The Westminster pigs are back in the trough again…

#2
How can it be a matter of security when constituents know the address of their surgeries and even the times the MP will be there?.They just do not want us to know the sordid details,again.
 
#7
Thanks for finding this, unfortunately GB didn't deal with it properly last time but I suppose if he had we would have lost much of parliament. They won't get voted out, one of the worst offenders of this cynical exploitation of expenses to effectively run a tax avoiding property development company was Hazel Blears and she got straight back in. If this sort of thing happened in any other job then the offender would be straight out. It's not unlike Widdicombe's speech where she points out that parliament make rules about what we cannot say in public or place of work but they are allowed to in their place of work, one rule for these bastards and one for us.
 
#8
The piggies never thought of leaving the trough. They worked out a new way to get into it. It's all within the rules (now who makes them) but they wouldn't like us mortals to know about it. Soon be time to start breaking the cobblestones out.
 
#9
What about the land register, doesn't that make Burcow's position meaningless?
Struggling to see how knowing the landlord is a security risk compared to us already knowing the address. At the very least they should cap the amount of their housing allowance the same as housing benefit anyway.
 
#10
Two party system one party state.
 
#11
What about the land register, doesn't that make Burcow's position meaningless?
Struggling to see how knowing the landlord is a security risk compared to us already knowing the address. At the very least they should cap the amount of their housing allowance the same as housing benefit anyway.
I think the land register only shows who owns a house.

I've not read much about this but my understanding is that it involves MPs subletting properties to one another. If all of the rents are ultimately paid for by Parliament (a nice little earner in itself) I don't understand what the advantage is, unless the honourable members are charging one another inflated rents.
 
#12
I think the land register only shows who owns a house.

I've not read much about this but my understanding is that it involves MPs subletting properties to one another. If all of the rents are ultimately paid for by Parliament (a nice little earner in itself) I don't understand what the advantage is, unless the honourable members are charging one another inflated rents.
The advantage is that the rules were changed to stop members of parliment from claiming mortgage interest on their second homes, this was to stop them building up property empirs from tax payer money. What they are doing now is buying a second home, renting it to another MP using thier tax payer funded expenses, and therefore paying off the mortgage from the tax payer funded rent - basically achieving the same end state but via a different route. In theory 2 MP's could buy seperate properties, rent them out to each other and therefore have them both paid for by the tax payer and end up with a nice tax payer funded property at the end of thier term.

S_R
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
I think the land register only shows who owns a house.

I've not read much about this but my understanding is that it involves MPs subletting properties to one another. If all of the rents are ultimately paid for by Parliament (a nice little earner in itself) I don't understand what the advantage is, unless the honourable members are charging one another inflated rents.
Two northern MP's in safe seats each buy a house in London. They cannot expense the house as they are now not allowed to rent. So they each do a deal with each other to rent the others house as the place they'll stay in London when on parliamentary business. MP's mortgage costs on second homes are now being indirectly paid for by the tax payer.

And if in fact the MP's colluded, they could both stay in one house (paid for by one set of rent) and rent out the second one purely for profit.

No way of checking out the latter if addresses aren't known.

Wordsmith
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
Hopefully one of those with access to the gruesome details will do the decent thing and bubble the offending parties like last time. If we're ever going to get our country back, the next round of cuts should involve a headsman and a very large axe.
 
#17
The advantage is that the rules were changed to stop members of parliment from claiming mortgage interest on their second homes, this was to stop them building up property empirs from tax payer money. What they are doing now is buying a second home, renting it to another MP using thier tax payer funded expenses, and therefore paying off the mortgage from the tax payer funded rent - basically achieving the same end state but via a different route. In theory 2 MP's could buy seperate properties, rent them out to each other and therefore have them both paid for by the tax payer and end up with a nice tax payer funded property at the end of thier term.

S_R
It is allegedly that this is the scam that is about to be exposed and is causing the Right Dishonourable Grunters to squeal.
 
#18
Please, please, please can pers stop talking about "Honourable" members of Parliament, such a person simply does not exist and has not done so for some considerable time as the likes of Hazel Bleary proves (is she still and MP?)
 
#19
There are going to be flaws in this scenario, but I have no doubt the power of ARSSE will spot them and we can work through to a feasible solution.

1. Appoint a paid (reasonably well, but not a pittance or banker’s salary) Constituency Recorder who is politically neutral or who is willing to be neutral for a defined term of office. The Recorder would also act as, inter alia, Returning Officer and be responsible for signing off the constituency MP’s expenses, etc.
2. On election night, once the Returning Officer has read the results, the newly appointed MP should have to sign a document, publicly, one paragraph of which should clearly state that if said MP is found committing any act which, in ordinary constituency life, could be considered criminal, fraudulent, (add other categories here, as required) then the MP agrees that the constituency – not Party or Constituency Party – will examine the allegations.
3. Responsibility for any internal investigation resides in the Constituency Recorder, devolved, if he/she thinks fit to local Inspector Knacker who will investigate and report according to ordinary, non-Palace of Westminster rules.
4. Meanwhile, said MP is suspended by his constituency (optional!) until Knacker reports.
5. If Knacker reports that a crime/fraud HAS been committed, then let the law take its course, as for an ‘ordinary citizen’.
6. However, if Knacker reports that a crime would have been committed if it had not been for the fact that the MP had committed it under Palace of Westminster rules (i.e. no prosecution possible), then said MP would immediately be recalled and a bye-election called.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top