MPs Continue To Mock Taxpayers

Last year the Tory MP Nick Boles (pictured above) called for pensioners to lose their winter fuel payments and free bus travel.

Also, on a personal level, Mr Boles entered into a civil partnership with Shay Meshulam.

An eventful year for Mr Boles by all accounts.

Tucked away in the House of Commons rule book is provision for MPs to learn foreign languages in the hope that they'll perform their public duties more efficiently.

Mr Boles decided to spend an claim £678.80 learning Hebrew: coincidently his partner is Israeli. In a show of utter arrogance he stated:

“It is ­something I’m entitled to do. I’ve done it and that’s that.”

Nick Boles isn't the only MP to have the taxpayer fund their language lessons.  Multi-millionaire Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt claimed over £3,000 for Mandarin lessons after marrying his Chinese wife.

These are only two of the nine MPs who claimed, from the taxpayer, for private language lessons in the past 12 months.

Surely this is another abuse of the taxpayer and a loophole which must be closed immediately.

Tweet

Have Your Say. The Clock Can't Be Turned Back

Sir Ian Kennedy (photo), the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority's chairman, certainly took some criticism from MPs last year once he introduced the new expenses reform.

David Cameron has already given IPSA until April to shape up or else. MPs are furious because they say IPSA leaves them unable to see their children at weekends and forces many to sleep in their offices. Poor souls. What MPs are so enraged about is that the taxpayer doesn't think they should pay for them to visit their children. What job in this country pays employees' visits to family other than the military who receive 2nd class travel to their home when they return from operational service? None, of very few, of the military have second homes within spitting distance of their base and certainly no home is paid for by the taxpayer.

But the PM wants change. A list of the new proposals is here.

Yesterday IPSA published a press release asking members of the public for their views:

05 January 2011

IPSA launches review of the Scheme Today IPSA is issuing an open invitation asking for views on the rules governing MPs’ expenses. Following the general election in May last year, IPSA, the new independent regulator created in the wake of the expenses scandal, introduced a fresh approach with greater scrutiny. For centuries, MPs and the House of Commons decided the rules for themselves. IPSA brought an end to self-regulation and intends to continue giving the public a say about what the rules should be. For the next six weeks, we are asking people to come forward and offer their views about the rules for MPs’ claiming expenses. Following preliminary discussions with the political parties and MPs, we have found that issues of concern to MPs include the impact of the rules on their family life, the definition of the ‘London Area’ and the budget for renting a constituency office. To inform this consultation, we also conducted a poll of the public. The results show that 30 per cent of respondents trust MPs to claim only for legitimate expenses. A further 35 per cent said they had some trust, but not very much. This suggests that some progress is being made but there is still a long way to go. On specific issues, like family accommodation and office costs, the survey shows that a majority of the public is reluctant to see more generous funding at this stage. Likewise there are still strong views on the use of taxis and first class travel. We will consider these findings and other feedback in the consultation but also invite all interested people – MPs, their staff and the public – to comment on any other aspect of the rules. Speaking on the launch of the consultation, IPSA’s chairman, Sir Ian Kennedy, said: “IPSA was created by Parliament to bring an end to the old, discredited expenses system and has introduced an integrity and probity to MPs’ expenses. Our new approach is working, but I know it is not perfect. We have learned many lessons in the eight months that we have been regulating MPs’ expenses and have taken them on board and acted where appropriate. But, of course, some still have concerns. We want to hear these concerns and the evidence which lies behind them. We want to hear not only from MPs but from taxpayers around the country. After all, it is the taxpayer who pays the expenses. “Our commitment to giving the public a say on the rules is an historic shift from the practices of the past. I’m proud that IPSA is making its contribution to the process of restoring confidence in our democratic institutions.” IPSA will review the rules annually, to make sure they are appropriate and keep pace with the challenges facing MPs and Parliament.

The public wanted change and Sir Ian provided it. Politicians don't like it. We have the opportunity to give our opinions. You can complete the online survey (it's anonymous and takes a couple of minutes) or email the address in the link.

