[Closed] Miller has gone

She will reappear as minister of something else in a month or two. Something she is even less qualified to represent. In reality she should be fined or sent to prison

Ding dong etc!

woohoo e.t.c 😀

hopefully the police might want a little word with her now (doubt it though 🙁

In reality she should be fined or sent to prison

At the very least,if I submit expenses cousins that are fraudulent I would be sacked and prosecuted, not just get a slap on the wrist, keep my job and told not to do out again.

Thought they'd have learnt after the last fiasco.

She will reappear as minister of something else in a month or two. Something she is even less qualified to represent. In reality she should be fined or sent to prison

On R4 they just said she had been given an ultimatum, resign or pay back the money. Bit of a no brained, but she remains an MP, just resigned as Minister. FFS prosecute the witch, make her pay ack the money, it's tantamount to saying theft is ok just a bit naughty, don't do so you can be found out next time.

one set of rules for them and another for the rest of us ... ffs ... ggrrrrrrrrr

There was a great clip on the news the other night where Ian Duncan Smith was taking about some new welfare reform, his press launch was hijacked by the expenses thing. A journalist asked IDS what should happen to a benefit claimant who fraudulently claimed, say £5800. Would it be enough for them just to apologise?

IDS did squirm.

If her wrong doing is significant enough to resign as a minister, then she should not remain an MP.

She should be forced to pay the whole 45k as well.

I thoroughly concur!

She said she was devastated about [s]what had happened[/s] getting caught.

This whole fiasco has seriously undermined David Cameron. Not only has he been shown to be, yet again, out of touch with public opinion, but in the end also with the views of his own party members.

I really don't know what he was thinking of when he gave her his full and unequivocal support.

I seem to recall, that once they become a minister, then their pay grade and pension etc goes up to that level and remains at that level even when they are kicked down to the back benches. It was suggested that the number of ministerial roles have increased massively since the 80's so that ruling party members can be "churned" through ministerial roles.

[i]This whole fiasco has seriously undermined Parliament. They have been shown to be, yet again, out of touch with public opinion.[/i]

Fixed it.

So she's finally jumped, after a week of looking indignant that anyone, let alone the plebs in the electorate, should dare have the audacity to question her. And Dave has backed her up, concurring with her analysis. Right up until the moment it might get a tad embarrassing for him personally, then he made the request she jumps before he pushes her.

She's still an MP, with her large salary, and even larger expenses claims. She's had to pay back a measly 5 grand when she's defrauded the taxpayer out of over £50,000, which she will not even be questioned by the police about. The 'second' home the taxpayer subsidised her to buy, she's sold at a profit of over a million quid! And to top it off Dave has left the door open for her to do a Mandleson. Seems like she's done alright to me.

But having seen her churlish non-apology, and how affronted she looked, I bet she's still feeling like she's entirely innocent, and simply being persecuted

And they say that our MP's are out of touch, and 'still don't get it'

How could anyone possibly reach that conclusion? 🙄

If her wrong doing is significant enough to resign as a minister, then she should not remain an MP.

She should be sacked as an MP, forced to repay the money she stole, and have her big fat MP pension taken back. And sent to prison.

You hadn't realised that both sides of the House of Commons were calling for her resignation dragon ?

Not only was this a rare example of unity across the benches but it also showed how the House of Commons, in this case at least, were very much in touch with public opinion.

It's Cameron who has been shown to be seriously out of touch with public opinion.

She should pay back the other money, on principle never mind the duff "standards" committee that says "it might be ok".

She will reappear as minister of something else in a month or two.

Minister for Morals and Integrity 😉

How could anyone possibly reach that conclusion?

It's a mindset thing, Tories believe they were put on God's earth to take as much as they can from everyone else. The concepts of Greed and Fairness aren't taught in public schools.

The most shocking thing about this whole farce is that the expenses system was meant to have changed so that it was now independently overseen

Well… it seem thats only up to a point

So the independent commission concluded she'd 'over-claimed' (lets not use the frightful word 'defrauded) the sum of £52 grand. But then a panel of her [s]mates[/s] peers, have a look at their evidence, and say "just bung us 5, and we'll forget the whole thing"

And thats what passes for an 'independent' system in their world, is it? Perhaps the entire justice system should hinge on the final decision being taken by the lads we were out for a pint with last night 🙄

I seem to recall, that once they become a minister, then their pay grade and pension etc goes up to that level and remains at that level even when they are kicked down to the back benches.

