Jump to content

The next round of expenses revelations....


Bazj
 Share

Recommended Posts

See the Labour party have had the rug pulled out from under their feet by trying to portray themselves as the working class heroes whilst slagging off the Tories as the posh boys from Eaton....

 

One Labour minister; Quentin Davies, the Defence Minister, included the ?20,000 cost of repairing a bell tower at the 18th century listed mansion he designated as his second home with his claim for second home expenses,

 

Gordon Brown has claimed ?500.00 to have a summer house painted (but paid it back quickly so that's OK then)

 

Another Labour MP, stauch socialist Alan Meale claimed ?1,200 on a "cabin" for his garden to add to the ?13,000 he has already claimed on his garden since 2004!!

 

Kitty Ussher (she who was forced to resign as a minister previously over her expense claims) declared that the plumbing in her 2nd home was ?strange? and the electrics were ?odd?, then went on: ?Most of the ceilings have Artex coverings. Three-dimensional swirls. It could be a matter of taste, but this counts as "dilapidations'' in my book! Can the ACA pay for the ceilings to be plastered over and repainted??

 

She carried out a ?20,000 refurbishment of the property, including a new bathroom, carpet and windows along with a ?1,590 sofa and chair from John Lewis.

 

She was reimbursed ?16,723 for ?building work? in the kitchen in December 2008

 

Michael Martin claimed more than ?2,000 for a year?s council tax in advance just before he was forced to step down over his mishandling of the MPs? expenses scandal.

 

An MP who sits on the Commons committee that monitors Whitehall spending tried to charge the taxpayer ?65 in court costs he had incurred for non-payment of council tax. Ian Davidson was issued with a summons from Camberwell Green Magistrates? Court in August last year after failing to pay the ?839.02 bill.

 

The summons costs were added to this, and Mr Davidson, the Labour MP for Glasgow South West, submitted an expenses claim for the full amount of ?904.02.

 

and as for the current stock of cabinet thieves.... have a look here:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6781356/MPs-expenses-Cabinet-facing-fresh-questions-over-latest--claims.html

 

And they have the cheek to criticise the Tories!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Who hasn't fiddled their expenses? If the taxman allows you to claim 85% of your phone bill, you do. You don't sit there and work out that actually, only 57% of calls were business and tell him you'll pay tax on the rest! How many blokes claim Hotel rooms and crash on the sofa at a friend's house? How many people go home with envelopes, folders, paper, biros and coffee from the office? Frank their personal mail? Employ their wives and kids?

 

So the people we elected are no better than the rest of us? The allowances were there, the relevant committees approved the claims. There are a handful of lawbreakers who deliberately claimed for mortgages they didn't have - and they want throwing in jail for outright theft of public money. The rest did nothing more than enjoy the perks of the system. It's not noble, it's not admirable, it has quite rightly been stopped, but it's nothing that 99% of the population don't do too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errm, a slight difference in the amounts involved methinks - this year's legalised (cos they make the laws) thieving has cost US an extra ?10million - these are the folk who are supposed to be leading by example! :roll::twisted:

 

No, the amounts make no difference to the principle. They did the same as every other individual - they took the full allowances available to them under the terms of their employment. The very small number who have deliberately cheated by making fraudulent claims should be dealt with as any other thief. The rest enjoyed a perk that many others have enjoyed before them and whilst we may not like it, it's not illegal.

 

It is ridiculous and naive to assume that politicians are in some way less prone to human misconduct, Obs! They have affairs, break the speed limit, drive drunk, tell lies....... If none of them was fiddling expenses, I'd be worried, because it probably meant they were all keeping squeaky clean to cover something really bad.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes it does! If the PM pays back ?5,000 for painting an out-house, which he presumably ligitimately claimed, why has he paid it back? Guilt? They all knew what they were doing when they concocted this stealth scheme to increase their income without the public knowing, and cos they make the law, it was legal. Now how can a PM or any other politician, who by their own admission have done something immoral, dare to blame the bankers or anyone else for fiddling (while Rome burns). It obviously won't happen in our enlightened democracy, but a few courtyard firing squads would have concentrated minds from the very top down to the lowest peon. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be naive, Obs. They are paying back to try and regain public confidence and avoid further criticism. It's a PR exercise, not an admission of criminal activity for most of them. Who's been charged so far? By all means string up the felons, but the rest are guilty of nothing more than going along with the existing system.

 

Do I approve of gilded ceilings and second homes - no, of course not. Do I think they should be reined in, yes I do. But I do not see the point of picking over every till receipt looking for an excuse to be indignant all over again when the matter's been dealt with. Nobody's going to buy a duckhouse now, so let's move on.... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all his *holier than thou* platitudes over the expenses scandal issued by the leader of the opposition it seems he is no better than the rest of them..He switched main homes between his London address and his Oxfordshire pile and promptly remortgaged the property thus qualifying for a thousand quid a month in mortgage interest payments. A nice little earner for some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why the "PR exercise" - to assuage public indignation; something they obviously didn't think about when they voted their "rules" through the Commons, thinking they would remain secret. Get real LP, they were caught with their hands in the till. :twisted:

 

Look, I don't think much of them and they are all as bad as each other, but you are just being silly. Offer almost anyone an expense account and they will claim the maximum and regard it as part of their salary package that they are entitled to have. Human nature. MPs are human beings - just as selfish, greedy and shallow as anyone else. To expect them to be morally pure is just daft. Your blanket approach of "shoot them all" actually lets the real thieves off the hook. They just blend into the general picture of cheating. We should be more interested in separating the deliberate fraudsters from the herd and removing them from office!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks as if Obs and Lymm Parent are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I accept a lot of what Lymm Parent says...except the implication that EVERYONE would fiddle the tax man if they could.

I believe there ARE people who are honest and would not do it. Just as there are people who would find a ?20 note in the street and hand it in at the police station, or people who will point out to a shop assistant that they have received too much change.

I agree, they are probably in a minority. But I don't think it is right to suggest EVERYONE is dishonest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting that most folk wouldn't succumb to temptation IF they had a blank cheque or the freedom to rifle a super-market - but they don't because they respect the law and are not prepared to face the consequences of such illegallity. The big difference is: that our MPs MAKE the law, and they voted in these freebie rules in the first instance: they knew they were immoral, hence their efforts to cover them up, but thanks to the Telegraph they were exposed - they are beneath contempt. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'll find the rules on exes were established before any of the involved MPs came to office and largely laid down by the unchanging body of civil servants. Same body who allowed the claims. Most MPs didn't sneak anything out the side door, it was all claimed openly and approved quite legitimately. You only have to look back to Churchill's lavish habits to get the idea of how long it's been happening. The current incumbents did not start the trend, they're not the worst exploiters of the system either - they were just unlucky enough to fall foul of the press!

 

And Egbert, my point was that people do not see it as dishonest to claim expenses and allowances in full. They see it as their due and part of their salary, much the same as restaurants and service charges. Only a tiny number of MPs were overtly dishonest. THAT is what I said - not that everyone was dishonest, but that everyone was the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...