MPs have to understand they are no different to any other working person who is entitled to claim expenses. Raewald says David 'Cameron is probably doing everything he can to engineer legislative changes before the public can be consulted - he may even block Sir Ian's consultation.' I too urge you to support Sir Ian in ensuring that we are given our say.

Tweet

They Never Learn

The Telegraph has to be credited with exposing the MPs' expenses scandal in June last year and they continue to keep a close watch over MPs' behaviour with regard to their inappropriate use of taxpayers' money.

Labour and Tory MPs have moved into new properties after the Commons authorities announced that they would block future claims for mortgage costs and claw back a proportion of the profits made on subsidised properties. MPs can claim for rental costs on new London homes.

So what has Chris Bryant done? (pictured above).  The shadow justice minister has rented out his mansion flat in Bloomsbury (pictured above). There's nothing wrong with letting a home you own and have maintained.  But Chris Bryant hasn't maintained his Bloomsbury flat because the taxpayer paid £4,000 for stamp duty and £881 for legal costs when he bought it for £495,000 in 2005.  Since then he's claimed the mortgage costs plus the service charge of up to £1,400 every six months.  The mortgage payment isn't detailed but it will be considerable by anyone's standards.  To avoid Westminster getting their hands on a proportion of the sale of the property Mr Bryant has rented it and moved into a new property for which, of course, taxpayers will pay the rent and any service charges.

Other MPs are involved in this scam.  Peter Luff, junior defence minister, has also recently rented out a flat in London while Tory MP Philip Hollobone has rented out his house in Blackheath. Labour MPs Clive Betts and Andrew Love are at it as well renting out their Westminster flats along and not to be outdone David Crausby and Meg Munn have kept them company.

The SNP MP Angus Robertson has also rented his Westminster flat and said he was not making a profit from renting it out. "The rental income covers mortgage repayments and costs."

The other MPs declined to comment.

They just don't get it do they?  Mr Robertson's comment makes that very obvious.  What he doesn't seem to understand is that taxpayers' money has been spent subsidising these residences and, with the new rules, the honest action would be to sell their properties.  Letting them, in the full knowledge that they will increase in value and they can keep all profits, is teetering on the edge of dishonesty.

The rules state that MPs who continue claiming mortgage interest costs until 2012 will have to repay a portion of the increased value of their properties to the House of Commons authorities.  If an MP's flat was valued at £500,000 in May 2010 and the MP continued to claim 50% of the mortgage costs until 2012, the House of Commons would be entitled to half the increase in value of the flat over that period.

If MPs rent a new property the can claim £17,600 a year to cover the rental costs (£1,467 a month).

source

Tweet

Now This Is Good News

It is reported today that MPs are set to lose their 'golden goodbyes' as part of a review of the expenses system.

Sir Christopher Kelly will recommend MPs should no longer get resettlement grants when they leave parliament.

The move could force MPs to quit early while the grant is still available or face losing the pay-off which is currently worth between £32,383 and £64,766 depending on length of service.

Around 110 MPs have already said they will stand down at the next general election, but with the Kelly proposals due to come into force in the next 5 years, others planning just one more term could decided to go early to collect the cash.

MPs will be banned from travelling first-class and those who live within commuting distance of Westminster will see their second home allowance scrapped. A communications allowance of £10,000 will be axed - only a year after being phased in.

This is all good news for the taxpayer and it will certainly be interesting to see how many jump ship this time round, just in case they miss out on their 'resettlement' pay. As for first class travel being banned, that is long overdue.

Source

Tweet

MP Asked to Repay £60,000+

This is Bernard Jenkin, Tory MP for North Essex.

Sir Thomas Legg has requested Mr Jenkin return the sum of £63,250 which he claimed for a second home allowance. The second home was a farmhouse which he rented from his sister-in-law from 2004.

The former shadow defence secretary insists the Commons Fees Office sanctioned the arrangement but failed to inform him when payments to relatives were outlawed in 2006.

