Public to have say on MPs' expenses

#1
Western mail & Echo
also HERE

Public to have say on MPs' expenses

Jan 5 2011
Parliament's expenses watchdog is giving taxpayers a say about what MPs can - and cannot - claim.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), which has faced complaints from MPs for its tough new expenses regime, has launched a public consultation about what members are entitled to.
Writing in The Sun, Ipsa's chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said: "In the past, MPs decided the rules themselves and they did so behind closed doors. Not any more. For the next six weeks we are asking everyone to tell us what they think."
His call comes after growing discontent at Westminster about Ipsa, which has been accused of imposing administrative burdens on MPs and stopping them doing their jobs properly.


Sir Ian said: "Rightly, we hear a lot from MPs about what they think. We will listen and we will act if it is right to do so. MPs are worried about the impact of the rules on their families and concerned about some of the budgets we have set. But we also want to hear from those whose money is being spent: you, the taxpayer. Get involved and make your thoughts count."
Ipsa was set up in the wake of the parliamentary expenses scandal in 2009, and took over paying expenses last April.
Complaints about the excessive bureaucracy of the new rules on expenses have been voiced by MPs from all parties, including Tory backbenchers who raised the issue with Mr Cameron at a meeting of the 1922 Committee last month. Gripes reportedly included MPs not being able to use expenses to transport their children to and from their constituency.
The PM told them he "recognised that (Ipsa) has caused a lot of pain and difficulty", and criticised the new arrangements.
"It is anti-family and it is not acceptable," he said. Mr Cameron warned that it must improve by April or he would force changes.
Ipsa countered by saying leaders of all of the main parties - including the Prime Minister - had welcomed the changes to the parliamentary expenses system when they were first introduced, and it had an "overriding responsibility to the public".






 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
I work for an organisation with 95,000 employees. We have a set of rules about what is valid for expenses and what is not. I also have to use a corporate credit card, which provides a simple list of what what I have spent money on.

When I incur expenses I raise an on-line request for reimbursement, scan the receipts and email them to the expenses department as a record to validate against my credit card. My line manager Ok's my expenses and a payment is automatically made to my bank account. I then pay my corporate credit card bill. It is a simple and cost effective system.

If my organisation with 95,000 employees can run a simple, cost effective system, why can't the 650 MP's get to grips with theirs?

What part of stop fiddling the tax payer do the cnuts not understand?

Wordsmith
 
#6
Oh no. We cannot subject our elected Boys and Gels in Parliament to such close fiscal scrutiny, oh dear no. It might be again their...

(1) Umin Rites... (which is surprising that none of them have invoked this as being so..!)
(2) It's too bureaucratic..... (well the previous system was like the Social Benefits System - easy to fiddle)
(2) We are the Elected Representatives, so we ARE Special and Different.... (possibly, some probably do succumb to the delusions of grandeur bit!).

The bleats, whine and moans will continue from our elected Boys and Gels for a long time to come. Possibly they will in time, try and bend the system back to where it was back before the expenses scandal broke. A free for all, and reinstate claims for mortgage payments on second homes, holiday homes abroad, and the expenses accrued on keeping Mistresses in London flats by horny old Geezers well past their sell by date. (all alleged of course).

One wonders if Teflon B'Liar's shredded expenses will ever be 'investigated'...... or if he ever claimed on them... (all alleged of course).
 
#7
Wordy,you weren't claiming for your floating duck house,cleaning out your moat or for viewing porno movies were you!The greedy fat ******* have brought this on themselves.
 
#9
Has anybody found where we can make our insignificant public say on this gross theft
schemeconsultation@parliamentarystandards.org.uk. Please mark your email with 'Consultation response'. If you do not have access to email, you may send a paper copy of your response to:


Consultation responses
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
7th Floor, Portland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5BH


or you can complete the online survey at https://www.snapsurveys.com/swh/surveylogin.asp?k=129415848902
 
#10
schemeconsultation@parliamentarystandards.org.uk. Please mark your email with 'Consultation response'. If you do not have access to email, you may send a paper copy of your response to:


Consultation responses
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
7th Floor, Portland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5BH


or you can complete the online survey at https://www.snapsurveys.com/swh/surveylogin.asp?k=129415848902
Do you think they will accept "your not ******* having any you greedy cnuts" as a valid consultation response.
 
#11
I'll believe it when it happens and even if anything happens at all, it will be vastly watered down to allow the greedy ******* to ultimately take responsibility for their own expenses.
 
#12
I rather thought the public have been having their say for quite some time on this issue but as usual they were being ignored. This is obviously an exercise to point to at a future point TBD and say "We did consult you even though our complete doing the opposite of what the public wants might be considered evidence that we didn't..."
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#13
I'm sure they will have been told to whine a lot and most of the public will be glad to hear tales of hardship. In reality things will be as bad if not worse than before. They lie.
 
#14
Typically it all comes down to their own feelings of self-worth and entitlement. As an example, the new Mayor of Toronto immediately reduced the "Office Expenses" for councilors from $53,000 per year to $30,000 py. The very 1st interview with one of the "lefty" councilors who had voted against the reduction was: "this is ridiculous, I will now have to pay out of my own pocket for my DAILY morning COFFEE !" completely missing the point and completely missing the fact that millions of regular Joe Blow employees do indeed pay for their own morning coffee.

I really don't see how difficult it is to set up simple rules and regulations. Step one: Ask Wordsmiths company for a copy of their rules, Step two: Adapt for Government Expenses. Step Three: Implement. - Problem solved at minimal cost.
 
#15
******* greedy bastards...and they have the nerve to claim they are "serving" the country!
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#20
In that case, i say that the country can not afford to pay ANY expenses to MPs for the foreseeable future, on the grounds that MPs have abused the system and for the mess they got our country in to!

After all, David said that we are all in this together .... did he not?

Have a taste of your own medicine back!

There, i can rest easy now!
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top