Well I'd like a reference for that!

Her resignation leter, and Dave's reply, are really rather sickening. She brought in press regulation yet again, and mentioned going to a S Wales Comp.

An MP so bent that all the other MPs noticed.

Not to mention that she also seemed to avoid paying cgt on her second house by switching it as her main residence just before the rules changed.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5102248

They really are w**kers

Not to mention that she also seemed to avoid paying cgt on her second house by switching it as her main residence just before the rules changed.
> http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5102248

They really are w**kers

I would do the same, if it was legal and above board.

Wouldn't you ? 😕

I would do the same, if it was legal and above board.
Wouldn't you ?

Possibly. But that's not what really annoys me. What really pisses me off is that she has made over a million pounds profit on a house, whose mortgage interest was paid for by the taxpayer. Then didn't pay any cgt on that profit (allegedly). Then gets arsey when told she has to pay back 45k of said taxpayers money. Then is still defiant even though her "mates" drop that to £6k.

Why aren't they forced to rent accommodation like everyone else? Why should MPs get a second home paid for by us and then be allowed to make eye watering profits on it?

I admit it may be legal and above board. It may be the system. But the system stinks.

if it was legal and above board

How is it above board to "redesignate" her parents home as her main home ?

It was clearly a ruse, or do you think she really did start using her parents home as her main home whereas previously it hadn't been ?

Possibly. But that's not what really annoys me. What really pisses me off is that she has made over a million pounds profit on a house, whose mortgage interest was paid for by the taxpayer. Then didn't pay any cgt on that profit (allegedly). Then gets arsey when told she has to pay back 45k of said taxpayers money. Then is still defiant even though her "mates" drop that to £6k.

You forgot to add that she also thinks she is the real victim in this affair!

Has anyone else read the [url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmstandards/1179/1179.pdf ]Standards Committee Report[/url] ?

I have and was quite surprised to learn that the findings were somewhat different to the way it's been reported in the press, principally:

- the original complaint that she housed her parents at our expense was not the case
- the retrospective application of new standards to events that took place many years before contributed to the delay in her responses
- on the key items of "dispute" she took advice from the standards office and followed it
- the element of "fraud" is very much open to interpretation based on the lack of fact and the lack of clarity in what rules were being applied when

What seems to be happening is a bit a witch hunt in which the loudest voices are either wittingly or unwittingly slating someone without actually having looked at the facts of the matter.

I always find it interesting that so many people are happy to brand someone they've never met a thief, liar or dishonest as most people wouldn't generally act this way in person... the fact that we use "social media" doesn't alter the need to act courteously or objectively or recognise there's a real person and family on the receiving end of the death threats and other things that are apparently now taking place.

i see a certain wannabe MP is having a public meeting in millers constituency this afternoon

[img] [/img]

I would do the same, if it was legal and above board.

Wouldn't you ?

Vote for me ...I would if i could get away with it 😉

An MP so bent that all the other MPs noticed.

Nicely summed up

Vote for me ...I would if i could get away with it

🙂

Has anyone else read the Standards Committee Report ?

I thought it was widely accepted that the Standards Committee Report was discredited ?

The Daily Telegraph which isn't noted for its "witch hunt", as you like to call it, against senior Tory politicians, certainly is of that opinion. And they are not alone.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10743455/Maria-Miller-expenses-report-MPs-conspired-to-save-Culture-Secretary.html ]Maria Miller expenses report: MPs conspired to save Culture Secretary[/url]

[i][b]Maria Miller has escaped serious censure and avoided repaying more than £40,000 after a committee of MPs overruled an official inquiry into her expenses claims. [/i][/b]

How is it above board to "redesignate" her parents home as her main home ?

From how I understand it, with regards to the CGT element, she worked within the current Tax Regulations.

So it was Legal and above board. She didn't do anything she shouldn't.

I commend your honesty but i wont be voting for you....perhaps use this as your slogan
Vote for me ...I would if i could get away with it

Or how about,

"I adhere to the current Tax Regulations, do you ?"

😉

Why aren't they forced to rent accommodation like everyone else? Why should MPs get a second home paid for by us and then be allowed to make eye watering profits on it?