Nonetheless, Sir Thomas has told him to replay the full five years' rent and Mr Jenkin said he will pay back whatever is finally recommended at the end of the process.

Why on earth would an MP need a farmhouse at a rent of £1000 a month? Perhaps because of his hobby he feels it necessary to be away from prying eyes.

Source

Tweet

Immediate Dismissal is What's Needed

I've been following the backlash from the Legg report on radio this week. Listening to the bleating and excuses, the 'it wisnae me I followed the rules' and Ann Widdecombe insisting Legg's retrospective changes are illegal. All this was completely boring.

Now 27 MPs are to be investigated by the Inland Revenue and I'm sure those involved are worried. I'd be worried too if I'd been found out after having defrauded the IR for, in some cases, years. Of course many will say they made an error, but we all know that the IR penalises the hoi polloi for errors. Will the same happen to our not so honourable MPs?

The commentators reactions are all similar - "Vote them out at the next election." Why are we allowing these people to stay in office for even one day once they have been found to have stolen from the public purse?

If they were employed in business they would be asked to clear their desk and then be accompanied to the front door never to return.

But we, their employers, can do nothing. Therefore, MPs who are thieves, continue to attend Westminster while they bide their time for the golden handshake and a pension which most people envy.

A small amount of our money should be spent on cardboard boxes and those MPs who have defrauded us should be given 10 minutes to leave the building complete with the knowledge that they will forfeit their golden handshake and pension rights.

Instead, this week saw the man who was responsible for overseeing the 'nice little earner' of MPs expenses made a Lord. It was a revolting sight seeing the main accomplice being feted and rewarded in this manner and there was nothing the public could do about it. He'll be Lord Whatsit forever, while struggling pensioners continue to do without warmth in their homes.

If just one political party declared a policy which supported immediate sacking of law-breaking MPs they'd be voted in without much competition. Labour and the tories won't consider such an action - will the libdems?

Tweet

MPs - Still Upset by 'People Power'

There is an article in yesterday's Observer which infuriated me. The subject is the number of MPs who are leaving parliament at the next election and it gives the reason for the mass exodus as the expenses scandal.

What angered me was the attitude of some of the MPs quoted. Here are a few of the moans:

'The 65-year-old, who has decided to stand down at the next election because of his age, says that it is hardest for wives and husbands, who have seen their partners fall in the public's esteem.'

'Paul Goodman, the Conservative MP for Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, says summer is a normally a chance for MPs to "recharge their batteries" and their enthusiasm for Commons life. This year, the holiday could do the reverse. The atmosphere out there, he says, is "cooler than they [fellow MPs] expected".'

'Privately, MPs report that at social gatherings – the garden parties, fetes, and formal functions that make up much of an MP's summer – people shy away, where once they used to gather round. "I find some of my constituents can't look me in the eye," said one. "So part of me thinks why the hell should I take this any longer, for £64,000 a year."'

It's right that the MPs who didn't abuse the expenses system should feel angry at being tarred with the same brush as those who did, but you would think they were grown up enough to deal with it.

Paul Goodman and his 'recharge their batteries' comment is insulting to our troops who work 7 days a week for weeks on end without complaint. The anonymous MP who feels that £64,000 is not enough for him to handle upset constituents says far more about him than it does about his constituents.

The article claims that MPs know they have lived for too long off a system that paid them too small a salary and too much in expenses. Too small a salary? I think not. The taxpayer also pays for all their office expenses, travel and subsidises their high class Westminster restaurants, tea rooms and bars. What other job offers such to employees who don't even need any formal qualifications?

The Scottish Parliament MSPs are more or less content with the scrutiny of their expenses so why are MPs so different?

Some are predicting that, by October, more than 200 MPs will have decided to step down and are leaving their seats open to inexperienced 'professional' politicians. Politics has been a 'profession' for a number of years now, Isn't it time MPs were paid in the same way as all public servants and had a salary scale according to years of experience?

