Last Ditch Atempt by MPs to Keep Expenses Secret

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by DigitalGeek, Mar 26, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I wonder what they have got to hide then? Where is the promised transparency? It seems remarkable that an MP can get expenses to furnish a second home when many of us cannot afford the first one!

    Maybe they should be audited a la JPA? March to admin office with receipt for new sofa..... :x
  2. The houses in London should be like the pads houses. Loaned to them for a certain time, fully furnished. Bill raised when they leave.

    Then they dont have to find their own house. Makes it all easier for them, and for the Police who can protect them.

    They shouldn´t be staying in London that much anyway. They should be in their first home, in their constuticy.
  3. It is very obvious, they are embarrassed at getting caught wasting our money. Cnuts the lot of em.
  4. The Times report that the cost of this last ditch effort to keep their expenses secret is costing 100,000 in OUR hard earned wonga.

    What a bunch of cnuts. They should pay that back out of their own pocket for starters.

    The wheels have come off their little gravy train, me thinks.
  5. i would love to see one just one front bencher stand up and forward this as a private members bill...also too recommend that the palace of Westminster is fed under PAYD and pay and allowances administered by JPA.

    Methinks i will see a flying pig, first.
  6. well it just goes to show once more our shallow so called professional poloticians have been caught out again, franticly scrambling to halt FOI being released about there fat cat expenses on second homes. Just shows that they are all tarred with the same brush as all the partys are for once all in line on one decision, we aint going to see that again in my life time.

    Smiling assassins all of them
  7. One of the things that got me about the Telegraph article is that

    How can they get away with destroying that sort of information I would have thought that at least the former prime ministers documentation would be preserved for posterity.

    Destroying these sorts of records is bang out of order, you can bet your arse that all of your claims are secreted away somewhere to be dug over should the need arise.
  8. The whole system needs a big shake up. The MP Pad idea is a blinder, I wonder what the cost of MP's London expenses is compared to buying a building in Central London and converting to basic flats. If it is close to Parliament then they can walk and save the environment and money!
  9. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    I've got no problem with them being financed for a second home in London. I can't for the life of me see why they should get to keep it once they are no longer an MP. It should be sold and the money returned to government coffers.

    That Tory may have been caught out first but you can bet your bottom dollar that each and everyone of those thieving gits has got their hand in the till and thats why they are shitting themselves about this information becoming public.
  10. Have Chelsea Barracks or Woolwich been sold off yet? There'd be no need to buy a new property, just shift the asset from one set of books to another, then convert to Mess-type accommodation - with PAYD and/or kitchenettes.

    The biggest problem with this common-sense solution is that it's the MPs themselves who would have to vote the idea in - and are they likely to? It would need a major press campaign to persuade constituents to inform their local party selection committees that unless MPs/candidates agree to vote 'yes' to such a proposal, then the voting public will NOT return them to Westminster.
  11. [​IMG]
  12. I'm increasingly convinced that MP's should be allowed a maximum of two terms in office, then a period in real life before standing again for election. The only exception being Ministers - who can have a third term, but must stand down if they lose their jobs, and a small hardcore cadre of whips etc who can act as parliamentary RSM's.

    This way the MP's have to work hard to get promoted to Ministerial positions if they want to keep their jobs, and realise that that depends on effort not sitting back and raking in expenses.

    I also want to see their pay rise being linked to the average pay rise in the public sector (figure TBD by independent body) and all claims over £5 subject to expenses.

    Finally I'd like to see them live in a publicly funded "westminster flats" area, similar to Portcullis house, providing them with B&B when required but nothing extravagant - hammer home the message that they are public servants too.
  13. Ah you have just hit the thingy on the whatsit. The problem is that they in no way think that they are public servants. I bet most of them think that Joe Public should be eternally happy that they have given up a career in some mumbo-jumbo psuedo profession to run the country smoothly and seemelessly.
    As you say, create basic but adequate mess type accommodation and finance and maintain it by grants that are based on similar messes run by the Army. If PAYD is so fantastic there will be no complaints. Finally to quote one of my more erudite RSMs, "Politiicians, I've sh1t them" - well said sarn't major
  14. LordVonHarley has touched on an interesting point with the MPs pad. When he talks of buying a building and converting it to flats I hope he means a derelict and therefore cheap building as buildings able to house 300 odd ppl are rarely unused. The next best idea would of course be to buy them a block of flats.

    The benefits go far beyond the pecuniary. MPs are currently arguing that exposing expenses will reveal the addresses of their second homes. With an MPs pad this problem is already 'solved'. They could employ out of work beefeaters for security or, if there is such a thing, the beefeater volunteers, an organisation running on much the same premise as St Johns Ambulance. Every willing individual should be given a chance to serve.

    The bottles of water 'crisis' in the Houses could be solved by refilled old plastic bottles in lunch boxes handed out as the public servants leave for the day. They could cycle, ride in a staggered convoy of eco friendlier bendy busses or walk to work.
  15. The country is actually run by the Civil Service, allowing our elected travelling circus to concentrate on stuffing as much money in their pockets as is physically possible from whatever source is closest to them (business, Saudi's, unions, banks or the public purse).

    Evidence of this is found in the short sightedness they demonstrate. Take Labour, who have made doing fcuk all into a viable career path for those so inclined, what they fail to realise is that while making a sizable part of the electorate dependant on the free handouts will ensure their vested loyalty come polling day, it does not in the long run generate wealth for them to dip their greedy fat hands into, as it is a net loss to the economy year in year out.

    Labour (socialism/left wing politics) cannot manage national economies, every country in the world, for all time, have found that left wing governments gradually destory economic growth and prosperity, the further left, the further the damage. The longer they are in power the greater the damage.

    The pendulum then has to swing to a conservative (right wing-ish) government to rectify the mismanagement. The trouble is this is socially painfull as the "gimme" class hit the stops and have to find jobs to keep their free plasma's and sky sports. But the finanical mismanagement that frowned apon entrepeneurism and the growth of the private sector cannot react to the demand for employment immediatly so the economic benefits are not seen for a lag period while the growth catches up.

    A bit simplistic, but stands up to any level of real world scrutiny, and will always be the case as left and right wing politics have fundementally different aims. Of course damage is done by both if you go too far to one extreme or the other, which is why natural evoloution has given all sucessfull democratic countries basically the same two political choices.

    All thats left is to decide, do you want to work to assure your own future for you and yours (right wing) or do you want to have someone give you that future (left wing). Common sense will tell you that only one can work long term, since the implication of receiveing is that someone has to have it to give.

    Delete and insert democrat/republican/conservative/labour/ at the appropriate point.

    Labour steal money, but they are bound by socialist ideals which in turn leaves less to steal. Conservatives steal money and grow the economy such that they can do so and continue to do so.

    The only choice is under which system do you fell personally get better off? I guess that depends if you "do" or "expect" and this website probably leans to the "do" hence the support levels enjoyed by our current overlords (or not)