The MP's expenses scandal
May. 14th, 2009 02:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chrishansenhomeFor those of you who are not Brits, a bit of background. The Daily Torygraph, er, Telegraph recently paid a goodly amount of money to an informer to pass it a CD on which were detailed lists of receipts submitted by MPs for their expenses. The information was due to be released by the House of Commons later in the year, after MPs had taken out some details such as their addresses. However, the Torygraph jumped the gun, paid a 6-figure sum, and has been drip-feeding the information day-by-day for about the past week.
I should add that last year the House of Commons nearly voted to suppress this information altogether, and not to release it to the public. They were shamed into rejecting this motion. Now we know why they were so eager to keep it under wraps.
British MPs are allowed to submit claims for reasonable expenses connected with having a home near Westminster, if they are not representing a constituency in London. However, there are some interesting entries in this list. Unless otherwise designated, those referred to below are Labour MPs.
The MPs defense is to say "Sorry!" and repay the claims to the Inland Revenue. Of course, the Commons Fees Office has always told them that these claims are within the rules, and MPs have tried to say, "Well, as the Fees Office allowed it, it must be legal." but this is no longer a defense, especially against some of these outlandish claims.
So what's to be done? I am unaware whether American congresscritters get such allowances, but their pay is, I believe, a bit more than a UK MP's pay (about £65K before expenses). It is important that MPs for far-flung areas of the UK are able to live and work in London when required—they of course have very long holidays in the summer and at other times. However, the sheer inanity of some of the claims boggles the mind. Imagine claiming for a bun and a cup of tea bought while commuting to the House! How about a £2.50 KitKat chocolate bar eaten by an MP while he was staying in a hotel—aside from the fact that he would have saved the taxpayer around £2 if he'd stirred his butt out of the room and gone to the nearest newsagent instead of raiding the minibar.
The claims beggar belief, really. What can be done about it? The US solution seems to be to only put forward candidates who are rich enough to keep two homes and fly back and forth to their constituencies each weekend. That wouldn't do here. The preferred solution for MPs is to turn the question of remuneration (salaries as well as expenses) over to an independent body (unspecified). No matter what the system, however, people clever enough to be elected MP are also clever enough to subvert the system.
Adding to the mix is the general disenchantment with Gordon MacStumblebum...er...Brown, our Prime Minister. The "surefootedness" he showed as Chancellor (not now borne out as the credit crunch unfolds) has to a great extent deserted him. Hazel "13K" Blears described his YouTube performance thusly, "YouTube if you want to...". It was generally thought to be a failure, with his smile described as a "rictus". I don't believe he can help looking as he does, of course. He comes across as an animated cardboard cutout, not as a warm human being. Tony Blair, for all his faults (and they were many) knew how to smile without being compared to a vampire.
Oh, and I almost forget: there's an election for some local councils and the European Parliament coming up at the beginning of June. I expect that Labour will suffer heavy losses and they will mostly be placed at the doorstep of Number 10.
We are due for a general election by June 2010. At the moment the only thing that can save Labour from a general rout is a Falklands-style war, where Gordon waves farewell to a flotilla of ships from Southampton Harbour while the entire nation stands and sings "Land of Hope and Glory" (if they know the words)—and even that won't save him unless he welcomes back the victorious fleets a few months later while we all stand and belt out "Rule, Britannia". No wonder Brown invited Margaret Thatcher (Milk Snatcher) to tea in Number 10 soon after he assumed office.
I haven't seen any estimates of how much money the MPs' expenses cost us, though. I expect that in relation to the national budget it's pretty small. But it is not right for them to have their snouts in the trough while putting Britain through recession-mandated tax rises and benefits cuts. When vox pops are put on TV, no one is suggesting that MPs are within their rights. "Disgusting" is a common reaction. When the people go to the polls later this year and next year, they'll remember the outlandish claims and vote against their sitting MP in many cases. (They ought to realise that the allowances for departing defeated MPs are quite large, too.)
There will be a Conservative government, and this is why: While Brown has dithered about this (he only suspended Morley from the Labour whip today), Cameron (leader of the Conservatives) has looked decisive. His MPs have either paid up or resigned from positions in the party (he lost his Parliamentary aide today because of this). Cameron has promised to sack (from the Conservative Party—he can't sack them as MPs, though. An MP can only resign if he gets an office of profit from the Crown or dies.) any MP who has committed egregious violations of common sense regarding his or her expenses. He looks like Napoleon to Brown's Marshal Petain.
Politics is interesting. Governing is hard.
____________________
(1) Yes, that's his real name.
I should add that last year the House of Commons nearly voted to suppress this information altogether, and not to release it to the public. They were shamed into rejecting this motion. Now we know why they were so eager to keep it under wraps.
British MPs are allowed to submit claims for reasonable expenses connected with having a home near Westminster, if they are not representing a constituency in London. However, there are some interesting entries in this list. Unless otherwise designated, those referred to below are Labour MPs.
- Hazel Blears, the community secretary, designated her London home as her principal home and thus avoided £13,000+ of capital gains tax, which is not payable on a person's principal place of residence when it's sold. She has gone on TV and publicly waved about a cheque for this amount which she has now paid into the Inland Revenue.
- Elliot Morley, a former minister, continued to claim for mortgage payments on his home for a long period of time after he'd paid off the mortgage. He's paid back the money but there is every possibility of a prosecution in this particular case.
- Douglas Hogg, a former Conservative minister (I think), claimed several thousand pounds for repairing his moat. Yes, you read that correctly: his residence has a moat and we, the UK taxpayers, paid to have it repaired.
