Carl_S Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I don't feel qualified to answer this, but it hasn't really stopped me from posting, especially in off topic, so here goes. My reticence for further transparency is not based on fact, it's based on feeling. So I will keep my points more in that domain, becuase my knowledge of politics is next to zero. My main points in this are as follows: 1) MPs are voted in, and as such we give them a modicum of trust in that job to manage themselves in a decent and trustworthy manner. 2) MPs have a lot to do, and need to focus more on the nuts and bolts of their job, rather than the red tape of expenses audit trails. 3) MPs should have perks to their jobs, their jobs are tough, and not every one can, and wants to do them, so if a bottle of champagne and a new kitchen goes on expenses what is the big deal, these guys do highly stressful jobs, and so long as it is within the rules and is reasonable, and not blatant abuse then it should be acceptable. 4) What is acceptable should largely be left up to the MP's own discretion, taxpayers' money is a massive fund, the odd bent MP is not going to dent UK GDP, but tabloid style reporting will surely give a dispropotionate effect on our trust of MP's. What MPs can do to redress the balance and instill faith. 1) Work to achieve better ecomonic circumstances for their constituents- this time of recession is going to inevitably taint our view on fat cat politicians living it large "Two Jags" style on public money. 2) Honour Manifesto commitments 3) Be honest about mistakes 4) Spend one night sleeping rough on the streets of london each month. I would argue that the public in general do not trust policitians, so that any measure they take would not result in a seismic shift of confidence in their favour. To have MPs publish all expenses in minute detail would not go a long way to establishing more faith in our system at all. I believe that there are many many changes that need to be made to the political system, but at the end of the day I feel it boils down to this: We are taxed. We do not like being taxed. We do not like the people that take our tax. We do not trust them becuase we have little to no control on how they spend that tax. Every time we vote we give away some of our power to an authority, who is supposed to take care of our society on our behalf. In that sense we authorise them, and en masse, give them our trust. Now this goverment has of course been in power since '97 which is a fair time in politics, and there have been a few events that have been seen as breeches of our trust as a nation. The handling of the economic crisis may be a nail in the coffin for the current goverment, or it could be their saving grace. As a nation that is generally quite hacked off with the labour goverment, of course we want more hoops for MPs to jump through to get their expenses (or not get them), and of course we want them to suffer financially as a lot of us are suffering too. That is so natural. But I just feel like anal MP expense accounting is a retrograde step, and will never meet our fundemental need for a secure environment for ourselves, and our children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 4) What is acceptable should largely be left up to the MP's own discretion, taxpayers' money is a massive fund, the odd bent MP is not going to dent UK GDP, but tabloid style reporting will surely give a dispropotionate effect on our trust of MP's. Those MP's also have a say over the whole UK, and how all of our tax get spent... A question to you Carl_S, do you think us as taxpayers, should pay for someone to have a fitted kitchen, in their 2nd house? When most people are in busy, hectic and stressful jobs, but are struggling, or cannot afford to buy a house in the first place?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTRickeh Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Good post Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Their is no right answer to that question. Because life in general, and the capitalist and meritocratic system is inherently unfair. All you are doing is highlighting something that will always exist in our society one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Thanks Rick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTRickeh Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Those MP's also have a say over the whole UK, and how all of our tax get spent... A question to you Carl_S, do you think us as taxpayers, should pay for someone to have a fitted kitchen, in their 2nd house? When most people are in busy, hectic and stressful jobs, but are struggling, or cannot afford to buy a house in the first place?... I know you asked Carl, but why do you think we pay for their second home in the first place? They need somewhere to stay when they're in London which is a requirement for their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Blimey, I work in Bristol, but I don't live there, I have to do a 100 mile round trip every day, can I have a house too please?... Or am I expected to pay for my house (flat as I can't afford to buy a house) out of my salary?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTRickeh Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You only live 50 miles from your work, you can go home every day. What if your work stated you had to be in Glasgow every other day? Would you not think it was only fair that they paid for your accomodation whilst you were there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You have a slightly valid point, valid travel expenses should be allowed, but MP's don't have to be in London every other day, and they're able to have other money making opportunities (Whilst our companies call it 'moonlighting'), but you still haven't answered why we should furnish their 2nd, personal homes?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Pot... I'm bored of my house. You can have it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Pot... I'm bored of my house. You can have it Please. Keep it, consider it a gift from me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You only live 50 miles from your work, you can go home every day. What if your work stated you had to be in Glasgow every other day? Would you not think it was only fair that they paid for your accomodation whilst you were there? I can go home every day, I pay to go home every day, I pay/rent for my home too, and I furnish it out of my wages... If I lived so far away from my work I would expect to be put up in suitable acommodation, but to be able to claim expenses to furnish a second home? Imagine if you put an expense form in for a new kettle? You need it for coffee to be more awake for your job, that's surely a business benefit?... It'd get thrown out straight away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTRickeh Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I don't think we should pay for their first homes but I think wherever they stay for work outside of that home should be furnished