses they've always been used to is absolute tosh. It will not lead to a lowering of standards of our MPs, on the contrary, they have done extremely well to lower standards all by themselves already!!

#31:

"But, will it be FULLY independent..."

Would that be the independent regulator who is appointed by Parliament and given a £100K salary? Let me think about just how independent that makes him...

I like the idea of performance-related pay for MPs; it would sharpen their minds. Measuring their performance would be tricky, but I"m sure a system could be agreed which took various indices into account.

Actually, I don't share the general disdain for our MPs and think it's missing the mark to label them corrupt. Up until now, the expenses system has been a covert way to boost MPs' salaries and thereby avoid the politically sensitive issue of publicly raising their pay. It isn't hard to understand how this situation arose back in the 80s recession, and it isn't fair to blame Mrs Thatcher entirely - she just didn't have the guts to risk public disapproval. But it was a precarious situation, to say the least.

Have the Telegraph done the country a service by exposing the 'expenses scandal'? It's hard to see how. And it's always difficult to stomach when journalists are sanctimonious, particularly over something like expenses. I agree with other posters (a minority) who have said the whole furore is a waste of time and money.

The worst thing is, it's diverted the public's ire away from the bankers, who frankly have cost us all a great deal more money than a few dodgy expenses claims could ever amount to.

30. At 12:43pm on 04 Nov 2009, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
can we please have a blog on the "sellafield" question please as this looks like the thin end of wedge

----------

speakin as someone who severed their ties with Unite Against Facism over aa year agobecause of their unwilliness/inabilty to control the violent element which has begun attending their events, i suspect its as much to do with them as the BNP.

The thought of upwards of a thousand protesters, some of them determined to get access to the buildings probably has them pretty worried.

On the other hand it my be the well-documented criminal records of some of those Griffin habitually emp-loys as bouncers...

I'm afraid Nick does have a Westminster Village approach. Of course everybody wants the MPs' pay and allowances regime to be sorted out.

But Darling has announced massive new injections of "public money", which we don't have, into failed banks. And brayed about improving future competition n the high street.

Well, if Brown had not bumped LloydsTSB into the ill-considered takeover of HBoS - then waived the competition rules - that competition would have been more easily achieved. Having Lloyds Group and RBS hive off little minnows with little clout or coherence will just mean they will be swallowed up again as soon as the market turns up...

Brown, with the connivance of the rediculous Chairman Blank, turned a decent and largely sensible bank (Lloyds) into a supplicant. And HBoS - which could have been the sole beneficiary of prop-up money - could eventually have assumed a role as a significant mortgage group.

Instead, there will still be an enormous concentration of mortgage/ retail banking in the hands of people who need a good kicking.

Meanwhile, Lord Sugar blasts off at small businesses and recommends that swathes of them should seek "insolvency practitioners", rather than loans.
For goodness sake, if Brown wants a "Government Of All the Talents" and feels the need for a TV "personality", why pick Sugar?
He could probably have cut a deal with Homer Simpson. Or, if it had to be more local, I guess Bill and Ben would fit right into this political environment.
(After all, so many so-called senior politicians seem to have their strings pulled all the time!!!!)

There should be tighter regulation on MPs. I've heard enough about how the financial sector needs more regulation, but the way our politicians have acted throughout this whole affair is no different. At least the financial sector haven't appeared to do as much complaining as MPs have about how these reforms will affect them.

They had years to address and resolve these things but instead the vast majority were either complicit with the system, knew about it but did nothing or had their snouts in the trough abusing the system as far as they thought they could get away with.

However, as much as I understand the element of hiring family members, I actually disagree with this. Yes, there should be monitoring to ensure family members are doing what they're paid for but it's just about a person doing a job. If they're being paid and not doing a job then full accountability and responsibility lay with the MP and they should be forced out and banned from ever standing again as a candidate.

That is my only issue because I feel that there are many family members who probably do a very good job but they're being punished due to the MPs who abused the system. Apart from that, their only choice is to accept all the reforms laid out if they want to start heading in the direction of regaining the trust of the public who they represent.

