observer Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 The standards applied by the "fees office" were sloppy to say the least, but based on vague set of "rules", that the old sweats would have encouraged any new boy to "abuse" or rather "claim what they were entitled to". Such institutional abuse isn't new or restricted to the House of Commons; it arises from self-regulation and misplaced trust. The only way to end it: is to end any system of allowances or expense claims that directly involves MPs in formulating "the rules", becoming involved in financial claims of any kind - this can be achieved by full transparency about their pay and conditions; paying them a salary - period; and providing Halls of Residence in London complete with cafeteria, and office staff and equipment for their constituencies - thus NO "claims". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Sorry if it's already been answered but...... When the MP's put in their expenses aren't their receipts and claims checked and verified in some way Nope.... thats why they have stolen so much taxpayers money So who is to blame and who is worse? Is it the people who have claimed the expenses or the 'people' who have turned a blind eye and allowed the suspect claims to go through the system It is very easy to monitor expenses and have rules 'if' you want to.... They are all in it together if you aske me or it would have been stopped a long time ago I'm babbling sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 This problem started in 1983, when several reviews recommended increases in MPs salaries. They were clearly embarrassed and scared to accept a wage hike, for fear of public hostility; so they introduced the second home allowance, which was sufficiently vague and open to moral abuse, that it represented a means of hiking their incomes by stealth. The Commons fees Office, encouraged by the Commons Authorities appear to have applied deliberately loose standards of audit; thus promoting this feeding frenzy at the trough. As I've suggested umpteen times, the only way to end this, is to pay them a wage - period; NO allowances or expenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 This problem started in 1983 Ahhh so it is all Maggies fault? I wondered when that one would come up!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 I read that it started in 1971. It probably started when people became MPs for what they could get out of it rather for what they could put in!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Are you challenging the fact that MPs voted for the "homes allowance scheme in 1983"; or just choked that it happened under a Tory Government?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Are you challenging the fact that MPs voted for the "homes allowance scheme in 1983"; or just choked that it happened under a Tory Government?! Oi Stalin.... your lot never put a stop to it either before you continue down this route. Remember, Tony Bliars words about sleaze?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Fact of the matter is that MPs aren't forced to claim money. 100 years ago MPs weren't paid (prior to 1911), so those becoming MPs were either wealthy or paid by the unions/their employer. Not sure we want to go back to that situation. August 1911 400 1 April 2006 59,686 October 1931 360 1 Nov 2006 60,277 July 1934 380 1 Apr 2007 61,181 July 1935 400 1 Nov 2007 61,820 June 1937 600 1 Apr 2008 63,291 April 1946 1 000 1 April 2009 64,766 May 1954 1,250 July 1957 1,750 October 1964 3,250 January 1972 4,500 June 1975 5,750 June 1976 6,062 June 1977 6,270 June 1978 6,897 June 1979 9,450 June 1980 11,750 June 1981 13,950 June 1982 14,910 June 1983 15,308 1 Jan 1984 16,106 1 Jan 1985 16,904 1 Jan 1986 17,702 1 Jan 1987 18,500 1 Jan 1988 22,548 1 Jan 1989 24,107 1 Jan 1990 26,701 1 Jan 1991 28,970 1 Jan 1992 30,854 1 Jan 1993 30,854 1 Jan 1994 31,687 1 Jan 1995 33,189 1 Jan 1996 34,085 1 July 1996 43,000 1 April 1997 43,860 1 April 1998 45,066 1 April 1999 47,008 1 April 2000 48,371 1 April 2001 49,822 20 June 2001 51,822 1 April 2002 55,118 1 April 2003 56,358 1 April 2004 57,485 1 April 2005 59,095 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Oi Churchill: I wasn't making a "Party" political point, as they are ALL as corrupt as each other; however, your reaction indicates your natural tribal support remains intact - now how thick is that?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 I could have told you it was all Maggies fault Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Maggie Thatcher inflated expenses in the late 1980s to pad out MPs' pay packets with a nod and a wink. The Rusty Lady's greater crime was to unleash a greed-is-good culture and trash the noble ideal of public service, civil servants required by the Tories to be One Of Us. The grocer's daughter knew the price of everything and value of nothing, fatally undermining the quality of public life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.