Why are MPs being so reluctant to explain their expenses?

[AMAZINWOMAN]

Every part of the government is accountable, and is available for inspection. Most details are alo available under the freedom of information act.

Then why are MPs so reluctant to explain or show their expenses?

I smell a rat....

They don't really want us to know how much it costs us to keep them and their relatives in the style to which they have become accustomed

The thing that really bugs me is they can claim expenses for mortgage/rent, furniture, and even food, but we can't even offset the same expenditure against taxes

It's an instinctive resentment of us plebs muscling in on their club.

Despite the fact that it was us plebs who put them in office in the first place

Because they like telling everyone else how to run their lives but are somehow exempt from it themselves

That and making their home addresses public; which to be fair I can sympathise with.

I still need the expenses data to ensure I'm getting value for money out my local MP...

but kevlarhead, if you really wanted to, you could find out their address very easily anyway, i certainly know where my mp lives.

i think its got an awful lot more to do with what 'little secrets' are going to come out

"but kevlarhead, if you really wanted to, you could find out their address very easily anyway, i certainly know where my mp lives."

Which was the precisely the grounds on which the FOI exemption was quashed...

well yes, i know.

I couldn't believe that Michael Martin's wife was allowed to get away with her taxi journeys. It is absolutely disgusting that while we mere mortals suffer with ever increasing costs the MPs and their families don't see the problem as they can just sign everything else off on expenses.

Imagine what fuel would cost if MPs had to pay for their own!

Good point, TwoIfBySea. Bearing in mind that the taxi trips in question were apparently to go shopping, just how much "shopping" does one MP need?

Actually, a friend of mine had a brilliant idea: refurbish the flats in a couple of dodgy London tower blocks so they are identical, have one for each constituency, with a staff cantine type thing in the basement. Then they've all got somewhere to live when parliament is in session, they can sort themselves out in their own constituencies, just like us mere mortals have to do, and the whole thing costs the tax payer vastly less money. I thought that was a stroke of genius

These MPs need to get their snouts out of the trough - I really am disgusted by this attempt at a cover up. The freedom of information act has come back to haunt this government.

I have to tell the government what we earn, so why don't MPs have to show what they take?

yes and an economic democracy would be nice too

I was appaulled that on the Politic show the politician discussing this claimed that he didn't want everyone to know what toilet roll he used and what colour his bedroom was painted! Why the F**K are we as tax payers paying for his TOILET ROLL and PAINTING HIS SECOND HOME!!! If he is using toilet roll at his second home he is saving on in at his first home. What world do they live in where they think they are justified in tax payers coughing up for this when the families of some of our military are paying rent for such outdated squalid quarters while their spouses are in Iraq and Afghanistan to give one example .

Hmm, very badly written but I hope you get the message ....

MPs are fearful because the Press do deliberatly misrepresent expenses. The Press often quote expenses out of context, not acknowledging good reasons why one MP claims more than another (e.g. he lives in the Outer Hebridies and his travel expesnes are huge). The Press also fail to give the appropraite background info - most expenses are very strictly controlled, the majority exist to pay staff and are never seen by the MP himself (although whether staff should be related to you is obviously another question and one that a small number of MPs do seem to abuse).

Historically MPs were rich land owners who did the job out of honour, they claimed no salaries but got reimbursed for their troubles. This histroy has developed into an ever more complicated system of expenses in categories such as "computers", "research assistants", "outreach" all of which did not need to exist before and are not the type of expenses that the public usually sees as the problem.

The obvious answer is to radically redesign the expenses system and take categories such as staff costs out of the title "expenses" altogether. Then they would be harder to misrepresent and MPs would have no argument against declaring them openly.

And now, MP's are planning to award themselves free/heavily subsidised childcare. That's fine, if each and everyone else in the UK gets the same perk. Otherwise it's definitely not fine.

Suedonim If it is not fine then fewer women will be MPs and certainly fewer women from poor backgrounds will be MPs. This will mean there will be nobody in Parlaiment to represent such women with any knowledge and therefore it is very unlikely that the whole country will ever be awarded heavily subsidised childcare.

"I have to tell the government what we earn, so why don't MPs have to show what they take?"

Damn right

and succinctly put

I agree with artichokes. It's a bonkers system. I wouldn't want everyone gawping over the details of my home furnishings either frankly.

MPs do have to work in London and their constituency. Their basic salary wouldn't support that. But subsidising their second home, with any rise in equity going to them?

I can also see the requirement for staff, but that has been roundly abused too of course.

Whole system needs looking at IMO.

...because they know there would be an outcry.

In that case, Artichokes, why not extend the offer to all areas where women are under-represented? Then women could have a bigger say across the board. It will be in part parents struggling on the bottom rung of the ladder who will paying for this, when IMO, anyone on an MP's pay/allowances should be able to afford childcare.

They get paid £60k. Is that not enough for childcare??
And why should tax payers pay to decorate a second home????

Suedonim - I have just looked up what MPs care planning about childcare. If you got the impression "they are about to award themselves heavily subsidised/free childcare" then it is another example of the Press misrepresenting what is happening. The truth is that they may be allowed to claim childcare vouchers (a small tax rebate). Most civil servants and public workers can claim these vouchers (as can many private sector workers) and the proposal is that MPs should also be able to claim them.

Sorry 60k plus these expenses.