[Closed] Yay! One down! Corrupt MP content

Good good. Lets hope the sentence is appropriate and Devine gets what he deserves too !

let's see how weak his sentence is before we rejoice

Personally I'm much more chuffed by this :

[url= http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Phil-Woolas-Stripped-Of-MP-Seat-In-Oldham-East-And-Saddleworth-Loses-His-High-Court-Appeal/Article/201012115846229?lpos=Politics_News_Your_Way_Region_6&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15846229_Phil_Woolas%2C_Stripped_Of_MP_Seat_In_Oldham_East_And_Saddleworth%2C_Loses_His_High_Court_Appeal ]'End Of The Road': Woolas Loses Court Bid[/url]

imo what Phil Woolas did was utterly despicable and far worst than David Chaytor's greedy misdemeanor.

Something of a good day for politics

[i]Chaytor had claimed £12,925 between 2005 and 2006 for renting a flat in Regency Street, near Westminster, which he owned the lease to - he produced a tenancy agreement falsely showing he was paying £1,175 a month rent.

He also falsely claimed £5,425 between 2007 and 2008 for renting a home in Castle Street, Bury, which was owned by his mother. He had produced a false tenancy agreement showing he was paying £775 a month. [/i]

[b]At the time he apologised for what he called accounting errors[/b]

Forging documents is an accounting error is it?

Devine was doing the same wasn't he? writing his own receipts etc?

the court case also doesn't pick up the other alledged systematic fraud commited by him inconjunction with his family

this includes switching his second house to one in Skipton to pay his sons council tax bill and then flipping back 2 months later...alledgedlly

Woolas chuffness + 1

What happened to the more serious charge of abuse in a public office or whatever one it was that covered his position in parliment. The same one a policeman would be charged with if he was on the take.

chaytor was always going to struggle once supreme court decision re his appeal was made. ran out of options (other than try his luck at trial !!)

Quite a 'big' case in terms of the effect of parliamentry privilege

the shame is that he doesn't lose his pension which we'll be funding for the next 30 years

not forgetting the £50k legal aid bill (how did he get legal aid?)

Woolas another one of the worst type of politician

It disgusts me how few ended up in court. Should have been hundreds barred losing all their pensions and dozens in court.

What really gripes me is tha lack of political judgement shown by Brown - he had an open goal and didn't even see it. Really tough action would have got him huge credit with the public and the opportunity to mock the tories was so obvious. Moats, ivy clearing and duck houses indeed. He just didn't even see it.

TJ you should be PM 😀

unfortunately TJ as the evidence showed for every duck house there was a flipping labour MP being more than disingenious with the truth as to their domestic arrangements.

Enough eyes poured over the information to dig out just about every helicopter landing pad, plug and porno and it was clearl there was insufficient differential gain for either party to play a winning hand.

It disgusts me how few ended up in court. Should have been hundreds barred losing all their pensions and dozens in court.

+60 million

In any other job, someone fiddling their expenses would be sacked straight away and lose all their pension. How is this different?

B*s*a*ds!

I'm sure that there are honest, hardworking MPs in Parliament, they just don't seem to have been much in evidence.

Bet the others up before the beak are feeling a bit vulnerable.

Stoner - there was a play to be made. Yes culpability was on all sides but because of the moats and clock tower cleaning [i]IF[/i] Brown had acted tough (which would have cost a good few labour MPs) he would have come out winner I am sure. As it was he allowed Cameron to come out looking better.

The play was to mock the tories for moats and clock towers and duck houses

This is why politics is such a ridiculous charade in our country:

[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_PPE_degrees_from_Oxford [/url]

PPE to Think Tank to PPC

TJ, the vast majority of MPs were in it together, none of them would have come out looking all pure and innocent. OK, the moats and things were OTT but it would have been massively hypocritical for Labour to have had a go - given the number of flipped homes and other dishonesties, they just couldn't. The best bet was simply to put on a sorry face, say it was all a terrible thing and that "the system" would be reformed.

But yes, I agree with your first post, there should have been far more hauled up in front of court.

unfortunately TJ......the evidence showed for every duck house there was a flipping labour MP being more than disingenious with the truth as to their domestic arrangements.

Why bring party politics into this Stoner ? TJ didn't even mention the Tories, only his disappointment in Brown.

But now since you have, let's remember that all these revelations came under a [i]Labour[/i] government, they [i]could have[/i] come under the previous Tory administration, but they never bothered.

