MPs' expenses: now it's the Tories' turn...

[policywonk]

here

More to come - how long are the Telegraph going to string this one out, I wonder? Apparently they paid a six-figure sum for the leak so I guess they want to get their money's worth.

I read Parliament turned down Chelsea Barracks as MP quarters because it was deemed a soft terrorist target.

Actually I have some sympathy for the MP who had to buy all the wreaths. That is a direct result of his job as he wouldn't have been invited otherwise.

Cameron is making his cabinet pay some money back according to this news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx?cp-documentid=16775962

Good for him - but he'll have to work harder than that to convince me his party doesn't have utter contempt for most of the country.

quick aside but has david cameron ever had a proper job not in politics?

I don't think Cameron making them pay back the money shows character or anything; I don't think he deserves much credit for that. Even though it's all disgusting and wrong, the MPs in question (as they keep saying) haven't actually broken the rules (shitty rules that they are). If people haven't technically done anything wrong, I don't see why they can be forced by their party leader to return the money, IYSWIM.

I might stand at the next election. I wonder whether we could get a Mumsnet candidate for each constituency.

He worked at Carlton Television for a while.

Are you really thinking about standing, effie?

Cameron probably doesn't have a legal case for making people pay it back. I imagine the MPs concerned have probably accepted that it's what's politically necessary - just like Blair got Labour MPs to accept all sorts because it would make them electable.

really that's interesting. what did he do for carlton?

He assisted his wife's Mum's friend

Most haven't done anything legally wrong (tax office may want to pursue some of them) but how can Tories present themselves as a party who would be tough on public spending while making the sort of claims that they have? That's why Cameron knows he has to do something. He is showing that he has some political sense and leadership skills.

No, I can see that there isn't a legal case, but morally, the leeches being made to pay the money back makes no difference to me as a voter, in how I view the Conservative party. I don't care that that Tory woman is going to pay back the tenner she spent on cat food - it's not really the money that's the issue, now. Being sorry when you've been caught out counts for nothing. There isn't actually anything they can do to redeem themselves in this situation.

I want to stand in Michel Martin's seat! I only found out the other day that the major parties don't field a candidate in the Speaker's seat. This seems so unfair on the voters of Glasgow North East (although at least they get the SNP to vote for, and I imagine they will now in droves).

Good idea effie! I'd rig a few thousand postal votes and vote for you.

I agree with Tatt - Cameron is showing some political nous (not the same thing as moral fibre).

I can't, for the life of me, see why Brown hasn't done the same thing. He must be deep in his bunker - lost all political sense.

wat gets me is why does a mp need to claim for a box of TAMPAX

sorry a male mp

I had no idea about Michel Martins seat. Wheres the democracy in that?

You know, although I didn't vote for our local mp and disagree with many of his policies I was under the illusion that he was a reasonably decent sort with morals.

I had a meeting with him a few weeks ago about a local issue that has come about through lack of public spending on vital services in our area.

And now it turns out he is a money grabbing pompous bastard after all.

And also, as Tim Dowling said in the Guardian today, he (Woolas) appears to have qualified for a Tesco staff discount. Which is mysterious.

lib dem blog

Thank god for the light entertainment provided by the tory claims!

My favourite, which had me laughing aloud in the office, was the corker from Stewart Jackson on his £300 pool maintenace claim:

"The pool came with the house and I needed to know how to run it. Once I was shown that one time, there were no more claims. I take care of the pool myself. I believe this represents 'value for money' for the taxpayer"

The pool "came with the house". Right-o, so not something he was looking for when buying a house? It came as a total surprise when he spotted it?

But the "value for money" part is just brilliant. if only spitting image were still going

Policywonk - fox chunks in paupers tears was from Sir Charlie of Brooker. Or I am attributing it to him anyway as that is where I read it.

AM also loving the expenses details. Pmsl at some of the cheek.

Policywonk, it isn't so much that Labour should be held in higher esteem but that they have always marketed themselves as "of the people" not "screw the people" as it has turned out.

The Speaker became snippy with Kate Hoey after she quite rightly pointed out the message that sending police to investigate this leak was giving and that it was a waste of resources. Basically he was a disgrace considering his position and shows how out of touch he is.

Right, I've caught up with the Michael Martin business and agree that the man's a complete fool.

Don't agree re. Labour's actions being more reprehensible because of their professed allegiance with 'the people', though. Lots of prominent Tories have built careers on lashing out at 'benefits scroungers' living high on the hock at the taxpayer's expense, so on that count they're equally guilty of steaming hypocrisy.

Leningrad: See, you are a woman, and see solutions I seem to remember that the reason that MPs cannot arrive in the am and vote in the pm, is that they have outside interests, i.e. other jobs to go to. Or so the excuse goes.

This argument makes the rounds in regular intervals as far as how MPs are paid. Do we want professional politicians or do we want semi politicians. That's how the argument has been structured, but I believe asks the wrong question. Do we want politicians with outside interests or not? How should they be paid, anticipating the argument that low paid politicians wouldn't attract the talent blah blah blah.

Ah, Sir Brooker. Of course.

Ilove... that's a very good question and far too difficult for me to think about this time of night...

Maybe there should be a ceiling on an MP's total pay (say, 70k); you can do your extra directorships if you like, but you can't get paid for them?

if you ignore the papers campaign to oust the Speaker - what he said was that persona dtails like addresses were leaked and could provide security problems for MPs. Therefore they ned to find out how it was leaked. That is fair enough. The public interest in this could have been served by leaking rather less information.

I think the speaker should go too - but that doesn't mean he doesn't have some argument from time to time.

Still think their constituents should be able to vote them performance bonuses - then they might remember they have constituents.

I agree that there's been a politically-motivated campaign to oust Martin for some time. But he did launch a personal attack on Hoey, which seems inappropriate for the Speaker, to say the least. He also had a go at Norman Baker, who's marvellous IMO.

None of the MPs' address details have come into the public domain, have they? That's not to say that there hasn't been a criminal offence (I don't know whether there has or not).

But you either live with leaks or you don't, surely. You can't ('you' meaning generic lefty types, me included) applaud Sarah Tisdall and Clive Ponting, but demand that Tory leakers get locked up. If there's a public interest defence - and, given how determined MPs have been to keep as many expense details as possible out of the public domain, I think there's a pretty strong one - then there's an argument in favour of the leak.