£10,000 offered to leak MP's expenses

[Margaret Pilkington]

We got one too....and to find out my sentiments about it, you can find them in my latest blog episode.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

I had a PB canvasser a few days ago.
I spoke to her in a few inches of gap (door chain on)
I said 'he will not get my vote'
She sweetly smiled and went away
I expected at least to be asked 'why not?', perhaps his own supporters think he is a lost cause too

I'm jealous Margaret, they didn't call on me, mind you the fact that I have a VOTE BRITCLIFFE poster in my window may just have given the game away

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

I don't know why I was targeted.

I've never given my details to any political party.

Perhaps he bought my details off the people responsible for distributing Peter Ratcliffe's annual gift, those lovely calendars.

Could be you were targeted because you sometimes give a sympathetic ear to their cause Rindi

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Gordon Brown was just on The Andrew Marr Show. The Prime Minister sounded pragmatic and sincere about what will happen in the future of Britain. I know I'm probably in a minority of people (non-political people at least) who have confidence in the Prime Minister at the moment.

Politics is about doing things....not 'sounding pragmatic and sincere'........to me it is too little and far to late.
This scandal has been rumbling on for weeks now.
Have any of these MP's been cuffed and thrown into the cells?
And why should they be allowed to stand down after the next election?
So that they can fill their boots at our expense.
Then when they do finally go, having relieved the tax payers of God only knows how much money, they are in line for re-settlement pay.....re-settlement pay ! Why should they need to be re-settled at our expense?
They already have homes that we have helped to pay for, pay the bills on and improve.
For Gods sake! What do these MP's do with their already very handsome salaries.

No I'm sorry, Gordon Brown can sound as sincere as he likes, but until I see some action, then I consider him to be a neglectful caretaker, unworthy of the office that he holds.

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Politics is about doing things....not 'sounding pragmatic

The point that I was making was that Mr Brown was talking about all the things that are being done, ie showing he is being pragmatic. The public are angry and want heads on pikes but due process must be followed. The 'want it right now, give it me right now, must have it right now' British ethic of late cannot be satisfied here.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Well if that is the point you were making, I missed it.
I will await his pragmatic actions.........and as far as 'wanting it right now'......that is not my view.......what I wanted was some visible accountablility, that would have been appropriate when this whole business kicked off.
I Don't think it should be accepted that if an MP pays back what should not have been taken in the first place, then it will all be alright, neither do I feel that Gordon Brown sending us letters to apologise for the fiasco makes it alright too.

As I said in a previous post, Gordon Brown is a neglectful leader, not fit for purpose or office.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Could be you were targeted because you sometimes give a sympathetic ear to their cause Rindi

Which group, that have targeted me, with either letters or calendars?

Far from being sympathetic to the local Conservatives, or Gordon Brown, I've been highly critical of both.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Well if that is the point you were making, I missed it.
I will await his pragmatic actions.........and as far as 'wanting it right now'......that is not my view.......what I wanted was some visible accountablility, that would have been appropriate when this whole business kicked off.
I Don't think it should be accepted that if an MP pays back what should not have been taken in the first place, then it will all be alright, neither do I feel that Gordon Brown sending us letters to apologise for the fiasco makes it alright too.

As I said in a previous post, Gordon Brown is a neglectful leader, not fit for purpose or office.

I'm with you on this one.

Actions speak louder than words.

Any half decent actor can pull off a show of pragmatism and sincerity.

To actually embody those two attributes is a different matter completely.

An embodiment Gordon Brown does not possess, in my opinion.

A mealy-mouthed apology, after the event of the matter going public, is neither sincere nor pragmatic.

[katex]

Think there is quite a bit of 'Holier than Thou' and hypocrisy going on here... who can say that if given an expense account of a certain amount per year, would not rise to the full amount, whether you needed it or not ?

I think the excuse of 'within the rules' does hold some weight .... if I had put in a chitty for fags, quite sure the accountant would have had words with me and not paid it.

People who have not cheated on their expenses are very few and far between ('cept me of course ...always seemed to lose out ).

What director hasn't submitted their fuel/telephone bills to their company for payment, finding some lame excuse that it is required for business .... therefore cheating the VAT man.