Furthermore, the expenses scheme which caused so much outrage, was introduced by the Thatcher government as a means of increasing financial support for MPs, whilst not giving them any significant pay rises - which was considered to be inappropriate at a time when Thatcher was screwing workers. The scheme was therefore designed to be very secretive and was open to abuse from the onset with its "come on lads, fill yer boots" attitude. As we eventually discovered, MPs are human after all, and will take the piss when invited to do so.

But as I've said before on here , the expenses scandal was blow out of proportions imo. Yes the MPs were very naughty ..... but first of all remember, the [i]overwhelming majority[/i] of MPs did absolutely nothing illegal, and simply submitted expenses which they left to the Commons Fees Office to decide whether or not they should be paid. Yes some tried their luck.......big deal, they didn't force the Commons Fees Office to pay them. The ones which actually [i]lied,[/i] well that's a different story ...... as David Chaytor has found.

Secondly, it should be remembered that for many MPs entering the House of Commons actually means a pay cut for them, compared with what they have, and can earn, in their regular professions. Many of them are very highly qualified in fields such medicine, law, etc, and I doubt whether many people would those sort of people put off from entering Parliament. Relatively speaking, British MPs are not very highly paid. And people can't whinge about them getting what they can from expenses, whilst at the same time not calling for them to receive a reasonable salary.

Thirdly, an MP's job is often a pretty thankless task, which if done properly, requires the person to put in many hours, often very late, including weekends, and in fact it often requires almost a 24/7 commitment which seriously disrupts family life......plus a great deal of expense. Their work doesn't begin and end solely in the Commons.

Yes, the expenses fiasco was a mess. But we need to accept that MPs should be paid a much better salary, and a simple straightforward expenses system needs to be in place to deal with the fairly unique situation which most have, of needing two homes, plus all the expenses incurred regarding constituency work.

And you are not entirely right TJ in suggesting that Brown never took any "tough action", he scrapped the existing Commons Fees Office and introduced an independent regulator for MPs' expenses, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Which has proved to be very tough and has caused a great deal of disquiet amongst many MPs.

Why bring party politics into this Stoner ? TJ didn't even mention the Tories, only his disappointment in Brown.

But now since you have, let's remember that all these revelations came under a Labour government, they could have come under the previous Tory administration, but they never bothered.

Blimey, You open the door an inch and before you know it there's a size 9 rigger boot jammed in it! 😉

and anyway, our favourite sassenach started it!

Really tough action would have got him huge credit with the public and the opportunity to mock the tories was so obvious.

The reason that neither party picked up on it in a big way is that nearly all politicians are full of murky practices(in all parties). Every time Mr Brown was asked about political expenses scandal his immediate reply was one of banker bashing...classic diversionary tactics...it a good job they focussed public opinion there. People would have eventually realised how the UK and indeed the US governments actually helped engineer the property bubbles and associated lending crisis with it, and were too scared to ever slow things down despite warnings from central banks.... anyway thats now history and the politicians with their big property portfolios have now left power...

My apologies Stoner, I hadn't noticed the "mock the Tories" comment.........I must read TJ's posts more carefully !

But anyway, I still stick to my suggestion that it isn't imo really a party political issue.

Except of course, for who started the whole rotten expenses system in the first place 😉

eh left power? i thought osborne was an earl of chicksands or something

It was not a party political issue because they were all at it, however brown had an opportunity to make huge political capital out of it that he fluffed, he didn't even see.

If he had acted really tough, sacked the hundred worst labour MPs he could have ruined the Tories for a generation or more.

While there was abusers of the system on all sides the tories had the potential for mockery and hard strong action would have pinned them to to floor. At the cost of a chunk of the labour MPs the tories could have been made unelectable for a generation - and parliament could have been cleaned up

As someone above says ( Ernie?) Our MPs are actually comparatively poorly paid. I would like them to get a big chunk more money - but no expenses and no second jobs allowed.

As someone above says ( Ernie?)

I don't know, it's difficult to tell from here.........I can see a name, but can't quite figure out what it is. Maybe it [i]was[/i] me

[b][i]"no expenses and no second jobs allowed."[/i][/b]

No expenses ? So you don't want them to come to London then ..... just to live in their own homes in their constituencies ? And not have any surgeries/offices, stationary, telephones, stamps, staff, and a few other things ? Well I'm glad you don't make the rules then.

The problem with the new system would appear to be cost - £4 million per annum more than the old system, so it is probably costing more to administer than what was being "fiddled" before - so we as taxpayers are getting a worse deal, albeit a more "pure" one.

As far as everything else, Ernie is spot on, and didn't Brown's response illustrate his fundamental flaw of being a prevaricator.

Ernie - good money paid directly. Enough to cover those costs. No fudging with expenses.