- John "Two Jags" Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister under Tony Blair, claimed for installing a toilet seat. Twice. He is kind of chunky so perhaps he sat down a bit too forcefully.
- Lembit Opik(1), Liberal Democrat MP and former consort of a Cheeky Girl, neglected to claim for his council tax and pay it. He received a £40 penalty which he (inadvertently) included on his reimbursement claim, and we (the taxpayers) paid his penalty.
- Another Conservative MP, whose name I've forgotten, asked the UK taxpayers to reimburse him for installing a chandelier.
- Several MPs got the taxpayers to pay for renovations to their second homes, and then sold them, pocketing the profits and buying another home, which some then proceeded to renovate, at our expense, and sold again.
The MPs defense is to say "Sorry!" and repay the claims to the Inland Revenue. Of course, the Commons Fees Office has always told them that these claims are within the rules, and MPs have tried to say, "Well, as the Fees Office allowed it, it must be legal." but this is no longer a defense, especially against some of these outlandish claims.
So what's to be done? I am unaware whether American congresscritters get such allowances, but their pay is, I believe, a bit more than a UK MP's pay (about £65K before expenses). It is important that MPs for far-flung areas of the UK are able to live and work in London when required—they of course have very long holidays in the summer and at other times. However, the sheer inanity of some of the claims boggles the mind. Imagine claiming for a bun and a cup of tea bought while commuting to the House! How about a £2.50 KitKat chocolate bar eaten by an MP while he was staying in a hotel—aside from the fact that he would have saved the taxpayer around £2 if he'd stirred his butt out of the room and gone to the nearest newsagent instead of raiding the minibar.
The claims beggar belief, really. What can be done about it? The US solution seems to be to only put forward candidates who are rich enough to keep two homes and fly back and forth to their constituencies each weekend. That wouldn't do here. The preferred solution for MPs is to turn the question of remuneration (salaries as well as expenses) over to an independent body (unspecified). No matter what the system, however, people clever enough to be elected MP are also clever enough to subvert the system.
Adding to the mix is the general disenchantment with Gordon MacStumblebum...er...Brown, our Prime Minister. The "surefootedness" he showed as Chancellor (not now borne out as the credit crunch unfolds) has to a great extent deserted him. Hazel "13K" Blears described his YouTube performance thusly, "YouTube if you want to...". It was generally thought to be a failure, with his smile described as a "rictus". I don't believe he can help looking as he does, of course. He comes across as an animated cardboard cutout, not as a warm human being. Tony Blair, for all his faults (and they were many) knew how to smile without being compared to a vampire.
Oh, and I almost forget: there's an election for some local councils and the European Parliament coming up at the beginning of June. I expect that Labour will suffer heavy losses and they will mostly be placed at the doorstep of Number 10.
We are due for a general election by June 2010. At the moment the only thing that can save Labour from a general rout is a Falklands-style war, where Gordon waves farewell to a flotilla of ships from Southampton Harbour while the entire nation stands and sings "Land of Hope and Glory" (if they know the words)—and even that won't save him unless he welcomes back the victorious fleets a few months later while we all stand and belt out "Rule, Britannia". No wonder Brown invited Margaret Thatcher (Milk Snatcher) to tea in Number 10 soon after he assumed office.
I haven't seen any estimates of how much money the MPs' expenses cost us, though. I expect that in relation to the national budget it's pretty small. But it is not right for them to have their snouts in the trough while putting Britain through recession-mandated tax rises and benefits cuts. When vox pops are put on TV, no one is suggesting that MPs are within their rights. "Disgusting" is a common reaction. When the people go to the polls later this year and next year, they'll remember the outlandish claims and vote against their sitting MP in many cases. (They ought to realise that the allowances for departing defeated MPs are quite large, too.)
There will be a Conservative government, and this is why: While Brown has dithered about this (he only suspended Morley from the Labour whip today), Cameron (leader of the Conservatives) has looked decisive. His MPs have either paid up or resigned from positions in the party (he lost his Parliamentary aide today because of this). Cameron has promised to sack (from the Conservative Party—he can't sack them as MPs, though. An MP can only resign if he gets an office of profit from the Crown or dies.) any MP who has committed egregious violations of common sense regarding his or her expenses. He looks like Napoleon to Brown's Marshal Petain.
Politics is interesting. Governing is hard.
____________________
(1) Yes, that's his real name.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-14 06:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-14 07:04 pm (UTC)Most political scandals in the US revolve around bribery and sex. We have those here, too, but expense fiddling is not common in US politics, as I can't think of any state that pays for a second home for its legislators (someone will prove my knowledge deficient, of course). Many legislatures only meet for a couple of weeks out of a year. Texas, I think, only meets for a few months every two years. Not worthwhile getting accommodation in Austin that you'll only use every other year. Many states, of course, are small enough that legislators can live at home and commute the short distance to the state capital. I do not believe that the Federal Government pays for Washington homes for members of Congress. The President and Vice President get tied accommodation, of course, and most of their expenses are paid. The President gets something like $40,000 a year for food for official functions, I think—it could be more.
Anyway, the outrage I feel is pretty deep: imagine the Government running ads encouraging people to turn in benefit fraudsters or warning them that they'll get caught while members of that same Government were wringing the last ha'penny out of the taxpayers for moats, chandeliers, and toilet seats.
PS: I would like the Torygraph to run at least one day's story about virtuous MPs who do not claim for things they might have claimed for and are generally honest in their expenses claims. There must be some!
no subject
Date: 2009-05-14 10:09 pm (UTC)