I have never heard a good argument against this. Seems such a logical thing to do.

To shed some light on why it was reduced to 5 grand, you need to look at the track record on expenses of the people on the 'standards committee'

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/06/mps-expenses-maria-miller-row-scrutiny ]MPs on standards committee face scrutiny over expenses amid Miller row[/url]

They close ranks because they're all bloody at it, and its just a case of who gets caught out next. When you look more closely at it, this supposedly 'independent' new system looks as toothless and ineffective as the one it replaced.

So it was Legal and above board. She didn't do anything she shouldn't.

Except possibly lying ?

I repeat, do you think she really did start using her parents home as her main home whereas previously it hadn't been ?

[img] [/img]

I think binners guardian piece is very relevant that 90% reduction is teh joke

same day there was a similar story about a woman claiming benefits fraudulently to the tune of 50k, she is awaiting sentencing butbeen told to expect jailtime

the problem is after the expenses scandal MPs had to pay back millions and yet only a couple of sacraficial lambs got sent down

i think we should provide them with a flat on HB and then penalise them via the bedroom tax if it has more than one bedroom ....none of them had extra rooms in their homes did they...the thieving bastards

What we need is someone called Guy Fawkes to sort this out once and for all....

Except possibly lying ?
I repeat, do you think she really did start using her parents home as her main home whereas previously it hadn't been ?

She doesn't need to.

She just needs to designate it as her PPR (for as little as a week) for it to have an effect on Tax liability.

(Funny picture by the way, but no. Not gullible, I just understand the regulations 😉 )

She just needs to designate it

I think you'll find that for it to be "above board" it needs to be based on truth.

What Miller did was not above board. Despite your claim. At least that's how the overwhelming majority of the population sees it.

The absolute worse thing about this is that Farage once again gets good mileage out of it with irritatingly accurate soundbites

In every political party, every company and perhaps most families, you get somebody that does things they ought not to do, and the question is how do you deal with it? I think throughout this whole Maria Miller saga, what we've seen is a Prime Minister, who clearly is totally disconnected with how the voters in Britain feel about MPs' expenses.

Let's not forget that taxpayers' money helped this woman to make a profit of £1m, it's a truly astonishing situation. To try and pretend that frankly she didn't really know where she lived simply isn't good enough, and I think had Cameron sacked her a week ago, people would have said 'right, Dave's taken control, he's showed us the kind of administration and the kind of regime that he wants in parliament'. The fact that it has been left her, a week on, to resign I think reflects very badly indeed.

[img] [/img]

extra hard to stomach as he brags about the £2million hes claimed form the euro parliament, which he rarely bothers to turn up to

hypocrisy is obviously lost on a lot of (ukip)voters

the main point is that she didn't "start using her parents home". Her parents were invited to live with her in a house she and her husband jointly owned from 1996 - even before she was selected as the candidate for her constituency.

The analysis of the the designation of the homes starts on page 12 of the report, and rather unhelpfully for those seeking to score party political points cites the precedent set by Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper which was confirmed by the Commissioner at the time - so what we basically have is application of a new "standard" to historic events in which an MP checked with the commissioner at the time to confirm what should be done / not done and then followed the advice.

I wonder how comfortable we'd all be if we paid all of our due taxes only for HMRC to retrospectively decide that we should have paid a different rate and the media then reported that we had "dodged" tax - which is basically what this comes down to. I rather suspect we'd make the same defence as Ms Miller i.e. if you check the rules and ask for advice, then follow the advice, it's quite unfair to then be taken to pieces in public because the standards and application of the standard changes further down the line.

Would you though?

You know...

.....rather unhelpfully for those seeking to score party political points

An interesting feature about the Maria Miller scandal is that reaction hasn't been drawn along party political lines. Across the political spectrum politicians have described both her behaviour and her apology as wholly unacceptable and have called for her resignation. Even Norman Tebbit had said that she should resign.

[quote=kimbers ]extra hard to stomach as he brags about the £2million hes claimed form the euro parliament, which he rarely bothers to turn up to
hypocrisy is obviously lost on a lot of (ukip)voters

He has also suggested each UKIP MEP donates 50k to UKIP - that quite impressive when their wages are 95 K Euros!!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/16/ukip-donations-meps-european-elections

But dont worry they are not like other parties riding the gravy train of expenses etc

What Miller did was not above board. Despite your claim. At least that's how the overwhelming majority of the population sees it.