Who hasn't paid a workman in cash, bought cheap fags, fiddled their benefits, etc.

Not many.

[BERNADETTE]

Kate I really don't know how you can think that the "within the rules" moan can ever be justified. MP's are on a more than decent wage as it is without screwing this country for every last penny they can get. I wonder if the country would be in such a bad way if they hadn't been allowed to claim all the extra billions which they have. Maybe our NHS could have benefitted a lot more if it weren't for their pure greed

[Margaret Pilkington]

Katex, the difference, and there is one, is the scale of the fraud, and also that they are trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities.
When you are being paid from the public purse I think you have to be above suspicion.......and because it was 'within rules' doesn't give politicians carte blanche.......they are living high on the hog while their electorate struggle......and cocking a snook at the rest of us.
The only thing that these MP's are sorry about is that we, their employers, found out.
Don't forget that they tried their best to make sure that we didn't find out.
They are no better than the benefit fiddlers......at least when they are found out something is done about that fraud.

If businesses can have a framework that prevents/minimises expenses being claimed fraudulently, then surely it is not beyond the realms of the powers that be at Westminster.

It needs sorting, and sorting soon, because while all this has been going on the real work that should be being done at Westminster has been on hold.

[katex]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

If businesses can have a framework that prevents/minimises expenses being claimed fraudulently, then surely it is not beyond the realms of the powers that be at Westminster.

Margaret, Business Directors/Owners are the worst .... firstly because they don't increase their salaries to pay for telephone/p.c's at home, etc, saving paying to the income tax man, and secondly, because the expense bills that are submitted to their business are VAT returnable. It's only the smaller employees that can't get away with it ... well, some do actually.

They also have good accountants that point them in the right direction.

Anyway, said my piece now ... know I will stand on my own on this. The M.P's have just been stupid in submitting receipts for items that would seem like extreme living to us, and using the expenses to the maximum ... there again, don't believe too much in martyrs who don't claim.

I don't think their salaries are enough anyway ... when you think Susan Boyle is still predicted to make £5 million still.

"He that is without sin amongst you, throw the first stone". Blooming hek, they have been Nori bricks ...

[Margaret Pilkington]

Kate, I accept what you are saying, but this is our money they are living on......and I would ask what on earth they do with that hefty salary.....seeing as some of them have been claiming for food and utilities........and the comparison to Susan Boyle is, I feel, irrelevant.......we can choose whether we pay to go and see Susan Boyle or any other performer for that matter.
Once these MP's are elected it seems like they can do what they like......we have no power over them until the next election comes along.
Accepting what they have done is almost saying it is alright.......and OK we may all have the stains of sin, but not in the context that these bunch of thieves has.

I'm sure that any business that doesn't have a robust framework for the claiming of expenses would not be in business for very long....and as far as employing accountants.......well didn't our esteemed Chancellor do just that?

Hand me another nori somebody.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by katex

Anyway, said my piece now ... know I will stand on my own on this. The M.P's have just been stupid in submitting receipts for items that would seem like extreme living to us, and using the expenses to the maximum ... there again, don't believe too much in martyrs who don't claim.

I don't think their salaries are enough anyway ... when you think Susan Boyle is still predicted to make £5 million still.

You're not on your own here Kate, I agree with you. I think most people would claim the maximum expenses in the same situation.

A scenario - you're allowed to claim up to £20k expenses per annum, the accountant says you can claim for more or less anything as long as you have a receipt, you find a reciept for carpeting the hall or for shopping and put it in, the accountant accepts it, you've done nothing wrong.

I think the problem here is that the rules are at fault in the first place. What worries me most now though is that an 'independent' body will be set up at tax payers expense, they will then decide the MPs expenses, but who will decide theirs?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes, Gayle, the rules are wrong...but in the Green Book it is supposed to state that the expense has to be 'solely in the pursuit of the responsibilities as an MP'.
How on earth is a Duck House, Moat cleaning, hanging baskets etc etc relevant in relation to their duties at Westminster?
And what about the 'flipping' where they claim first for one house and then 'flip' to another so that they can claim for things on that house too.
It is indefensible. I have never had much trust in the people who run the country, but this has been the last straw.
Are there any poor ex-MP's?