Here's a quote from one labour MP whose priorities differ from what people expect of their political representative:

"I'm off. You can't earn a decent living here any more. We are going to have the most inexperienced parliament ever after the election, with big decisions to take. It is not somewhere I want to be. I want to earn some money."

I wonder if the above anonymous person would class themselves as an experienced 'professional' politician. There will be few tears from the public at the departure of the aggrieved. Once they discover the realities of working outside the Westminster bubble they may realise just how fortunate they were being the Right Honorable Member for Yonder.

Tweet

Nursery Rhymes for our Times

Sing along to the tune of Sing a Song of Sixpence. It's Sunday morning and nobody will hear you!

Sing a song of Parliament,

Pockets full of cash.

Fraudulently claiming

then adding to their stash.

With their ploy discovered

They said they'll give it back,

If you or I had done the same

We'd promptly get the sack.

Sing a song of freebies

Snouts all in the trough,

Giving back their ill-got gains

Is just not good enough.

Sponging off our earnings

With a likely tale,

If working folk had done the same

They'd soon end up in jail.

Sing a song of fraudsters

Counting out their money.

They smile and look quite unashamed

As though they think it's funny.

Sitting in a secret place

Counting our their dosh,

Spent on baths and cleaning moats -

Or crisps and orange squash.

Sing a song of MPs

Who took us for a ride,

It's up to us election time

Their futures to decide.

It's gone too far to bring back trust

Of anyone in power,

To most of us they'll always be

A shifty, crooked shower.

Tweet

Where is the MPs' Repayment List?

Gordon Brown has repeatedly stated he intends to ensure the Westminster Parliament will be open and transparent with regard to MPs' expenses. His promise seems to have fallen at the first hurdle.

A committee, chaired by the new Speaker John Bercow, has quietly shelved the official list of repayments.

Last month, the Members Estimate Committee, which oversees MPs' pay and allowances, published a list showing that in the wake of the expenses scandal, members had paid back nearly £500,000. The list on the Commons website was up for just 24 hours then it was suspended after 'a couple' of administrative errors. In fact, the list included some MPs who should not have been included because their repayments were not connected to the expenses scandal.

A notice went up on the parliamentary website saying the list was 'being updated', yet references to the list have now been removed.

So much for openness and transparency from Westminster. Are many of us surprised? I doubt it.

Source: The Herald

Tweet

Update on Douglas Alexander's Payback

I had the pleasure yesterday morning of having a newspaper delivered to my hotel room and I'm still ploughing through it. Knowing there was a comprehensive list of MPs' expenses included I ordered the Telegraph.

Although it doesn't seem to be stated online, there is a list of MPs who have paid back monies to the Treasury. Dougie Alexander's statement reads:

Name: Douglas Alexander Amount: £12,600 For: Rent on property next to second home

We would never have known he had bought a property with a sitting tenant from that description. Makes him all the more devious doesn't it.

Tweet

Douglas Alexander - Busted by the Sun

It was just a couple of weeks ago I was reading somewhere how Dougie Alexander's expenses were in order with small exceptions.

Now it seems Mr Alexander has paid back £12,600 to the Treasury, a sum he received in rent from a lodger at a home for which he was also claiming taxpayers' money. He bought the property, in his constituency, with a sitting tenant and claimed £73,000 in second home allowance and received rent from 2001 until 2005. Mr Alexander said that, when he bought the house, the tenant was living in a single room building of the property. What is a single room building of a property?

He also said he reduced claims for mortgage interest to cover the rent received until the tenant moved out in 2005 but "for the avoidance of doubt" he has now decided to pay back enough to cover what he received in rent.

Nobody, not even the son of the manse Mr Alexander, could convince me that he didn't but this property purely as a property speculator. Only property investors buy properties with sitting tenants.

Seems like someone was onto Mr Alexander's nice wee earner, hopefully a Sun reporter. Dougie is known to like having his photograph in the Sun and he has a lovely one today, so he must be pleased.

