Hang on: We're paying for an MP to have his MOAT CLEANED ?

[FridgeMagnet]

I think you'll find that most people (here and the public in general) are angry with all of them.

I'd be suspicious of analysis of polls which claims this scandal has an effect favouring any major party. Politicians were already pretty low on the trust stakes (with journalists and estate agents), and I'm almost certain all this does is confirm most people's already pretty firm conceptions. Some might be sickened out of voting, and some minor parties might gain a few votes, but I doubt very much whether people are abandoning Labour for the Tories because of this.

The party PR machines are missing the point here - which perhaps indicates how desperate they are. The Tories shouting about Labour MPs X Y and Z fiddling, and vice versa, is absolutely not going to have the effect they think it will. They're not damaging the other side, they're damaging MPs generally; nobody remembers which party the con-artist was in, there's just a point added to the "they're all cheating bastards" score.

Which is good.

 

[danny la rouge]

They're not damaging the other side, they're damaging MPs generally; nobody remembers which party the con-artist was in, there's just a point added to the "they're all cheating bastards" score.

Which is good.

Exactly.

 

[bingiman]

and the alternative...

don't get me wrong I think it is good but what next?

it has got to be more devolved and given where we are on the internet there is no reason for MP's to actually have to be in parliament to vote or give speechs

 

[DexterTCN]

and the alternative...

don't get me wrong I think it is good but what next?

it has got to be more devolved and given where we are on the internet there is no reason for MPs to actually have to be in parliament to vote or give speeches

Yes.

 

[London_Calling]

The party PR machines are missing the point here - which perhaps indicates how desperate they are. The Tories shouting about Labour MPs X Y and Z fiddling, and vice versa, is absolutely not going to have the effect they think it will.

But they're absolutely not shouting about other partys' excesses: How could they if they wanted?

If you have one example of Cameron or Brown or Conservatives or NL dissing members of other parties please put it up. It's "the system" and "The Speaker".

 

[London_Calling]

Apparently Douglas Hogg has said that he never claimed to have his MOAT cleaned, it was just that something he did claim for was on the same invoice so there is an invoice in the fees office which includes moat cleaning but he did not claim for moat cleaning.

Just thought you should know. Can you change the title of the thread now?

Why? Because Douglas Hogg says so? Really . . .

 

[toblerone3]

and the alternative...

don't get me wrong I think it is good but what next?

it has got to be more devolved and given where we are on the internet there is no reason for MP's to actually have to be in parliament to vote or give speechs

Parliament based on an Internet bulletin board?

 

[bingiman]

Why not?

 

[DotCommunist]

Why not?

Have you seen what 4chan do to online polls? do you realy want Longcat as prime minister and Goatse as Chancellor of the Exchequer?

 

[ymu]

Which all raises another question I haven't heard answered yet: how long has this been going on? Is it more or less forever, or was there some change in rules a few years ago?

The criminally generous allowances were brought in under Thatcher as an alternative to a publicly unacceptable pay rise. Many MPs have testified that they were told to "go out and spend it". It's not clear how much the system has changed since then, although presumably some of the scams have developed over time.

The rules were tightened in 2005, and again in 2007. Both of these moves were presumably in anticipation of the impact of the Freedom of Information Act. The fact that MPs continued to take the piss on their expenses despite knowing the potential FOIA impact - or rather, their assumption that they would successfully suppress the information - is the most appalling thing about it. They assumed they'd get away with it.

It was still going to all come out in the wash in July when all the details were to published anyway

No. The details in July were to have omitted addresses, which would make the house-flipping impossible to detect. We wouldn't know about the Luton MP claiming £22.5k for dry rot in Southampton, for example. We wouldn't know about the constant buying, reburbishing, selling and pocketing the profit free of capital gains tax. We wouldn't know about husbands and wives charging us for both their homes. We wouldn't know about claims made on non-existent mortgages.

It's incredibly naive to think the July disclosures would have done anything like the damage that these leaks have. They've been fighting this for four years. They were never going to disclose anything close to the truth.

 

[London_Calling]

No. The details in July were to have omitted addresses, which would make the house-flipping impossible to detect. We wouldn't know about the Luton MP claiming £22.5k for dry rot in Southampton, for example. We wouldn't know about the constant buying, reburbishing, selling and pocketing the profit free of capital gains tax. We wouldn't know about husbands and wives charging us for both their homes. We wouldn't know about claims made on non-existent mortgages.

