To think that Maria Miller should be treated in the same way as benefit fraudsters?

[zirca]

If you have over claimed on your benefits, I understand you have a short time frame to pay the money back in full, or they either take it out of your future benefits until it is paid, or get a court order to get it back through other means. Now surely, she should be treated in the same way? It is still stealing from the government!

She broke the rules under the old system. Why should she not break the rules again. Sorry but it is somewhat shameful DC has stood by her.

Finney
"You say that the press should not be allowed to bully elected representatives in a free democracy but it's alright for the office of an elected representative to try to bully a journalist into submission? The latter is much more dangerous AFAIC."

^^

Both are frightening prospects. I would like there to be investigations into what the aide said to the press. Equally, it does seem that the press have not attempted to fairly report the MM affair.

MM is definitely guilty of sloppy record keeping, and a lack of contrition, so on balance I am happy she has gone, having listened to other posters' views on what would happen to a benefit claimant who hadn't got the admin right. How can she be in the cabinet if she cannot even properly conduct her own financial affairs.

I still don't believe she has stolen taxpayers' money though or should go to prison or suffer any other OTT suggestions. I expect she has had the most horrendous time recently, out of all proportion to her "offence".

Agreed, Plumprof. In days gone by, she would have resigned at the start, and could then have been brought back at some time in the future. Nowadays, no-one ever resigns voluntarily, so the press carry out more and more of a hatchet job until the "victim" does the right thing. Apparently no-one could find a constituent who supported her apart from the chairman of the local party. I suspect she will step down as an MP as well.

Plum, I am sure you have read the Parliamentary Commissioner's report, as have I.

To save time, could you quickly list the paragraphs which in your view are untrue? We can then have a careful look at them.

I believe ProfPlum's position is that had she claimed her expenses properly, they would have been the same.

I do not understand why there is not a 1BR limit on the house you can claim for mortgage reimbursement. I gather there is a limit on the maximum housing you can claim, and maybe in this context it's not relevant, but if MPs can live in a 4BR house in Wimbledon, then they can also live in 1BR flats in Wimbledon or other cheaper parts of London.

So next time somebody is accused of benefit fraud or overclaiming the reason will be their sloppy record keeping. The double standards are really quite unbelievable. Just heard on the news she is now in line for severance pay. When she resigned?? I am beyond furious!

Pigletjohn yes, I have, of course. I also read the Committee on Standards later report which addressed the Commissioner's report and explained why and where it was differing. I don't think I can do any better than they did in setting out reasoning. Can you say which bits of the Standards Report you disagreed with?

As I understand it there was also something dodgy going on in that her parents lived in one of the houses (think in London) so were judged to have benefited wrongfully?

Also, was there any switching of primary residence to maximise expenses but to minimise CGT?

Regardless, if the allegation that her special advisors bullied the Parlimentary Commisioners and threatened the press are true (which I believe they are), then she should go for that alone.

Ok, just read some of the report (started losing will to live) and agree it seems as though it wasn't as cut and dried as I'd initially thought.

Still think she had to go, though, if the alleged behaviour of her advisors is true.

For capital gains tax (CGT) purposes, MM only ever owned the one property (wimbledon) hence that will automatically have qualified for main residence relief on sale as long as she "lived" in it, which she undoubtedly did: contrary to the name of the relief, PPR, it doesn't actually have to be your prime residence - even if you own 2 properties it is quite open to you to "elect" the one you spend least time in. It's a daft rule but it's the law. If you only own one home then that will automatically qualify (as long as it is "a" home). MM had no need to "flip". She changed the house on which she claimed expenses because the rules changed at Parliament. It had nothing to do with CGT - simply no effect on it. The Daily Telegraph need to take better tax advice or else they were being deliberately misleading.

Binkybix I agree about threats to the press to effect a cover-up but am not sure I believe that story as there wasn't, um, actually anything particularly to cover up. MM's unhelpfulness was inexcusable though.

The original Telegraph investigation showed that very few MPs had fiddled their expenses. That wasn't because they were fine, upstanding citizens, it was because the system was ludicrously weak and deliberately designed to give them a pay rise by the back door.