However, I don't actually think the enquiry went far enough, I think there should be a full review in to everything regarding the jobs of MPs. The moment they choose to be a candidate for election, they should be made to sign contracts and be put through a process that ensures whoever ends up as MP is not allowed to abuse their position in any way and should receive a criminal conviction for anything they do outside what is considered proper conduct.

The politicians have been given too much freedom to run about uncontrolled for years. Time to reign in the leashes and train these people about what being an MP is really about. I'm fed up of hearing the line "I went in to politics to become an MP to serve the community". If serving the community is what matters then this is their first test to prove it. Either be the ones to complain and prove that you were only in it for the power, prestige, money and influence or accept the reforms in full and prove that you're willing to learn. This is merely the first step, though, on a staircase that goes up a very long way.

However, until people are allowed to have their say and give their votes on the matter, I doubt I would consider the word "Independent" in the same way the government does. The reforms should have been put to public scrutiny in some type of public forum and not run by someone within the system who claims to be independent, but at least they've taken things in the right direction.

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

14. Poprishchin:

#10
'... And it does not compromise the MPs independence and integrity.'
(Sprays monitor with tea and chokes on biscuit!)


:-)
Sorry, just sprayed and choked after rereading my own post...

Put it down to a rare lapse of cynicism.

I just wonder how many MP's will instead of charging mortgage interest will opt to "Rent" their second homes to them-selves?

I hear that the channel islands have some good property managers who dont answer questions re who the actual land lord is etc.

Of course they can charge more than the interest, after all there are additional costs for land lords, like agancy fees, repairs, paying off the actual loan, furnishings etc. Of course they will have to pay Tax on any profits but stamp duty, legal fees, repairs, interest, council tax, furniture etc are deducted BEFORE the profits are calculated and losses can be carried forward for a large number of years.

What is the going rent for a fully furnished flat near Westminster?

Looks like a lose one win two possition for MP's

Opps of course if the MPs Husband or Wife becomes the landlord the renting there own property becomes TOTALLY ligit!

I for one would offer my services to chair the MP's pay committee for free, with my only expense claims the Train Fair to London and if the committee sits after 8pm in the evening an overnight stay in an average london hotel.

But then I would never be asked as my attitude with their claimes would to use the civil services standard expense rules (not the MP's) and apply them to the letter!

On the day five of our brave sons die in Afghanistan; paid a pittance and starved of the best equipment by a parsimonious treasury, we yet again have to listen to the wails from the overpaid, venal, discredited, duck island parliament, determined to wring the last penny from the system.
Have these people any idea of the contempt this nation has for them?

They still don't get it! They're already looking at ways to beat the system and contravene regulations by employing each others wives. Whatever sensible and decent rules are introduced these people will try and find ways of working round them for their own gain. And they've got the cheek to announce smugly how easy it is to exploit loopholes an keep on cheating. Outrageous.

interesting (isn't it?) that David Cameron managed to get his mortgage claim in before these changes ... you know, back when it was all "within the rules"

39. At 1:21pm on 04 Nov 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:

"forest abuser"

===

I like it, I like it a lot!

Saga your hobby horse has had a little too much exercise. He at least has not avoided CGT with in the rules as some have.

None of the above is quite so beyond belief as the interview with Gordon Brown in GQ magazine who claims to be hard up living in Downing Street with his fleet of cars, the country house at Chequers, the satellite TV and cleaning paid for...all because he's turned down a rise on his piffling 195,000 pound salary.

My heart bleeds.

Another shot in his own foot for our stumbling prime minister.

Call an election

54#

Put a sock in it will you, if Jackboots and McNulty arent going to be interviewed under caution for fraud then neither is Cam going to be.

Get over it for Christs sakes.

#58
It's difficult to 'get over it' when you see that these people, er, 'Jackboots', McNulty and Cam the Sham, walking away, scot free, with their pockets stuffed full of our cash. Don't you think, Foobs?

I'm amazed it took over 50 posts for saga to bring that up tbh. Such a tired and flogged to death piece of smearing.

#60 calmandhope

Tired and flogged to death sums up exactly how saga ought to be.....

Sagamix 54

By what I have read, it is claimed, McNulty has got away with 60 thousand pounds of our money, so I would not shout too loudly about Cameron if I were you.

