Originally Posted by Grownup_Rafbrat

When I did 'O' Level History, I was taught that the 1832 Reform of Parliament started to pay salaries to MPs so that they wouldn't have to have a second occupation or be of the 'private income' classes.

It seems that the job at the House is not really full time

Register of Members Interests

wish I had more time to go through it all.

Originally Posted by Herrumph

Secondly, it is a good way to wind up a number of Conservative MPs who make up the majority of those with second jobs. It will ensure that a number of Tories will oppose the changes and allow Broone to point the finger at wicked, tory toffs opposing his popular reforms.

My bold....popular with whom?The papers are already running this as a cop-out on the front pages.Even the MSM lobby hacks are not fooled,and see this as the political turdery that it really is.

I would imagine that this move will only encourage the tories to cap political donations to 50k.

Will the gloves really come off?

It's been on You Tube. In the deluded world of the Downing Street Bunker that means it must be popular.

Originally Posted by Grownup_Rafbrat

When I did 'O' Level History, I was taught that the 1832 Reform of Parliament started to pay salaries to MPs so that they wouldn't have to have a second occupation or be of the 'private income' classes.

Expenses only started to be paid in the nineteen fifties, to cover postage, etc. and most claimed nothing. I think the maximum was £750 per year. Perhaps they should use that as a guideline, and bring it up to date, perhaps using the same inflation figures as are used for the Old Age Pension.

Up until MPs got a decent salary and sensible expenses they in general needed a second source of income, for the tories and liberals this tended to be paid employment in the old shanmateur tradition, whilst labour MPs were 'sponsored' by various unions, a habit that continues till today as well.

When expenses started as you point out almost every MP 'did the right thing', so controls were lax, but as time has gone by the expense system has been seen as a means of feathering ones nest as the ammounts went up and the so called checking by the fees office became more lax.

MSPs tried the same when the Scottish Parliament started but the FOI was more rigorously applied up here and MSPs expenses are published every month and as a result after one or two scalps have become pretty much a non issue.

I think there are in reality very few who would not pay snesible levels of expenses to MPs for the work they do, if the rules are sensible, the claims properly justified and documented and most importantly published both regularly and frequently. I even see no reason why we should not support the purchase of a second home, provided that we through the house have a charge on the deeds of the property so that when it is sold then a proper ammount is paid for the share of the increase in value which is due to our support. Equally I see no reason why there should not be a scheme to claw back retrospectively a fair share in the value of properties already being purchased with our money for existing MPs, in fact that shoul be a priority as quite a few will be deprating at the next election, even with the present slump in the housing market the Blai Babes will still be siting on a fair profit at our expense.

Why do they have to have such generous expenses in the first place?
Why not raise the wages to say £120k and have no expenses or allowances including the HoC canteen. In reference to accomodation it would be very easy to compell MP's to use Governmental properties when in London .
This would also stop the likes of Ed balls and his Mrs, Evette Cooper from both claiming for a "the 2nd" home in London when their kids go to school in London.

g4eddie, if all MP's earned £120K and no allowances surely that would put those MP's who represent constituencies well away from London at a serious disadvantage. It would be impossible to represent the Shetland Islands and return home each weekday.

I have no problem with expenses for those who do not live within commuting distance of London to allow them to find accomodation in London, but what has been happening is that all MP's have seen this as some form of entitlement.

Jacqui Smith lives in Redditch. There are reasonable transport links there, and like many business people she could commute from Westminster to her constituency on a daily basis, instead of claiming for a 2nd home allowance. After all most people who work in London have to spend some time commuting and a not small amount of cash to get to work. Smith has a ministerial car, she would get free 1st class rail, so I cannot see a problem with her commuting. Realistically she is entitled to a Grace and Favour apartment - all secured which would save the taxpayer a fortune, however she chose not to use it, and claimed her sisters place as primary residence allowing her Redditch home to be expensed for mortgage and other purchases. IT IS FRAUD.

McNulty and Dawn butler fare even worse - they both represent London constituencies, already have a primary residence in London (no more than 15 miles from Westminster) and both claim Additional Cost Allowance for 2nd homes. McNulty was expecting the taxpayer to fund his parents house.

There need to be a large number of changes to the system. I have no problem with those who come from well outside London to rent somewhere to live during Parliamentary sessions, but under no circumstances should the taxpayer be funding their property portfolio's. And lets face it - MP's are already well rewarded for the work they do (less than 50% of the year sitting in Parliament). It is their decision to take this vocation.

What exactly is wrong with claiming back authorised expenses like millions of others who work in the real world do.

You travel to London, stay in a hotel, buy a meal and go home.

Fill in a claim form, attach receipts, send off, get paid

I cant for the life of me see what is so complicated that we are discussing rolling expenses in salary or attendance allowances or overnight allowances.

It is very very simple and in the real world quite common

Originally Posted by meridian

What exactly is wrong with claiming back authorised expenses like millions of others who work in the real world do.

You travel to London, stay in a hotel, buy a meal and go home.

Fill in a claim form, attach receipts, send off, get paid

I cant for the life of me see what is so complicated that we are discussing rolling expenses in salary or attendance allowances or overnight allowances.

It is very very simple and in the real world quite common

I think the biggest disadvantage of the system you suggest is it can be very difficult to scim a reasonablle ammount of such a system.

Brown and Harmen are trying to bribe wavering Labour MPs to back the euro-style expenses gravy train with a £5000 "extra" payment. No doubt many Labour MPs will swallow this and see it as part of their severance payment when they get kicked out next year

edit to add link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...nses-plan.html

One wonders if Brown is so pissed of with the rest of his party that he not only intends losing the next election he intends to lose by the biggest margin ever just out of spite.

On top of all his own goals like Jaqui's bath plugs, and the Tory smear campaign he actaully approve the Gurkha sell out and proposes an even less acountable over the top expenses system than we had beofre, the man has a death wish.