: Sat May 09, 2009 2:55 pm  

-VIKINGMAN- wrote:

Isnt he a born and bred Leyther? probably used to claiming benefits just like the rest of your town.


...............

He is from Culcheth!

Reckons to be some kind of Scouser, so could be related to you!

: Sat May 09, 2009 3:58 pm  

rugbyballs wrote:

He is from Culcheth!

Reckons to be some kind of Scouser, so could be related to you!

Now you have got to at that Vikingman

: Sat May 09, 2009 10:51 pm  

Alexs Dad wrote:

I took the hand written note about divorce to be tongue in cheek.

You've not met Frankie

Seriously, though, this is all a storm in a teacup. If it's in the rules and they've claimed it, so what? isn't that like any other job?

My mate's missus gets sent all over the world with her job... the deal is they pay business class airfare, but she can choose to go economy and they'll pay for the rest of the family too. You might say if she's willing to go economy, why pay for the rest? but it's in the rules, so its OK. Don't see that splashed across the paper.

Now, if they'd been nicking money, that'd be different. But 'MP's keep to the rules' shock? Naah. Non-event.

: Sat May 09, 2009 11:01 pm  

Wembley71 wrote:

You've not met Frankie

Seriously, though, this is all a storm in a teacup. If it's in the rules and they've claimed it, so what? isn't that like any other job?

My mate's missus gets sent all over the world with her job... the deal is they pay business class airfare, but she can choose to go economy and they'll pay for the rest of the family too. You might say if she's willing to go economy, why pay for the rest? but it's in the rules, so its OK. Don't see that splashed across the paper.

Now, if they'd been nicking money, that'd be different. But 'MP's keep to the rules' shock? Naah. Non-event.

Who makes them rules ? Genuine question. In cases like this the media are actually doing good by the tax payers - by highlighting things like this. Afterall its our money they are spending on expenses.
Is your mates missus travelling at her companies expense - if so not the same, or tax payers expense, then maybe not good anyway for us.
There was a MP (Tory I think) on "Have I got new for you" who said he rents out a flat at the tax payers expense even tho he lived 37 miles from parliament. Its in the rules, but it doesn't seem right to me

ps is about 650 mps in parliament.......just think 16000 (lower scale of expenses) x 650 = 10.5 million quid, just think of the hospitals that could build

: Sat May 09, 2009 11:32 pm  

Wembley71 wrote:

You've not met Frankie

Seriously, though, this is all a storm in a teacup. If it's in the rules and they've claimed it, so what? isn't that like any other job?

My mate's missus gets sent all over the world with her job... the deal is they pay business class airfare, but she can choose to go economy and they'll pay for the rest of the family too. You might say if she's willing to go economy, why pay for the rest? but it's in the rules, so its OK. Don't see that splashed across the paper.

Now, if they'd been nicking money, that'd be different. But 'MP's keep to the rules' shock? Naah. Non-event.

I think that shows a lack of understanding of the public anger at this issue. The rules have been largely governed by MP's themselves and its clear they may have been so relaxed that MP's could get away with a lot that the public would find utterly unacceptable. MP's cant vote themselves a big pay rise they've tried to sneak around them by leaving expenses rules so vague and relaxed that they can get away with a hell of a lot.

Burnham is'nt exceptional in this, but he is'nt any better. MP's either thought it was utterly acceptable to do this, or they thought they could get away with it. Either way the whole thing stinks

: Sun May 10, 2009 12:33 am  

When one party is in power for so long, corruption always sets in.
They are all just pigs at the trough.

: Sun May 10, 2009 10:50 am  

L3YTH wrote:

When one party is in power for so long, corruption always sets in.
They are all just pigs at the trough.

Nobody is suggesting for one minute that it's just one party. Oh, except you.

Here's the problem: we don't afford politicians the proper respect for the importance of the job they do.

Their pay is akin to that of an upper-middle grade civil servant, whereas (presumably) we'd want the very best and brightest talents to run the country at our behest. Nobody goes into politics for the money: Burnham could have been of £100k a year the minute he walked out of Cambridge if he'd chosen to do a stint on the trading floor or at an investment bank.

'Who makes the rules' is a decent question: all-party MP's committees appoint and approve the recommendations of commissioners. Like many things in the parliamentary system, it's arcane and messy... a side-effect of having an institution that's been in existence for centuries and reformed only on a piecemeal basis.

So, here's an idea:

- pay MP's all a big whack of salary, on a par with the senior exec in big private sector companies. Link that pay by a formula which is then fixed and out of the hands of MP's to change at will.
- appoint and pay for each to run an office of 3 staff
- build a 'hall of residence' at Westminister, where each MP gets a study, a meeting room, a lounge, and two bedrooms, for their exclusive use while in power.
- pay for all travel between constituency and Westminister
- pay for all travel and expenses while on official duty. Publish all of it, all the time.
- have designated 'clock-in' hours for each MP, with terms and conditions like any other job
- make it illegal for MP's to take on any other paid employment, retainers, consultancies, directorships etc while they are in office
- don't pay expenses for anything else
- don't pay anything for second homes
- do pay some kind of 'severance' pay if MP's lose an election, to reflect the fact that they must give up their careers until the whim of the electorate makes them redundant with no notice whatsoever.

...and then start worrying about more important things, like how well the MP's do their job, not how much they personally spend at IKEA on the company payroll.

: Sun May 10, 2009 4:28 pm  

the state should purchase accomadation and then it can be passed on to mps who eventually take their place to prevent the profiteering that exists and even the furniture and houshold good[eg tv setc] could be passed on,in addition why do we need so many mps and thelords now that europe makes all the rules or better still get out of europe which is also bent and save the amount of money we pay in and use to improve our country which is now in a state of deciline,in addition our mps get a good salery and a gold plated pension,

: Sun May 10, 2009 5:08 pm  

Agree should be £150k pa job with accomodation provided. Cabinet ministers +£50k, PM £500k.
Everything else they pay for, no 2nd job perks and fines for non attendance.

: Sun May 10, 2009 9:25 pm  

Wembley71 wrote:

You've not met Frankie

Seriously, though, this is all a storm in a teacup. If it's in the rules and they've claimed it, so what? isn't that like any other job?

My mate's missus gets sent all over the world with her job... the deal is they pay business class airfare, but she can choose to go economy and they'll pay for the rest of the family too. You might say if she's willing to go economy, why pay for the rest? but it's in the rules, so its OK. Don't see that splashed across the paper.

Now, if they'd been nicking money, that'd be different. But 'MP's keep to the rules' shock? Naah. Non-event.

Would you be sticking up for 'em if you didn't know Burnham? It was interesting that in his first two years in parliament he was highest and second highest in terms of expenses claimed. As scrutiny moved closer he miraculously dropped to mid-table.

And what you seem to be suggesting is that bending the rules, looking for loopholes, playing the system and downright taking the p!$$ is honourable. They are, after all, honourable members.

I can't accept this - for me this is about the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law and the gap between which always exists, has been prescribed by themselves to be huge and has been shamelessly exploited at the taxpayers expense.

I have no problems with claiming for cleaners, etc but profiting from property, switching so-called second home to do major repairs on one's own house, having a second home tebn miles away from the first etc are a few examples of pigs with their noses in the trough.

As has been suggested, winning a safe seat like Andy has is as valuable as winning the lottery.

These guttersnipes spend countless hours thinking up brand new ways about how we should live our own lives and are constantly seeking further powers over us. To do that and get away with it they need to be far, far far above reproach.

This is a big green light to every other shyster and loophole jumper in the country.