So I do accept that Miller did not break any laws. You hardly needed to. In fact I'm amazed at the stupidity of those MPs who did and were rightly jailed.

That's not the same as saying that she didn't know her behaviour would be unacceptable to most people once they knew the deal, whether everyone else was doing it or not.

She must have known, because she tried for 16 months to shut it down. And this morning she whined about the toll the investigation took. The answer is to front up and get it over with, surely?

Once caught out, she should have gone. Cameron asked today whether it was a sign of bad government to demand a resignation instantly rather than letting the person have a second chance.

Yes, I think it is, actually. It's not only bad government, it's bad party management and bad for the image of MPs as a whole.

Of course, Cameron is big on giving people second chances. He said the same about Andy Coulson who's currently looking at the thick end of six years in jail if convicted.

What I don't understand is this. Why did she obstruct the enquiry and threaten the press if absolutely everything was above board. I think she is a disgrace who has no place in public office.

Because she knew it looked bad, viviennemary, even though she was probably confident that she hadn't broken any laws or expenses rules. As I said, there weren't many to break.

I work for the NHS. If I were to make an incorrect expenses claim, I would be hauled over the coals, probably given a final formal warning (if a small error) and potentially sacked for gross misconduct. "Not understanding the rules" or "making a genuine mistake" would not be deemed acceptable defences- we are told "ignorance is not an excuse". If an error (even one as small as a few pence) is detected, they will trawl through every expense claim you've made for quite some time previously.

A colleague recently faced this- she had overclaimed on travel expenses for a home visit (required to give post-codes so distances can be checked). This over-claim was for less than a mile- so less than 60p. She was well and truely grilled, every expense claim for the last 3 years re-checked and she was formally disciplined (they found no other errors). I can only imagine what would if you chose not to co-operate with any investigation- sacked on the spot I'd imagine! I can't imagine making a short apology would save the situation.

The reason given is that public money must not be used for anything other than it's intended purposes and the public must trust that public service employees are not obtaining public money by means of fraud. The system is dictated by DoH- and by definition, the government. So this is the rules MPs lay down for public employees. They have similar rules for benefit claimants- the fact you may have made a genuine mistake doesn't change the consequences.

But aren't MPs also public servants? Why do they have different rules for themselves? It's not fair or just.

MPs make the laws by which we all must abide, so they must scrupulously adhere to the laws they make and should not exempt themselves from the more inconvenient rules.

I also don't understand what the point of having an independent commission if the committee (majority of whom are MPs. I have heard the lay members actually don't have a vote- not sure if this is correct) can simply overrule it.

However, I note that when it suits them, MPs will merrily say "well of course, we have to follow the recommendations of an independent body"- such as the conclusion regarding their own wage increases from the independent Pay Review.

Closely followed by the government overruling the independent pay review conclusion regarding increasing to public service wage rises, on the grounds it is a recommendation and not a binding decision.

The hypocrisy of many MPs is astounding.

Then on top of that, MPs are crying foul by the media- well, if they behaved properly, there wouldn't be anything of any substance to report (although I know the press are not above outright lies). Threatening the press with relation to upcoming (and much needed) reforms was not only corrupt, it was spectacularly poor judgement.

Thanks limited period only. It did seem a bit strange all the dodging if she'd done nothing untoward.

There was a case recently where a woman was incorrectly credited with £52k in her account. She went on a spending spree and now has a criminal record. According to the law if you make a mistake and keep the money you have committed a criminal offence. How is this different?
IMO it's worse. Glad she's gone now.

We're all in this together?

Bollocks!

As I understand it there was also something dodgy going on in that her parents lived in one of the houses (think in London) so were judged to have benefited wrongfully?