Camerons mortgage seems to be another subject where your needle has got stuck. It gets a bit boring to be honest.

Poprishchin 59

The difference is unlike McNulty or Jacqui Smith, as far as I know, Cameron has done nothing wrong, no matter how you feel about MPs expenses.

This Early Day Motion is published today, tabled by independent MP Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent). It is rather different in tone and content from what a lot of other MPs have said:
EDM 2212 EXPENSES AND ALLOWANCES FOR HON. MEMBERS03.11.2009
https://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39472&SESSION=899

Davies, Dai
That this House, while taking into account the recommendations of the report of the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on parliamentary allowances and expenses, believes hon. Members should be encouraged to sign over current mortgages for their second home to the parliamentary authorities on behalf of the taxpayer; further believes that new rental agreements for second homes should be arranged and managed centrally, and that rent should be paid directly to the landlord by the parliamentary authorities; further believes that all hon. Members' staff contracts should be managed centrally, but that hon. Members should be responsible for the recommendation of any staff bonuses within agreed pay bands, when exceptional work is delivered; further believes that travelcards should be available for hon. Members alone, excluding family members, and should be used only between the hon. Member's constituency and Parliament, excepting circumstances of very large constituencies, or constituencies remote from London; further believes the case has now been made that no other expenses should be paid to hon. Members, and that this would result in no necessity for claim forms, as all legitimate expenditure would thus be controlled from a central authority; considers that henceforth hon. Members' pay rises should be linked to the lowest pay rise awarded in the Civil Service; and further believes that if such new arrangements were to be in place, then it would remove the necessity for any Independent Parliamentary Standards Agency or Speaker's Committee, thus saving more taxpayers' money by not having to pay wages or fees to finance another non-departmental or parliamentary body.

59#

I wouldnt mind anywhere near as much if he mentioned any of those other players, let alone the quangocrats and local authority CEO's and councillors who are partaking in an equally lucrative racket.

In that sense, you're right.

But all he ever bangs on about is Cameron, as if Cameron is a totem for every other trougher in public life. And he knows its a lie, but cant bring himself to admit it for fear of losing face.

Hence my put a sock in it comment. Hope this clears up any confusion.

it matters not what is said or done any dishonest MP will find ways around the new rules.
there needs to be stiffer penalties for defrauding the public over expenses to curb any attempts at fraud.
wouldnt it be wise for potential MPs to be tested to see if they understand english and can use maths reliably.

65Fubar

I wouldnt mind anywhere near as much if he mentioned any of those other players, let alone the quangocrats and local authority CEO's and councillors who are partaking in an equally lucrative racket.

Do you really think people go into public service to make money? Why would they? There are so many easier ways of lining your pockets at the public's expense. Bankers are the obvious example du jour but big business has its fair share of backhanders and bungs. Hearing people drone about MPs' snouts in the trough, you'd think nobody in the private sector had ever feathered their own nest.

Remind me, what was Fred Goodwin's pension again? How many McNulties would you get to a Goodwin? Let's keep things in perspective.

calm @ 60

"Such a tired and flogged to death piece of smearing"

No; "smearing" involves the circulation of something which isn't true - there's plenty of it about, that's for sure ... both inside and outside politics ... but it's not the right word for things like this where the facts are both well known and undisputed; the only question to be answered is how do we FEEL about it? how do we feel about that behaviour from our probable next PM - it's a matter we each of us must contemplate as individuals ... using our own moral compass ... and our answers will differ just as we ourselves differ in the "Moral Compass" department

The sad part about all this is we probably don't need so many MPs anyway.

Votes in the House of Commons are often a forgone conclusion with MPs simply going through the lobbies when they are told. Increasingly, legislation is not properly debated or scrutinised and just goes through on the nod.

Then there is the increasing use of secondary legislation, where Ministers take powers to introduce new measures in the future without any further discussion.

But by far the biggest worry is the European Tidal Wave, where new rules and regulations can simply be imposed.

It used to be the case that a government could not bind a future government - any legislation could in theory be revoked. Thanks to Labour, not any more!

No doubt at the Proms there will soon be a new song to sing; Rule Europa!