to a sufficient standard, including kettles. It really depends who the company is as to what expenses they will allow. I know of plenty that will let you charge washing machines, kettles, TV's whatever to them providing it isn't your first home. It's a bit of a minefield at the moment, I think if the government had set houses they owned for MP's to stay in London it would do away with most of this. I don't think that the MP should own the second house. People would still moan that those MP flats are nicer than their houses though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I don't have a problem with MPs having second homes in London. After all, it's a requirement of their job that they have to work both there and in their own constituencies. However, the simple fact that they wish to conceal the details of their expense spendings from the public leads me to believe that some, if not many of them have something to hide. They quite obviously do not wish the embarrassment of their extravagance being made public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 OK, how's this for a suggestion: Constituencies should own a London house for their MP to use, paid for and maintained out of local/council tax. That way the house remains public property, and is maintained at the discretion of the voters - if they approve of the MP, he can get the new kitchen the house needs, but he can't then walk off with a fully renovated and decorated house, all paid from the public purse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 It's a great idea, but I'm not sure it would work for the following reasons: 1) The discretion of voters cannot be practically polled. 2) It is based on a system of punishment, that is rooted in negativity. Also, I feel it would be demeaning for the MP to live in public property. I think what this is really about is the anger at MPs for living the high life when people are suffering in job losses, and house reposessions. Scapegoats are needed. MPs are fair game. Good idea though - I might be wrong, won't be the first time, and it could work very well indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 OK, how's this for a suggestion: Constituencies should own a London house for their MP to use, paid for and maintained out of local/council tax. That way the house remains public property, and is maintained at the discretion of the voters - if they approve of the MP, he can get the new kitchen the house needs, but he can't then walk off with a fully renovated and decorated house, all paid from the public purse. I think this is how it should be. They should not be allowed to use public money for personal gain, at the moment the money they use for the own homes is not repaid when they leave, how is that right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 ... Also, I feel it would be demeaning for the MP to live in public property. ... I disagree. A free house is a free house, but it doesn't have to be a slum. And there's nothing to stop them buying their own house with their own money if they don't like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 How are they using the public money for personal gain? How is a bottle of champagne, a kitchen, or a house personal gain? Is not their salary 100% public money anyway? Also even if it is classed as personal gain, what is so wrong with that? Surely the distinction here is between use of the system and abuse of the system. Looking at ourselves how often have we enjoyed a alcholic drink or a posh meal at the expense of the company we work for. And how often, have we filed slightly inflated (aka fraudulent) expense claims at our jobs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 How are they using the public money for personal gain? How is a bottle of champagne, a kitchen, or a house personal gain? Well it certainly isnt benefitting anyone else is it, I thought that was obvious Is not their salary 100% public money anyway? Yes, but once we have paid them to do the job they are employed for, it becomes their own money. Also even if it is classed as personal gain, what is so wrong with that? Are you an MP? Surely the distinction here is between use of the system and abuse of the system. To some degree yes. Looking at ourselves how often have we enjoyed a alcholic drink or a posh meal at the expense of the company we work for. And how often, have we filed slightly inflated (aka fraudulent) expense claims at our jobs? I can have a meal on company expenses because the company I work for deem it resonable within limits for the work I am carrying out. ie working extra hours or away from home. Its not a £10k kitchen for my private house or £1600 for a window cleaner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 A 10k kitchen sounds reasonable. These people are MPs and not window cleaners! Does anyone know what happens to an MPs second house bought by the public purse if he steps down from becoming an MP? Of course I am not an MP, I have already admitted I know very little indeed about politics. How different are expenses really from salary. Both are paid becuase the person is doing a job. You could argue that more generous expenses are needed for MPs to keep up appearances, an air of dignity, and a sense of style. A window cleaner, may not have the same amount of need to file such claims or keep up appearances in their own homes or whilst travelling around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 At the end of the day there is only one reason why the government would back down on this: playing politics. To be seen to be fair, especially at these times, is perhaps sometimes more important than actually being fair. The bailout of the banking industry could run into hundreds of billions, can you conceptualise that figure? I can't. A 10k kitchen for a few MPs, the guardians and administrators of the wealth of our great country is nothing Wez. Absolutely nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 At the end of the day there is only one reason why the government would back down on this: playing politics. To be seen to be fair, especially at these times, is perhaps sometimes more important than actually being fair. The bailout of the banking industry could run into hundreds of billions, can you conceptualise that figure? I can't. A 10k kitchen for a few MPs, the guardians and administrators of the wealth of our great country is nothing Wez. Absolutely nothing. OK, let's take that a bit further: £10,000 for a kitchen is a reasonable figure - kitchens are expensive. However, there are more than 600 MPs. 600 x 10,000 = £6,000,000 That's a shitload of cash to spend, but that's OK, because clearly to you free kitchens aren't personal gain, just as fraudulent expense claims apparently aren't illegal...let me tell you now, if I filed a fraudulent expense claim, I'd be fired the instant it got discovered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Of course I am not an MP You're so full of sh@t I think you've missed your calling 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.