To think that the MP's have a point?

[wannaBe]

now don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily they should have been allowed to claim for all the things they were allowed to claim for, although I do think that some was justified.

But the fact is, they were allowed to claim these expenses, so they did so, legitimately. And I think that anyone told they could claim for things as part of their job would do the same.

Now I think that expenses should have been reviewed and what MP's can and can't claim for should have been changed. But I can see why they are annoyed at being told to pay back retrospective payments for things they weren't actually wrong for claiming at the time.

People switching second homes to avoid tax/claiming mortgages that had already been paid etc is of course another matter and should IMO be being dealt with in court.

Ah well done Badger

ALso,seeing as many as men, maybe they should receive the analogy of the offside rule- they may have scored the goal but the opposition (for which read principles) were not in a position for it to be counted.

(yes I know thats a gross generalisation about the gender offottie fans LOL, apologies)

Actually I find the bleating that they operated within the rules more outrageous than the original dodgy claims.

the rules were all entirely based upon the premis that MPs were operating an honour based system, created and administered amongst themselves where they were not supposed to take the piss.

An MP operates in a world where their word and honour are supposed to mean something, where accusing someone of lying is considered intolerable.

Having created a system where they were duty bound to only claim for those things necessary to allow them to function - and to preventtheir duities leaving them out of pocket they screwed it for every available penny.
They milked the system and are now bitching about the fact that someone has said they were taking the micky.

I'm inclined to agree with you wannaBe.

As Ann W. said, it doesn't seem like natural justice in some cases (ie, not to do with moats or duck houses).

You don't want a situation in which decent, intelligent people don't want to stand as MPs because they are just scared they'll inadvertently do something wrong. Or because they think it's just too much hassle.

I think atm we have a sit whree a lot of honest people (like me in fact) won't touch any avenue of politics because of the number of conners put there.

Those who do not pay should be encouraged to step down at the next election. Or just voted out.maybe if enough MPs get narked we will ahve a parliament of interested aprties rather than benefit-surfers?

The example of Jacqui Smith seems to show that there's no real consequences of doing something that was deliberately, yet alone accidentally, wrong.

She broke the rules.

She broke the governing principles.

She lied about it.

She was caught out.

She made a very surly apology.

She ended said surly apology by basically saying that she didn't think the decision was fair.

She hasn't been sacked.

She doesn't have to pay the money back.

Sigh...

More generally remember that MPs fought tooth and nail to keep their claims secret and almost uniquely exempt from freedom of information requests. That doesn't exactly show confidence that they thought what they were up to was OK.

"Mind you, I'm still baffled that they're allowed to claim for furnishing a house. Is it so hard to consider just paying for stuff out of your salary, like the rest of us?"

Thing is our salaries aren't paid for by taxpayers... we are paying every single penny that they earn AND claim for.

When we come to claim our expenses from our employers, we have to provide receipts, or it doesn't get reibursed. MPs were pretty much writing their own blank cheques from the taxpayers bank account.

I'm sure that there ARE some honest MPs, and it's a shame that they have been tarnished by those who have been less than transparent, and have sought to hide their spending from the people that actually fund it.

Some of the mortgages being claimed for had been paid off... that's not something you would ordinarily fail to notice... Some mortgages never existed. And the multiple flipping, selling and non-payment of CGT. If it were Joe Bloggs in the street, they'd have been arrested for fraud. It's OUR money, they need to be MORE accountable for the spending of it than your ordinary Joe Blogss earning a living from private enterprise.

We're taxed up to the eyeballs, at every twist and turn, from the cradle to the grave. Our education system appears to be struggling to keep up with the rest of europe, our health care system is struggling to cope, and someone get's their ducks a brand spanking new floating home. Someone says they were living somewhere, they clearly weren't....

In the eyes of law, if something sounds unfair, it probably is.

Why is this case any different? Because they are MPs?