Wez Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Hey All, Should MPs have to disclose their expenses, there is a vote on Thur which will decide if they are exempt from the Freedom of Information laws. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7837852.stm This would allow public spending like Tony Blairs £10k kitchen for his second home to be made public. http://www.mysociety.org/2009/01/17/6-days-to-stop-mps-concealing-their-expenses/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr lover Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 of course, it is our money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Too right, I have enough hassle being able to claim my legitimate expenses back at work, let alone be able to claim for furnishing my house... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Yes, just so that we can rant about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 Too right, I have enough hassle being able to claim my legitimate expenses back at work, let alone be able to claim for furnishing my house... This is what annoys me, if you have your own Ltd company you are not supposed to use company money for your own benefit, ie replacing the kitchen at home etc, you certainly couldnt write it off as a tax allowance yet MPs can. Interesting isnt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Damn right they should! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Yes, definetly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Yup, definately. If they want to stop the MP bashing that goes on amongst much of the population, they have to prove they have nothing to hide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLicense Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 This is what annoys me, if you have your own Ltd company you are not supposed to use company money for your own benefit, ie replacing the kitchen at home etc, you certainly couldnt write it off as a tax allowance yet MPs can. Interesting isnt it. I think their arguement is that it's unreasonable for someone who has a constituency in say Cornwall or Berwick for example to have to travel down to London whenever they need to be in parliament, so they need to have a house in London. That house should be of suitable standard so that they can satisfactorily do their work. For example if you worked for a company where you were expected to spend a large part of your time in another part of the country, you would expect your company to put you up in a hotel or lease a house for you etc. I can kind of half understand it, although I must admit I don't like the way they seem to take the p*ss with it all. The problem is that to the general public they appear to be living in opulent palaces compared to the hovels that the rest of us are living in, and at the moment we don't have any visibility of how much they're spending on what. To be honest I can't think of a single reason why they shouldn't disclose their expenses however, if I'd been living in the lap of luxury for all these years on the tax payer, I'm pretty damned sure I would be voting against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamanC Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I cant see why they shouldn't. So, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 If the government owned flats/houses in which the MPs could reside while they were in London, like 10 Downing St, then there wouldn't be this problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTRickeh Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Too right, I have enough hassle being able to claim my legitimate expenses back at work, let alone be able to claim for furnishing my house... You don't run the entire country, Tony Blair can have any Kitchen he bloody wants IMO. I'm not sure how it works currently but they should have a set ceiling for expenses under the different catagories with reciepts needed for every purchase. So long as someone independant reviews the expenses and it's within a certain limit I don't particularly need to know what brand and model of kettle some MP's bought. A decent expenses package is clearly one of the benefits of the job and for example the PM should get a bit more because of his position. Do we want the leaders of our country all living in council houses and only being allowed to buy Tesco value toasters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 No! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Sorry, meant yes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 errr.. yes! Are we waiting for someone to say no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozymare Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I think their arguement is that it's unreasonable for someone who has a constituency in say Cornwall or Berwick for example to have to travel down to London whenever they need to be in parliament, so they need to have a house in London. In this day and age why can't they vote from their home constituency? Debating by online chat would at least stop the interruptions etc. ! Secondly, if they do need a second home in London, the sale value of any improvements should be paid back when they sell it -can't be right that they can do up a house out of expenses then pocket the profit when they sell it on. Other thoughts, if they've got nothing to hide then why hide it? And can we rely on any independent audit? Anyone followed the Private Eye articles about our former auditor general? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I think their arguement is that it's unreasonable for someone who has a constituency in say Cornwall or Berwick for example to have to travel down to London whenever they need to be in parliament, so they need to have a house in London. That house should be of suitable standard so that they can satisfactorily do their work. For example if you worked for a company where you were expected to spend a large part of your time in another part of the country, you would expect your company to put you up in a hotel or lease a house for you etc. First of all, yes they should be made to disclose their expenses. As TLicense pointed out, there are reasons for these expenses. The red-tops, Daily Mail, in fact almost any newspaper blows this out of proportion when MPs spend money on things like a kitchen. I wouldn't be happy if I had a job based in, say, Yorkshire and I was required to spend significant amounts of time in London, but the company wouldn't help me with travel and lodging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 In this day and age why can't they vote from their home constituency? Debating by online chat would at least stop the interruptions etc. ! Possibly, but that's reforming the system. I don't think meetings over the internet/conf call work nearly as well as face-to-face meetings though. Secondly, if they do need a second home in London, the sale value of any improvements should be paid back when they sell it -can't be right that they can do up a house out of expenses then pocket the profit when they sell it on. A good point. If followed through, it would need careful implementation so that if house prices fell during their time as an MP, the taxpayer wouldn't be forced to make up any shortfall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 You don't run the entire country, Tony Blair can have any Kitchen he bloody wants IMO. I'm not sure how it works currently but they should have a set ceiling for expenses under the different catagories with reciepts needed for every purchase. So long as someone independant reviews the expenses and it's within a certain limit I don't particularly need to know what brand and model of kettle some MP's bought. A decent expenses package is clearly one of the benefits of the job and for example the PM should get a bit more because of his position. Do we want the leaders of our country all living in council houses and only being allowed to buy Tesco value toasters? I think the problem is less that Tony Blairs house got a new kitchen on expenses, but rather that Tony Blair owns it and walks away with the value. If the house and/or it's investment remained the property of the country, then it would be less of an issue. It's the same as that MP who bought an Ipod on expenses. Obviously it won't be used exclusively for business purposes, so it should be considered a personal purchase and not expendable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Firstly the right to claim for travel expenses isn't an issue in my mind, that is fair, although claiming for a taxi for every journey and also claiming for journeys for friedns and family kicks the ass out of it. Abuse of the expenses system has gone on long enough, having your kitchen in your second home paid for by the tax payer is a piss take They should build a block of flats in London for the Mp's to spend their "London" time in. It would work out cheaper in the long run. No daft expense claims to deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderpigcity Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I don't think they should. i have always caned my expense account and i would do the same if i was an MP. :D:D:D:D:p:p:p:p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris2o2 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Yes , not that it will do much good - except piss us off more probarly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTRickeh Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I agree with the iPod it shouldn't be an expense it's a personal luxury that has next to nothing to do with your job. I thought it was funny in one of the links provided that they mentioned someone spent £245 on a bed and mattress, why did they feel the need to even mention it? Aside from the fact it's such a modest amount, it's clearly a living expense if it's going into furnishing the extra house that's required for him to do his job. How can you realistically expect to claw back money given to someone as expenses when it's been spent on a house. What if the house required some renovation, are you going to go and take back the wall that needed repairing, or decide that wall has added £150's worth of value so you're taking that off the value of the house when he sells? Once you've been given something in expenses it's yours to keep IMO, an expense is not a loan. I appreciate it's 'our' money but it's nit picking gone too far the public just want something to moan about. That's not to say some people don't abuse the current system which seems a bit leniant in some respects. So long as they stay under the levels of certain catagories of expenses I don't see an issue. I don't see a problem with declaring the level of expenses given under those catagories, like a CEO's remuneration is exhibited in annual accounts, but I don't like seeing the '£245 for a bed' example and think they have a greater right to privacy than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I thought it was funny in one of the links provided that they mentioned someone spent £245 on a bed and mattress, why did they feel the need to even mention it?...................... That's not to say some people don't abuse the current system which seems a bit leniant in some respects. If there are MPs out there who are abusing their privilages, the attention should be on them, not those who are making perfectly acceptable claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.