Tweet

The Self-Diagnosing MP

Some MPs have no shame and the one pictured certainly fits the bill. As well as his blatant attempt to have taxpayers cough up for his luxurious lifestyle Gerald Kaufman fell to a new low by insulting the suffers of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. As many of you will know this is a very distressing condition and seriously inhibits lives.

Sir (can you believe) Kaufman, on a parliamentary claim form, stated he had to buy a £220 pair of Waterford grapefuit bowls because he suffers from OCD. His cleaner had smashed one of his existing crystal bowls, so he felt compelled to get two more exactly the same - one for him and one for "any guests."

"Because I've got this self-diagnosed OCD, I do things according to rules I've created," he said, explaining that he must have the same breakfast whether in London or Manchester: half a grapefruit, a bowl of muesli with semi-skimmed milk and a cup of coffee with a Rich Tea biscuit. "You may think I oughtn't to have a Waterford grapefruit dish," says the Gorton MP, "but I do. And I ate out of it today."

I have no objection whatsoever to Sir Gerald having Waterford grapefruit dishes, indeed he can have a dozen if he wishes as long as he pays for them out of his own personal finances. But to expect the taxpayer to pay for his crystal bowls looks far more like OCG (Obsessional Compulsive Greed) rather than any form of OCD.

He should be ashamed of insulting suffers of OCD in this manner and if he had any conscience he would contact the OCD society and apologise. He won't of course. His life has been spent for too long within a labour party which has lost its sense of common decency.

Tweet

Nigel Griffiths and his Claim for Listening to Scottish Radio and TV

Seeing Mr Griffiths once in a photograph is enough for me, but twice?  Mr Griffith isn't have a good time of it recently between his sordid 'incident' in Westminster and the first exposure of his expenses.

Today further information has been published.  Mr Griffiths claimed £3,604.95 for a television, DVD and digital radio and, when the claim was queried, he wrote "As a Scottish MP, I can only keep in touch with events during the day, which might affect my constituents, by tuning into the Scottish radio stations which the digital set provides.  Like wise, I record the Scottish TV news and Scottish current affairs programmes, which feature issues in Scotland and in south Edinburgh.  In a cramped London flat, flat-screen TV is the sensible option."

The Fees Office were not taken in my this and wrote back to him saying they had not changed their mind.

In November 2004 the MP successfully claimed £9,250 to redecorate the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom in his 'cramped' London flat, £220 for a carpet and £230 for pots and kitchen utensils.  Six months later he claimed again for redecoration and was reimbursed for £4,911.  Mr Griffiths redecorated a third time in 2006 and charged the taxpayer £3,310 which was approved.

So all in all Mr Griffiths' costs, in just over 2 years, for decorating his 'cramped' flat were £17,471.

He must have thought the taxpayers were mugs - he'll soon find out they're not.

Tweet

The Wintertons are Next to Go

This happy looking couple, Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton the conservative MPs, are to stand down at the next election to spend 'more time with their family'.

That will be the family who had a London flat put in trust in their names and then their father and mother claimed more that £80,000 in rent for it through their MP expenses.  Expenses submitted by Sir Nicholas show he claimed £41,508 in rent and his wife's claims amounted to £41,584.

I wonder if the electorate of Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas) and Congleton (Ann Winterton) will be shedding any tears.

Tweet

Andrew MacKay Accused of Misrepresentation

Please read the summary by Tim Montgomerie of conservativehome once you've watched the video. The words brass neck spring to mind.

Tweet

Well Done Pete!

Pete Wishart, Perth and North Perthshire MP, yesterday published his London living expenses online for public viewing.  He has also announced he is holding a public meeting in Perth next week to discuss all the issues surrounding MPs' allowances.

The SNP MP said, "My constituents will find that I own no London property, claimed for no household furnishings and there is nothing from any John Lewis list.  They will also find that I personally paid nearly all my utility bills and council tax out of my own pocket."

Mr Wishart's expenses can be found at www.petewishartmp.com and it's a smart website.

