MPs and their ruddy expenses...Are we surprised?

[MrsMerryHenry]

Whoever heard of a squeaky-clean politico?

Not suprised in the slightest, but I am disgusted and depressed and even more cynical about them.

No but it annoys me that our money gets spent on this sort of shite

especially those who have taken the piss with those second home allowances (£100k allowance Mr Woodward?)

Yeah, no one broke the rules, but who set them?

That dodge whereby you designate one house as second home, do it up at vast expense, then swap to having your other house as your second home so you can renovate/furnish that too - how could anyone think that was honourable behaviour?

Why is nobody asking the question of why MPs need to claim all this stuff in the first place.

When DH & I both worked full time we didnt have a cleaner, we did it at the weekend.
When we wanted a new TV we saved up and bought one.
When we fitted out our first home it took us 4 years to get everything we wanted.

Why is it ok for MP's to expect someone else to foot the bill for things that everyone has to pay for themselves.

None of us forced them to become MP's. They made the choice to sign up.
I am a nurse and we were all told for years that our low pay was because it was our VOCATION. What utter crap.
Why is it ok for MP's to just keep on taking our money and performing really badly for it.
If I ever screwed up I would have been struck off. What do they get.
Fuck all.

Sorry makes me angry.

and also - why are couples who are both MPs (thinking of the greedy ones in Isleworth and Hounslow here......) BOTH able to claim for outer London when essentially it is not 2 homes - they share a home but each put their claims in.

this gets me angry to no end
utterly ridiculous that these 'rules' exist in the first place

and while I"m ranting, has anyone actually rec'd info concerning the upcoming MEP elections on June 6? I have my polling card but nothing about candidates. They expect us to vote blindly

Minor point, but why are they allowed to claim TV allowances? Justification is - oh we have to live in 2 places for work. OK fine, well why do people in the armed forces (and I am sure there are others in this boat) forced to live away from home where they have a TV licence in barracks then have to buy another full TV licence? I think that is outragious. Well all of it is really, but that one really gets my goat.

Oh sorry - what appalling punctuation. Oooops

I meant to say that...

Those who have bought a TV licence at their principle residence where probably family live, who are then forced to move for a year or 2 to the other end of the country to live in a small room in a barracks, should not have to purchase a second TV licence. MPs don't.

Nothing here on the south coast. I follow politics and I am not even really that sure who my MEP is. No idea if Lab or Con or Green or Lib or UKIP.
Most likely the "I'm gonna rip the arse out of the system and get myself a good pile of cash party".

I am hugely pissed off about the whole thing. That something is within the rules does not make it honest.

Personally I think the govt should own a big block of en suite rooms similar to student accommodation, a kitchen on each corridor and a tv room, and put them in there, or they should be able to claim a few hundred pounds a month to rent a room. I work away 3 days a week and rent a room in a friend's house - costs me £250 a month and works very well! After all they are always telling us they are in the House working until late, they just need a place to sleep really.

(Am, however, v impressed by the few who have stood against the prevailing culture and not made ridiculous claims.)

I'm also furious that as a public sector worker, paid for by public money, I have to submit receipts for EVERYTHING - as it should be. Why are MP's so different from all other public sector workers?

I just wish somebody would listen to what we are saying.

I particularly enjoyed the news that as the amount which can be claimed without any receipt is £250 there was a disproportionately large number of expenses claimed at ......£249

It is the cunning and greed involved that staggers me - people claiming for light bulbs for goodness sake. It would never occur to me to even ask the question - oh can I claim for light bulbs.
Especially annoying when I recall the hops that my DS has to go through to evidence that he is sufficiently disabled to receive not a fraction of what these scum bags are claiming

Agree with Kathy.

And with Paolosgirl - my DH is public sector (I used to be) and the consequences of fiddling expenses even a tiny bit (much less than £250) were dire. Job loss the least of your worries. court martial almost a certainty.

What irks me is that they can buy a second home, claim for carpets, furnishings etc at the tax payers expense then sell the home, at a profit wth aforementioned refurbishment, buy another and refurbish again at our expense.....over and over and over again. All above board too.

Grrrrrr.

I think it is all part and parcel of the state we are all in now.
Lots of people think they are owed or they need or are ENTITLED. That really gets on my nerves.
Just because MP's are doing a hard job why are they entitled to a second home? Whats wrong with a hotel?
Why are they entitled to free TV. I didnt have a TV when I started uni, because I couldn't afford one. Why do they need Sky+ when they dont get time to watch it because they are apparently so busy.

I don't mind them having a tv, I'm even prepared to pay for the licence (if the friend's house they're renting a room in doesn't have one ) but I don't see why it should be a f*cking great big flat screen.
TBH I wouldn't mind that much paying to furnish a second home, but I don't see why it is ok for it to include a £2000 desk when you can get a perfectly good one, brand new, for a twentieth of that from IKEA.

I consider myself to be fairly well informed and cynical about politics, but I was genuinely shocked to read about the fiddles (there is no other word for it) going on.

David Miliband tried to claim for a pushchair, FFS!

Agree with Kathy that those who kept their snouts out of the trough (probably deliberately) deserve our applause. It must be hard not to join in when everyone else is at it. I always knew that Alan Johnson was a good egg.

And claiming for pot plants and hanging baskets is just taking the piss. Anyone would think they didn't get paid at all.

Hear hear!
£600 for pots and hanging baskets in Margaret Beckett's case. But the claim was disallowed, hurrah.

It's a combination of greed and opportunism and a careless approval process that has led to this runaway expenses bandwagon. No wonder MPs wanted to keep this information private. Still, the jig must be up by now, surely?

I think the problem is that the hypocrisy rather than their behavior per se. Let's face it, the majority of people (in the private and public sector) would be cheeky with their expenses if they could get away with it. Well, let's put is this way, I've seen plenty of people in the private sector do it - put a lunch with a friend on expenses, get a company cab to a night out rather than back home.

But most people don't then stand up in front of the nation saying things along the lines of "...must be careful with the public purses.. mindful of other people... bear in mind the greater good... think of the economy.. yadayadayada..." whilst doing so.

Disgusting bastards, claiming for baby rusks, pushchairs, etc. They are not expenses incurred by being MPs And they don't even pay tax on it.

If my company paid my expenses on that basis, I'd pay 40% tax plus NI on top.

Thieves the lot of them.

Thieving bastards.

cestlavie
I agree.
It is the scope of it too though.
My DH is actually irritatingly scrupulous and will pay for dinner with a friend who is also a business connection even when they are meeting about business because he hates that kind of sneaky oppertunism. But this is not supper with a friend - the scope of this was way beyond stretching a point.
It was just shameless. And the 'it was not against the rules' defence is pretty shameless too.