HMRC decide these sorts of things though.

Not you or "the overwhelming majority of the population"

You can elect any property you own as your PPR regardless of how much time you spend there.

Them's the rules.

....rather unhelpfully for those seeking to score party political points

This whole thing has been driven by the press! The silence from the labour benches has been deafening!
Which, along with half the commission who watered down the report being labour, suggests that they're keeping schtum because those in glass houses……

Mind you, that hasn't stopped Nige

I wonder how comfortable we'd all be if we paid all of our due taxes only for HMRC to retrospectively decide that we should have paid a different rate and the media then reported that we had "dodged" tax - which is basically what this comes down to. I rather suspect we'd make the same defence as Ms Miller i.e. if you check the rules and ask for advice, then follow the advice, it's quite unfair to then be taken to pieces in public because the standards and application of the standard changes further down the line.

I think if I'd made a million and a half quid profit on a taxpayer funded house it would probably make up for it.

Neal the expenses exist to do that pay her expenses
They do not exist to enable her to flip her homes for personal gain but to make sure she is not out of pocket. Did she personally gain from this?

There is a balance between MP's rules for expenses, HMRC rules for homes and Morally what is right
She failed to get the right balance....even the MP's agree with that.
I have to say her attitude was appalling in refusing to explain why she doubled the mortgage before the switch - it was clearly IMHO for personal gain-

in a house she and her husband jointly owned from 1996

yes with a £215k mortgage, came to parliament in 2005 & was claiming back interest payments on a mortgage of some £525k - so basically she was borrowing an extra £310k * at the tax payers expense & the committee of MP's thought this was fine whereas the original investigation thought not

* if the £310k borrowing was to make her house suitable for a working MP then fine, but sounds like it might be for making large enough to house parents & then selling at a good profit!

HMRC decide these sorts of things though.

Whether they do or not doesn't make something above board. Maria Miller's behaviour was not above board. That is precisely why she has resigned.

You might reject and be dismissive of opinion of "the overwhelming majority of the population" but it's nice to know that in this case at least it has counted for something.

Whether they do or not doesn't make something above board. Maria Miller's behaviour was not above board. That is precisely why she has resigned.
You might reject and be dismissive of opinion of "the overwhelming majority of the population" but it's nice to know that in this case at least it has counted for something.

She resigned because of capital gains tax ??

Are you sure about that.

Or was it actually nothing to do with it at all.

OK I'm getting a little bored now. You said that everything Maria Miller had done was above board, most people disagree with that, indeed the overwhelming majority of people disagree with that. Let's leave it there shall we.

HMRC decide these sorts of things though.

HMRC also do sweetheart deals with big companies like Vodafone to let them off paying billions in tax. Not everything HMRC lets people get away with is 'above board'. And shouldn't we expect some level of responsible behaviour from MPs? You seem to think not.

She resigned because of capital gains tax ??
Are you sure about that.
Or was it actually nothing to do with it at all.

Oh dear - your straw man arguments are really getting rather pathetic.

There's an election next month and it's Dave's Question Time today. No-one from her party is likely to stand up and support her. She had to go.

The regulation threat to the D Tel reporter probably finished her with the dead tree press. Who've had her on their front pages for about a week. None of the governments good news stories stood a chance. She had to go.

She drew attention to MPs' expenses once again. She had to go.

firstly - i thought this thread was either the retirement of David Miller or worse, the untimely death of Windy Miller.

secondly - what would the Ukrainians do? Dig out your body armour and FF and teach the bitch a real world lesson. The pathetic ambivalence of the electorate in general is the cause and not a symptom.

You said that [b]everything [/b]Maria Miller had done was above board

No I didn't.

Have another read.

I was replying to a post specifically about her capital gains tax on her PPR.

Oh dear - your straw man arguments are really getting rather pathetic.

Not as bad as your reading skills apparently.

How exactly is it a "straw man"

I was talking about her capital gains tax situation.

Nothing else.

I quoted the post I was replying to, just to keep it clear.

If you can find me posting on this thread about anything other than capital gains tax related to her house, then please let me know.