Well done Pete, I hope others follow your example.

Tweet

One Click to View Your MP's Expenses

Click here to enlarge then click on your own area

the map can be moved around by using your cursor

My thanks to Faux CU

Tweet

What Type of MP would You Be? Another annoying meme

What Type of MP would You Be?

Daniel 1979 tagged me for this so he's responsible for wasting my time and yours!

So this is open to anyone who wants to be an MP in Parliament after the next General Election, as well as the bloggers tagged below, after they have finished, if they would kindly tag 5 more that would be super.

1. Has there ever been an occasion when you failed to notice that you have paid your mortgage off months, possibly years in advance, and just had not realised?

2. Does your property contain a moat?

3. Do you think you could in good conscience accept a salary and allowances whilst not actually attending your place of work or office?

4. If you were told that it was within the rules to go jump off a cliff, would you do it?

5. Are you able to tell the difference between a room in a house, and an actual house?

6. Are you able to commute a distance under 35 miles for work purposes without the need for an additional house being provided?

7. Do you know what an Iron is?

8. Is your TV or Stereo likely to need an upgrade in the next 5 years?

9. Do you have a warped sense of humour OR Do you have a helipad?

10. If you did need two houses to live and work, do you think it possible to designate one as a main home, and stick by that decision for the duration of that employment?

11. If you work in a different place to where you live – do you find yourself, or could you envision, eating twice as much food as you would if you lived more locally to work?

12. Do you know what a pergola is?

Anyone else who wants to is free to answer in the comments, but be warned and very careful, you may inadvertantly prove yourself suitable for a position in Government.

Answers

1. No

2. No, I prefer doors to drawbridges

3. No

4. No

5. Yes

6. Yes

7. Yes

8. Yes and I want one of these £8000 ones - if they're good enough for Gerald Kaufman...

9. Yes but No to the helipad, I'm not too keen on flying in helicopters.  Long story.

10. Certainly

If The universality of cheese, Advanced Media Watch, Brownlie, Holyrood Chronicles and Pseudepigrapha would like to have a go then we may have some interesting answers.

Tweet

"Why Did the Telegraph Focus on Me?"

Seems like Mr Malik's statement that he abided by the rules 'a thousand per cent' wasn't good enough.  If this is the quality of justice minister we have making the laws of this country no wonder it's such a shambles.  Bribing your electorate by promising to put your posh TV claim to a local charity possibly won't happen now. 

'I earned more in 1999 than I do as an MP.'  May I kindly suggest you return to your previous job Mr Malik although, if you are found guilty of abusing the system, you may find that not so easy.

Tweet

FMQs 14 May 2009

Apologies for the lateness of this post but the sunshine took priority today.

The knives were out today at FMQs and in more ways than one.  Ian Gray delivered his three questions in a more than usual pedestrian manner, accusing Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, of being the life and soul of parties in the US and Canada when he should have been attending a knife crime conference here in Scotland.  This subject is quite a few months old but it seems the labour party wished to usurp the tories who had previously let it be known knife crime would be their subject today.

Alex Salmond stated the relevant minister, Fergus Ewing, had attended the conference, knife crime had reduced and there were more police on the streets.  He also mentioned Mr Gray hadn't been present at the conference, which made anyone wonder why they were making such a fuss about the absence of Kenny MacAskill.  Did I feel Mr Gray was just a wee bit envious of Mr MacAskill's jaunt across the pond?

Ms Goldie's subject was also knife crime and asked what further action Mr Salmond intended to undertake.  His response was much the same as given to Mr Gray although he asked Ms Goldie to celebrate the increase of police on the streets.

Tavish Scott's question related to redundancies announced by BT and how they would affect the many BT jobs in Scotland. He asked Alex Salmond to intervene to ensure as many Scottish jobs would be saved. Mr Salmond detailed a number of occasions when ministers had helped in such situations but also said intervention wasn't always successful and shouldn't be thought as a solution.

Tweet