Why should they be able to buy a second house with public money?

take a leaf out of holyroods book. They are only allowed to rent a modest flat or use hotels [i]whichever is cheaper[/i] Whjy should they be able to buy a second house with public money?

There was a similar scandal at Holyrood - however by publishing all expenses on the net and disallowing paying of a mortgage the scandal just disappeared. Westminster could learn something from that

TJ - they are banning mortgages over the next eighteen months to give people a chance to rearrange their affairs, thereafter it will only be rental.

But now since you have, let's remember that all these revelations came under a Labour government, they could have come under the previous Tory administration, but they never bothered.

Labour never bothered either. The information was released by the Telegraph. None of the the parties volunteered this information.

As for the rest of it? "I'm taking advantage of the expenses system because I don't get paid enough" doesn't cut it when you're working as an MP. You're in a position of power and representing your constituents. Personal integrity should be one of your biggest assets.

There was no party politics in this. All of those that were caught were dishonest in the slightest, criminal in the worst cases. That you weren't breaking the law and were just "bumping up your wages" is not an acceptable excuse imo.

There is a story today some MPs are racking it in my renting out their second homes, and using the money for a third one!

Labour never bothered either. The information was released by the Telegraph. None of the the parties volunteered this information.

I don't think you fully understand this story TM. The information was released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. An act which was introduced by a Labour government, no such act was passed by a Conservative government. Several requests of disclosure of information concerning MPs expenses, were made under this act.

In Jan 2009, the Commons authorities announced that full disclosure of all MPs expenses would be published on the 1st July 2009.

However, two months prior to that release date, the Daily Telegraph somehow managed to get their hands on the full details which were about to be released.

Something which the Telegraph used to their great advantage by firstly, only initially releasing the details of Labour MPs expenses which caused an immediate outcry, followed when things had calmed down a bit, by disclosure of Tory MPs expenses. Secondly by increasing their circulation - as no other newspaper had the details at the time. And thirdly, by presumably convincing many people that disclosure of MPs expenses was all down to them, which is clearly not the case.

.

Ernie - good money paid directly. Enough to cover those costs. No fudging with expenses.

That really is nonsense TJ. All MPs expenses are [i]not[/i] the same. Obviously some need a second residence in London and some do not. Some are married with children, some are not. The travel costs for someone who needs to travel 100 miles regularly is not the same as someone who needs to travel 400 miles.

Why should a hard working MP who writes regularly to his constituents not get help with his full stationary and postal costs, whilst an MP who does bugger all, get an allowance for costs which he doesn't even incur ? And so it goes on .......

There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with MPs receiving reimbursement for expenses which they incur, in what is a job which can have massive overheads, costs, etc. Much depending on the individual.

A simple expenses system whereby MPs submit invoices for legitimate expenses, not for cleaning out the moat in your stately home [i]obviously[/i], is not exactly rocket science. Neither is it a huge cost to nation, in the whole scheme of things. I for one, don't want democracy "on the cheap". I want MPs to be encouraged to be good MPs. And for that to happen you have give them both the tools to do the job properly, plus the financial support. Treat the value of the British people's political representatives with a little more respect.

None need a second home in London. All they need is a place to stay when they are at teh house of commons - not the same thing at all

I accept your point about legitimate expenses tho.

However, two months prior to that release date, the Daily Telegraph somehow managed to get their hands on the full details which were about to be released.

firstly, only initially releasing the details of Labour MPs expenses which caused an immediate outcry, followed when things had calmed down a bit, by disclosure of Tory MPs expenses

thirdly, by presumably convincing many people that disclosure of MPs expenses was all down to them, which is clearly not the case.

All they need is a place to stay

Yeah.....like a home. WTF should they stay in a Travelodge ?

Some MPs are quite elderly, some are married, I reckon all should have a office/study in their London residence. And you know, their work in London isn't restricted to just a couple of days in the year. Plus they often get home in the early hours of the morning. I see absolutely nothing wrong at all with them having a second home on London, and I certainly don't want them to break their links with their constituencies. Denying them a second home is petty nonsense which achieves precisely nothing and certainly has an utterly insignificant cost saving to the nation.

almost certainly wouldn't have heard anything about duck islands or moats

Not true. The details which the Telegraph got its hands on were exactly the same details which were about to be released, ie, the [u]full[/u] disclosure of all MPs expenses.

What I am prepared to let you have, is that addresses [i]might[/i] have been withheld, due to alleged "security" issues. But certainly details of duck islands or moats would have been released.

ernie_lynch - Member

I don't think you fully understand this story TM.