#63 Susan-Croft
'... as far as I know, Cameron has done nothing wrong...'
Yes, he didn't break any of the rules that MPs had written for themselves. Woop-de-doo.

Saga

I can speak for the British public who do not have an inherent and disagreeable distaste for those who are better off than ourselves.

We are quite comfortable with our next PM's conduct over his expenses.

As is the whole of Westminster.

The press.

Etc.

Just a few flag wavers who are desperately trying to clutch at the only straw they have available left.

67

Quicker, yes.

Better, certainly.

Easier?

Not too sure about that. We are talking about keeping hold of a receipt and handing it in. Apparently not even that half the time.

Admittedly we are not talkin "filthy rich". But many of them have certainly helped themselves to money they are not entitled to for their own uses.

sagamix..

and where has Gordon Brown's moral compass disappeared given his recent interview in GQ claining to find himself hard up on his £195,000 salary, three homes two of which grace and favour, fleet of Daimlers, cleaners and satelite tv all paid for by the taxpayer?

Up his on backside?

Call an election.

#43:

"Actually, I don't share the general disdain for our MPs and think it's missing the mark to label them corrupt."

Yes, you're right, it's unfair to label them all corrupt. Some MPs are perfectly honest.

Trouble is, the other 99% of them give the honest ones a bad name.

So

1 Cameron will no longer be able to carry out his current practice with his mortgage. It is no longer acceptable. He had to be told this by a senior civil servant. Why did he not realise this before.

Why should the state subsidise rich people making money?

It is amazing that the tories on this site cannot see that this shows a difference between his activity and what he has been saying.

2 MP's will be able to have as many jobs as they like and spend as little time working for the country and their community as they like.

Again amazing value for money that tories.

Kelly has ducked out of really reforming the commons and - the Telegraph that spent so much time exposing the abuse of taxpayers money will say nothing either.

what a great shame and a missed opportunity.

Finbarr

you have got the wrong end of the stick the reason why people refer to David Cameron is because he has been saying one thing and doing another. He is putting himself forward to be the Prime minister of this country, and making capital out of being holier than thou.

He said it was all about the spirit of the law whilst claiming the max he could on expenses for a mortgage on a huge house.

he is the epitome of what has been going on in the commons.

Unbalanced:

Cameron is not making a penny from his expenses arrangements.

he is claiming back the interest, which goes straight to the bank lending him his mortgage.

Why don't you check your facts first next time.

Ok saga I'll admit it smearing wasn't the best phrase to use there. The point still stands though that while camerons may not have been the most moral claim ever, there are numerous examples of equally unmoral claims by the party that is currently IN power. And for some reason you never bring that up, doesn't it bother you?

We keep being told about the 'legacy' of the 2012 Olympics.

Given the amount of public money going in, perhaps one use would be to set aside part of the athletes' village accommodation for MPs who feel the need to stay in London. There will be good transport links. If they wanted to live anywhere else MPs would have to pay for it themselves. It seems to work in other countries.

Better still, why not move parliament out there as well. The site at Westminster must be worth a few million!

Just a thought.

Giant Hayestacks - wow you speak for everyone - thinking it is ok for David Cameron to use the opportunity of expenses to leverage a massive mortgage which he would be able to sell off at a huge profit.

Well Kelly thought it was not right and that is why he has banned it.

Every attempt to discuss it has been sat on by tory sympathisers because they believe it will make people think less of him.

54. At 2:48pm on 04 Nov 2009, sagamix wrote:
interesting (isn't it?) that David Cameron managed to get his mortgage claim in before these changes ... you know, back when it was all "within the rules"

===

As did about 640 other MPs, so what?

Get a life and move on!

#64 drdavidlowry

Dai Davies beat me to it. I was just about to type pretty much the same thing, good job I checked your post first ;-)

Actually, he makes a lot of sense with that, all taken care of and with minimal cost to the public purse.

So on that basis, it stands no chance!

Giant hayestacks

(remember David Cameron has been claiming more than any other parliamentarian for this in many of his years as an MP)

now let me explain the reason why Kelly has now banned the use of expenses to make huge capital gains is this.

What you do is buy a big house with an interest only mortgage. You get the state to pay for this, whilst you sit on the asset.

