The Kintyre Forum

What are your thoughts on the money mps claim as expenses and how about the mole who has sold details to the media about who gets what .

When i think of that where do you work ionnsaig (joke honest)

There are different aspects to this. We can react with shock when we hear what appears to be abuse of a system whereby MPs can buy a property which the taxpayer is subsidising, and ask who else expects their employer to buy them a house as well as paying them a fairly substantial salary? The other side of it is that if this system did not exist then it would exclude many people from becoming MPs, and we would be back to the days of having only wealthy individuals representing us in the House of Commons. Do we really want that?

Lol EMDEE ... ever consider that might be exactly what you are going to get ... whether you want it or not

"The House of Lords Young Team

Now that's being cynical.

No-one's ever really come up with a good reason why MPs needing to stay in London overnight instead of returning to their constituencies can't be put up in some kind of government-owned/run apartment block cum hotel. It wouldn't necessarily need to be within central London but could be out beyond the M25 somewhere. Still within easy commuter distance.

Heard someone on the radio today sujjesting much the same thing.I think they have got things way to easy ,but as EMDEE said i dont much like the alternative .
The so called mole is as bad as them they are doing this for what they can get out of it,not as a sense of duty .They will get who it is and they will be for the high jump .There cannot be to many people in the know as to what each mp claims for expenses .Dont know that much about it ,but i would imagine that they would have to sign the official secrets act.

I've always thought they should have an establishment where they could have an office and somewhere to sleep at nights should it be required. When the House of Commons isn't being used the thing can be used as a hotel, but there might be some security issues there.

I also don't see what all of their researchers and assistants aren't just employed by the state - every MP is allowed say one constituency office, paid for by the state up to a certain value, and 1-2 employees, again who are employed by the state but work for the MP on a salaried basis. This would get rid of the situation where MP's are employing their sons, wives, nephews, etc.

There seems an awful lot of common sense things that can be done, but the problems seems to be those with their nose firmly in the trough which I suspect will be the minority. But I suppose it's only human nature.

Here's and example of what happens in my work .......

As an overnight eating allowance HMRC provides guidelines to my company which state that employees are entitled to e.g £25 of food per day, which don't really need to be backed up by receipts. Now I deduce there are 4 types of people in my workplace:

Person A. Buys some sandwiches out of M&S for £5, claims £25 entitlement and pockets the £20 difference.
Person B. Goes out for a meal, and chooses food that adds up to exactly £25, whether they're hungry or not.
Person C. Goes out and has a slap up meal for £50, claims the £25 and sees it as a subsidy in that "I've just had a great meal for £25
Person D. Has the £50 meal and manages to 'magically uncover' taxi receipts worth £25, therefore funding the £50 meal.

Now I don't think that these types of people are that unusual, and I be hard pressed to work out whether person D is actually any better or worse than Person A.

I think MP's will generally fall into the same groups as above.

....... and for the absence of doubt - I'm in the Person C camp. I will happily provide the size of both my stomach and overdraft as evidence.

...... oh and the biggest problem with being a person C is when you're out for something to eat with a person A.

I know many of you have always thought I was a bit of a C !!!!!!!

Isn't it ironic that when people are seeking election, altruism is to the fore, but according to what we read, this is the first electoral attribute to be jettisoned by some people when elected.

The usual story given by these individuals when something is uncovered is: "I apologise, it was a mistake!" (bloody right it was a mistake) and "the money has been paid back" , which is really not the issue. Actually, who cares about the cost of a cheap thrill for the Home Secretary's husband? (have it on us). It is the principle that matters. Divided among all the taxpayers in the country it is not a lot of money, and if it gave him some pleasure, so be it. (maybe it's a substitute for his absent other half) Would the money ever have been paid back if someone had not blown the whistle?

For my own part, I am a fairly altruistic individual, and cannot identify with someone who claims 88p for a bath plug when they have a six figure income, and the plug is for their own house.

EMDEE, it is a disgrace. Sheik is pretty much on the money (boom boom) with his observation though.

As I mentioned earlier, it looks to me like a total duplicity ... leaking a story about Greedy MPs, focussing the public hue & cry onto expenses, (and being seen as morally upstanding self-policing pillars of society toughing it out with the common man) .... and in reality handing out wage rises.

Now I notice MSPs are getting a wage rise as well ... but if you were to skim the story it reads like they've frozen their pay. In reality, the freeze only applies to ministers who are also MPs in the commons. (and it only affects one of their wage packets)

It's all bullshit !!!

I think that if I was married to the current Home Secretary,I would prefer a mucky film and self-abuse.

Rodger --- Have not seen it stated that 'He' was alone

Bitter End wrote:Rodger --- Have not seen it stated that 'He' was alone

Sorry .That was an an assumption.

Absolute disgrace and unfair .I have to pay for mine myself.

Can't see what all the fuss is about,it's not as if it is the first time,and it certainly will not be the last time.All politicians,me me me me me me me.What's in it for me?