There's a difference between published in the media (because of the security issue) - the addresses are not being "published" by the Telegraph either - and 'made available'.

If you have a link that says the addresses would not be made available under any circs I'd be very interested?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

But they're absolutely not shouting about other partys' excesses: How could they if they wanted?

If you have one example of Cameron or Brown or Conservatives or NL dissing members of other parties please put it up. It's "the system" and "The Speaker".

Hold on, isn't it you who's being saying that the Telegraph is trying to favour one party over the other here? Say "factional partisans" if you like. Obviously the actual politicians would have a hard time saying anything specifically about the other party, but you can bet they'll take any opportunity they can to try.

 

[ymu]

There's a difference between published in the media (because of the security issue) - the addresses are not being "published" by the Telegraph either - and 'made available'.

If you have a link that says the addresses would not be made available under any circs I'd be very interested?

The Telegraph having them is making them public - the point is that someone independent of the MPs has a chance to join the dots, rather than making us solely reliant on what Michael Martin figured was safe to release.

Why is "flipping" so significant?

The Daily Telegraph will use this as a central defence if it is taken to court for buying leaked information. The *paper, which is reported to have paid a six-figure sum for a CD containing the details of all 646 MPs' expenses claims, will say that the "flipping" would never have been uncovered if the expenses claims had been released, as planned, in July. By then MPs would have removed their addresses on security grounds.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/mps-expenses-q-and-a

 

[London_Calling]

If the Telegraph's defence stands up, it's a very strong point indeed.

 

[London_Calling]

Hold on, isn't it you who's being saying that the Telegraph is trying to favour one party over the other here? Say "factional partisans" if you like. Obviously the actual politicians would have a hard time saying anything specifically about the other party, but you can bet they'll take any opportunity they can to try.

Just to reiterate, this was your point that I took issue with:

The party PR machines are missing the point here - which perhaps indicates how desperate they are. The Tories shouting about Labour MPs X Y and Z fiddling, and vice versa, is absolutely not going to have the effect they think it will. They're not damaging the other side, they're damaging MPs generally

And I'm still asking; if you have seen evidence of what you claim, please put a link up because I've not seen the Parties shouting at each other.

 

[ymu]

This article gives a good run down of MPs pay and expenses, from Lloyd George onwards.

Even as late as 1970, there were no regular salary reviews and the only extra allowance was £500 for a secretary. MPs had to make their own arrangements for attending overnight votes. Those who could not afford hotels slept in their offices, rinsing yesterday's shirts in the sink. "There used to be a code that, if you left your wastepaper bin across the door, the cleaners didn't disturb you because they knew you were asleep," recalls Nick Harvey, a Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of the House of Commons commission, who was elected in 1992.

But by the mid-1970s, with a more socially mixed Commons, a consensus that legislators should not be dossing on floors prompted the introduction of an allowance for overnight hotel costs. When MPs argued they could get a flat for the same price, it was extended to cover rent and, in the mid-1980s, mortgage payments. The second home allowance was born.

 

[ymu]

If the Telegraph's defence stands up, it's a very strong point indeed.

There's no "if" about it. The fuckers passed a law to prevent their addesses being published.

The Commons announced they would publish all MPs receipts in October 2008, going back several years. Vindication at last! Well, not quite. October came and went and no expenses, not even the usual aggregate totals, appeared. It was as though the public were being punished for daring to question the great and the good.

I queried the Commons and was told that December was the new publication date. That date, too, came and went.

MPs had their extended Christmas vacation. When they came back they had the amazing gall to attempt, for a second time, to pass a law exempting themselves from the freedom of information law.

The Conservatives withdrew support and the measure failed. However, Conservative MP Julian Lewis did succeed in pushing through a law that would exclude MPs' addresses from publication. He used the discredited "security" argument.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/15/mps-expenses-heather-brooke-foi

 

[London_Calling]

As above, it's not about "published" - that's an issue that the Telegraph agree with as they also haven't published addresses, it's about 'made available' for independent scrutiny.

 

[butchersapron]

No, it's about being able to follow the money.

 

[ymu]

As above, it's not about "published" - that's an issue that the Telegraph agree with as they also haven't published addresses, it's about 'made available' for independent scrutiny.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

In this instance, it is the exact same thing.