The house then appreciates in value.

Some years later you sell the asset without having put any money in yourself.

You have then made a huge capital gain.

That is one way in which rich people make money out of property.

Perhaps if you realised this rudimentary way of making money you would not think that 1.20 per day is a lot of money to use the gym, swimming pool, and running track at Willesden Sports center.

mps that profited out of flip flopping, should be in front of a judge,to explain exactly why they should keep the money(not because it was with in the rules)but real reasons,that money made on tax payers contributions to the house they have sold for a profit,surly after a sale all monies put into so called property,by the tax payer should be returned to the public purse,its funny before these people became mps most of them had modest houses with modest morgages went to work just like you and me,but as soon as they get the mp job its nothing but the best for them nothing else will do,that's because they are not paying for it out of their own pocket.all become wealthy, hows that done on a wage of approx £65thousand per year,its not possible, so there must be some sort of corruption going on,and the mps know it ,and now we now it.and no doubt continue to abuse the system,and these are the men and women that we are to look up to,thieves,abusers,and lie rs,.

67. At 4:17pm on 04 Nov 2009, pdavies65 wrote:
65Fubar

I wouldnt mind anywhere near as much if he mentioned any of those other players, let alone the quangocrats and local authority CEO's and councillors who are partaking in an equally lucrative racket.

Do you really think people go into public service to make money? Why would they? There are so many easier ways of lining your pockets at the public's expense. Bankers are the obvious example du jour but big business has its fair share of backhanders and bungs. Hearing people drone about MPs' snouts in the trough, you'd think nobody in the private sector had ever feathered their own nest.

===

Not using taxpayers' money, they haven't, that's the difference.

If the shareholders don't like it, they can vote as such once a year at their AGM.

Rock robin -

Call a referendum?

by a similar token severly unbalanced our PM spent £12,457 of our money that he was not entitled to. OK he has paid it back. Hazel Blears paid her CGT has Hoon and various other Rt Hon members. I doubt it. If you are going to rake muck then at least be even handed. I do give credit to Ms Blears for her prompt action, I now understand why she felt so agrieved by her boss' reaction.

75#

Frankly, I'm getting sick to the back teeth of this politics of envy crap. If you were in any way balanced in your thought, you'd be equally hacked off at the flippers, including the current serving chancellor and prime minister, at the former defence secretary who has amassed a one million pound plus property portfolio by using expenses and are now rich as a result.

But you dont.

You keep on banging on about Cameron, because you're jealous of him because he and his wife were born into money and you were not.

Its a pathetic argument that is as weak as a watered down Labour manifesto promise.

Dont you dare pretend to lecture me with your sanctimonious left leaning garbage about the epitome of everything thats wrong with politics.

You dont know the half of it.

balanced its not a case that any possible tory supporters on here are trying to suppress anything, I certainly wouldn't want to suppress anything. The thing that has got to well everyone on here who attacks saga, is because he routinely trys bringing up one instance with cameron and ignoring the fact that many just as well of labour front benchers were doing exactly the same thing.

The whole system is corrupt and needs cleaning out, however focusing on one person won't help clear it out.

This report while it has good intentions, won't stop any corruption. There is always going to be corruption in every walk of life, its a sad fact but its true. Saga going on about cameron is not as big a issue as he is making it out to be. There are people who have activly been corrupted in both the Labour party and Tory over the last few years yet he focus's on essentially a non story.

Well now the BBC and the newlabour apologists have their answer:

He also promised a sovereignty bill if the Tories win the next election to "lock in" the supremacy of UK laws.

And the Tory leader vowed to repatriate powers on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, employment and criminal law.

So Cameron is a man of his word and will place the words 'never again' in the tory party manifesto.

You got you dividing lines newlabour; you are a bunch of toadying yes men, the tories will stand up the the EU.

Let's have an election

I know that it wasd a 'skim read', but why a skim comment? One other blogger read into what you, very briefly said as not as to allow MPs to take second jobs, not how I read it.

Please explain what is meant by 'snouts in troughs have reason to fear'. I am not the only one to query this, so kindly explain what is indicated by this phrase.