Would you though?

You know...

Shag Nigel Farage?

Nope.

nealglover, are you related to her?

I think the point he's making is that, strictly legal and 'above board', or not, if you or I had done something like this - in fact anyone else other than an MP - do you think you'd still be in a job, while sat debating the finer points of the semantics.

Somehow I doubt it. And thats the real point. Its the double standards. As so magnificently illustrated by the scourge of benefit fraudsters IDS, who looked ever so comfortable defending her, then being asked what the difference was between that and someone falsely claiming housing benefit, who he roundly condemns

If you can find me posting on this thread about anything other than capital gains tax related to her house, then please let me know.

Firstly - why choose to focus on a small part of the wider issue and defend Maria Miller on that, while ignoring the wider context of her appalling general behaviour?

Secondly, the issue about avoiding capital gains tax is part of the irresponsible behaviour which has meant she has had to resign.

It's a a straw man because ernie never claimed she resigned solely because of capital gains tax. Pretty obvious really - and a very poor/weird line of argument.

nealglover, are you related to her?

No.

Did she break any rules at all with her capital gains tax ?

I think the point he's making is that, strictly legal and 'above board', or not, if you or I had done something like this - in fact anyone else other than an MP - do you think you'd still be in a job, while sat debating the finer points of the semantics.

Quite. An independent commissioner found that she broke the rules, to the tune of more than £40k. I'm pretty sure that if I did the same, I'd be given my marching orders.

Did she break any rules at all with her capital gains tax ?

Why on earth would you think this is anywhere near the most important issue here? Or is it just that you want to 'win'? You're looking pretty daft here TBH.

Quite. An independent commissioner found that she broke the rules, to the tune of more than £40k. I'm pretty sure that if I did the same, I'd be given my marching orders.

… and I'm pretty sure, having been given our marching orders, we'd also have one or two questions to answer from the police

Did she break any rules at all with her capital gains tax ?

You said it was all "above board". Above board means straightforward, open, and honest.

Maria Miller's behaviour with regards to flipping homes has not been open and honest.

And her behaviour to the independent inquiry was not straightforward, open, and honest. Which is precisely why the inquiry dragged on for such a long time. She failed to co-operate fully with the inquiry.

Why on earth would you think this is anywhere near the most important issue here?

Where did I say I thought it was ?

Am I only allowed to comment on "the most important issue"

Or is ok with you, if I reply to a subject that someone else brought up ?

Or is it just that you want to 'win'? You're looking pretty daft here TBH.

Why ?

Because I replied to something that someone else brought up. ?

You will need to explain.

What hasnt been mentioned here, is that when caught out by the Daily Telegraph, she then got her lackies to threaten the Paper with extra regulations, at the press regulations committee, of which she chaired/sat upon.
That, to me, means corruption, which is far worse than trying to fiddle her expenses.

You will need to explain.

I already did, read my post before last. If you don't get it that's not my problem.

Am I only allowed to comment on "the most important issue"

No, but your dogged determination to defend someone to the hilt on a minor technicality while ignoring the wider context entirely is pretty weird.

defend someone to the hilt

Stop making things up.

I defended her CGT situation. nothing else whatsoever.

It's hardly "dogged determination"

Someone brought it up. I commented on it.

Since then all I have done is defend my comment.

If people with their pitchfork blinkers on can't cope with the fact that not [b] everything[/b] she did was wrong, that's not my fault.

Again, I didn't bring it up, I just replied to the person that did.

Its a fair cop guv. The raping and murdering was me, but theres no way I was involved in any shoplifting. Shoplifters are scum!!! 😆

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/08/maria-millar-mps-lip-service-good-conduct-standards-committe ]The Real Point[/url]

written before her resignation

There was a time when she called for a recall system, whereby constituencies could bring errant MPs back to face criticism and possible replacement...

http://labourlist.org/2014/04/remember-when-maria-miller-called-for-recall-mechanism-for-mps-disciplined-by-the-commons-authorities/

... does she still support that?

Its a fair cop guv. The raping and murdering was me, but theres no way I was involved in any shoplifting. Shoplifters are scum!!!

I get your point , but it was important enough to be reported in the papers, and important enough for people to mention on here.

First drugs, now this. I thought he'd been rehabilitated and accepted back into the peloton.