No. This was an accusation made by the Labour MP who raised the matter in the first place but both the Commissioner and the Committee agreed that there was no basis for this accusation. To quote from the Committee's report:

Election as an MP did not require Mrs Miller to change her long standing family arrangements, in which her parents were an integral part of her household. In such circumstances, it was entirely proper for Mrs Miller's parents to share both London and Basingstoke homes. Parliamentary allowances were not used to defray the costs of a separate parental home, which Mrs Miller rarely used. Mrs Miller's claims were significantly below the total costs of either home, which supports the judgment that parliamentary allowances were not used to cover her parents' living costs.

How is this different?

Because the Committee (who have the final say) have decided that she overclaimed by £5,800 and she has repaid that amount in full. She has therefore not kept the money.

I confessed on MN a while ago to fiddling my expenses in former jobs. Did I get my arse handed to me on a plate?

I'm not complaining about it. People were entitled to their opinions and I believed some of them when they said they would not do that.

I also believed that some other people would have done it if they had the chance and that was the culture, they just weren't being honest.

It was the culture in Parliament to maximise expenses in order to increase their basic wage because it is not possible to have a debate about MPs' pay. The regime was brought in under Margaret Thatcher. Though I'd accuse her of myriad crimes, expense-fiddling wouldn't be one of them.

The thing I learned about using expenses as a way of topping up pay is that it is a trap. And I didn't get the sack. But it can trip you up.

Either say that you don't think you're paid enough, as many people are, and are being pilloried by this government and their fair-weather friends in the media, or suck up the basic, duck and dive, and when caught out by the millions of people who are suffering wage freezes and savage rises in costs of living, have the decency to go quietly.

However, I note that when it suits them, MPs will merrily say "well of course, we have to follow the recommendations of an independent body"- such as the conclusion regarding their own wage increases from the independent Pay Review.

MPs don't get a vote on that. And to borrow from Nick Robinson:

Q1 - Should MPs set their own pay?

If your answer is something like :

"Are you mad? They set their own expenses and look what happened. Do you remember that duck house..."

proceed to next question

Q2 - Should MPs get an 11% pay rise?

If your answer is something like :

"Are you mad? There wasn't just the duck house, there was the moat and the dog food and the mortgages and ..... They shouldn't get a b*dy pay rise they should go to prison. Well, er, some did, didn't they?"

proceed to next question

Q3 - Would you like MPs to over-rule the independent body which is planning to award them that pay rise?

Before you answer please consider your answer to Q1.

How to rate your answers (yes = 1 point no = 0)

0-3 There is no popular way to set MPs pay and conditions.

Above 3 Lucky you're not setting MPs pay. You can't count.

Designating the family home (London) as the second home, then remortgaging = nice way to get interest free loan on a house which will (probably) increase proportionately more than the Basingstoke one.

You can then put the loan towards something else, oh I don't know... another house. Nice, if you can get it.

I don't agree with second homes/allowance. There should be (state owned) flats available to sitting MPs who's constituencies are too far away to reasonably travel back to. Plenty of us commute an hour or more (one way) to work.

This gets complicated when an MP is elected from 'out of area' as per MM.

She was found to have been overpaid £48,000 so if she's only paid back £5,800 she's kept £44,200 of that money. She has not been bullied out of a Job at all. Threatening the Telegraph (There as Right as they come - you'd think you'd keep your friends on your side) and lying about the hack who didn't know her Dad was just out of hospital. Getting the PSC to drop how much she was recommended to pay back by a preposterous amount. Obstructing the investigation? I'm not going to go on but there is no 'bullying' from the Telegraph. I hope they stand up to her and keep pushing it after all I thought the Cons championed 'Free Press'.

*They're. Autocorrect fail

Also re the Benefit Claimant and the Admin. They have a seperate section for Claimants who haven't got the Admin right. There's 'Dishonestly failing to declare' and then 'failing to declare'. The benefit claimants that haven't quite got the admin right fall neatly under the latter.

Well well. Talk of one rule for Dave's pals...

Michael Fabricant is claiming he's just been sacked as Tory party vice-chair, for his opinion of HS2 and... for passing comment on Maria Miller!

Apparently the reluctance to demand resignations does not extend beyond Dave's yes-women.

(I know it's a different sort of post, but what a nonsense this makes of Cameron's parliamentary pontifications.)