I can only assume that you had too little time to read and inwardly digest before rushing to print. Unfortunately this allows some bloggers to impose their own version of what is said, not what was truly intended.

ghm @ 71

"We (the British Public) are quite comfortable with Mortimax's conduct over his expenses"

like I say, it's a Moral Compass thing

if one's MC is fully aligned with his then, you know, pas de probleme

and the British Public? ... yes, well

Unbalanced

He will not make a penny from the taxpayers.

If the property market happens to improve, he may make a profit should he ever sell. Or he may not. Any money he makes will be from the buyer, not the taxpayer.

Thats really all there is too it.

68#

Man, you dont 'arf like playing with fire dont you mate?

balancedthought 75

Sorry, again not a very balanced post.

As far as I know Brown delegated responsibility to Kelly chairman of the Committee for Standards to find a workable reform for MPs expenses. The Conservatives had very little to do with any decisions he made. Therefore any complaints should be laid at Browns door.

As far as Cameron is concerned, he acted properly, so I understand, within the rules at that time. However a lot of other MPs did not. If the rules are different now and Cameron accepts them, really I do not understand your problem.

As to your other point second jobs, all MPs including Labour MPs, have the same opportunity to have second jobs. It is hardly the Conservatives fault that they are more in demand than Labour ones. I believe however, that Cameron has said that none of his Cabinet can have second jobs.

Personally, I prefer MPs to have a wider interest than just being a career politician. Otherwise we end up with dreadful people like Balls whos only talent is to undermine and smear others.

balancedthought

sagamix

In case it had passed you both by, FIVE servicemen were killed today in Afghanistan trying to carry out Blair & Brown's grubby war, where they seem to be on some sort of crusade, trying to impose our values on a people who clearly do not share them.

I would have thought that would be a more appropriate place to aim your anger, than on a politician who has done nothing wrong regarding his expenses claims.

I know where MY anger is directed!

83. At 5:05pm on 04 Nov 2009, balancedthought

Did you pick up that valuable info from Geoff Hoon, (former Defence Secretary with blood on his hands) and property magnate?

balancedthought 83

There you go again, not everyone who is fair minded is a Conservative, you have been told this and yet you still keep saying it. I defended Cameron because it is right to do so. He has done nothing wrong, as greatHayemaker says he made nothing out of the expenses. Others have made money deliberately by actions that would make them money from the tax payer. Furthermore they have got away with it. You would do better to concentrate on these people from which ever party they come.

A maximum salary of 5 times the UK minimum wage should be set for anyone paid from the public purse and expenses should conform to HMRC rules.
Those individuals whose salary currently exceeds the maximum should have their salary frozen until the rest catch up.
The maximum should be reduced over time (say 20 years) to 4 times minimum wage.

Family members should not be directly employed as this can create a conflict of interest (supposing as an MP you find your spouse has been fiddling the books ?)
Nothing stoppping a good current employee who also happens to be a family member going to work for another MP.

These recommendations to be implemented in the new session (not the one after)

Move parliament to Milton Keynes.

calm @ 78

"And for some reason you never bring that up, doesn't it bother you?"

it does, of course it does, but I focus on Cameron for the following reasons

(1) he's putting himself up as our next PM and will probably win; so he merits particular scrutiny

(2) I think the claim itself was a clear example, and a bad one, of "playing" the system not just using it

(3) he added the sin of hypocrisy by immediately coming out and posing as Mr Angry About It All, and running around desperately (and rather pathetically) trying to look good

(4) he then added the sins of naked opportunism, shallow judgement and venal ambition by sacrificing a fair few of his own people; people who had done very little wrong in the grand scheme of things ... again, let's try and "look good" and who cares about anyone else?

(5) he's been getting an easy ride on this issue and I want to see that change; it's not a resigning matter ... no way is it that ... but let's see him squirm a little, don't you think?

(6) hundreds of you guys on here can be counted on to point relentlessly to expense "problems" on the Labour side

and finally ...

(7) I don't like him

... used to, but don't any more

look, there are ONLY two possible defences:

- the Technical Defence ... Within the Rules

- the Distraction Defence ... Others were as bad and worse

heard the both of these ad infinitum (and I guess someone, Mr Yellow Belly probably, will feel the need again)