Aracer answered this quicker than I could. It would seem [i]you[/i] don't fully understand this story. Perhaps you should work on your manners as well? Condescending prick. Yes I resorted to name calling. Doesn't make it a non-factual statement though.

Not true. The details which the Telegraph got its hands on were exactly the same details which were about to be released, ie, the full disclosure of all MPs expenses.

What I am prepared to let you have, is that addresses might have been withheld, due to alleged "security" issues. But certainly details of duck islands or moats would have been released.

You might well provide a link to the Guardian aracer, which you apparently think I consider to be the bible, but it doesn't change the fact that the Commons authorities were obliged to release all the information concerning MPs expenses as a result of a legal ruling by the Information Tribunal.

[i]In its ruling in 2008 the Information Tribunal said: "The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) system is so deeply flawed, the shortfall in accountability so substantial, and the necessity of [u]full disclosure[/u] so convincingly established, that only the most pressing privacy needs should in our view be permitted to prevail." [/i]

There was no suggestion that certain expenses claims did not have to be disclosed. Obviously the ruling only applied to claims which were [i]actually[/i] successful, and if details of a duck island for example, where not to be included, then that would be because the Fees Office had rejected the claim and written "not allowable" next to it.

It is probably a case that the Telegraph got hold of all details including rejected claims, and chose to publish "MP so-and-so claimed for a duck island" despite the fact that the claim was never paid. As your link shows, the details of even more obscure items such as Gordon Brown's mice infestations, were to be released. Presumably Gordon Brown's claim was successful.

Of course you can get yourself worked up into a lather over claims which weren't even paid, but I certainly can't be bothered. And furthermore, I suspect that most MPs simply kept all their receipts and handed them over to the Fees Office to sort out what would, and what would not, be paid.....I'm sure they have better things to waste their time doing, or at least I would have hoped so - it's certainly what I would have done.

tree-magnet - Member

Perhaps you should work on your manners as well? Condescending prick.

Not used to having someone suggest to you that perhaps you don't "fully understand" something ?

Excellent ! ..........I've long suspected that I probably sometimes challenge some people who are normally never challenged 8)

Not by someone I don't know, in such an arrogant fashion, no.

You appear to be happy that you come across as arrogant? You see, I'm challenged in all sorts of ways during the day, it's the nature of the work I undertake, but arrogant and rude are different. You can challenge without being either of these two things. However, if that's the path you're happy to walk, then you're probably already aware that my original statement has an element of truth to it.

Of course you can get yourself worked up into a lather over claims which weren't even paid, but I certainly can't be bothered

Obviously the ruling only applied to claims which were actually successful, and if details of a duck island for example, where not to be included, then that would be because the Fees Office had rejected the claim and written "not allowable" next to it.

The other question of course is why rejected claims weren't at all relevant if we want to know how our MPs have been trying to fiddle the system?

I suspect that most MPs simply kept all their receipts and handed them over to the Fees Office to sort out what would, and what would not, be paid.....I'm sure they have better things to waste their time doing, or at least I would have hoped so

<off to find my portal to an alternative universe where the Guardian got the expenses scoop, just to see how ernie defends what an important piece of journalism it was>

arrogant and rude

Because of the comment [i]"I don't think you fully understand this story TM"[/i] ? Well maybe, but I can't think of a way of changing that comment so that it sounds much less 'arrogant and rude' it certainly sounds a lot better than [i]"you're talking bollox mate"[/i]. And your response of "condescending prick" does sound a tad rude to me. Plus it also suggests that being challenged is a whole new experience for new. I don't mind being called a condescending prick btw, in fact the complete overreaction made me smile. Unlike you, I fully expect to be challenged, and for people to tell me that I'm talking bollox, drivel, etc. And they often do........so I am rarely disappointed 😀

.

You're so unbothered that you've written as many words on this thread as everybody else combined.

Have I really written many words on the duck islands aracer ? I thought it was you who had raised the issue ? Well yes, in that case you're right, I guess I must be very bothered by the MP who claimed for the duck island.

.....why rejected claims weren't at all relevant if we want to know how our MPs have been trying to fiddle the system?

Well you seem to think they are important, but I don't. And the Tribunal also agreed that only "allowed claims" should be disclosed. Are you interested in mindless (but yet outrageous and shocking) tittle-tattle concerning celebrities too aracer ?

<off to find my portal to an alternative universe where the Guardian got the expenses scoop, just to see how ernie defends what an important piece of journalism it was>

Silly boy, this has nothing to do with party politics or, left or right. I am perfectly happy to defend Tory MPs over this, because it has been blown out of proportion.....get a grip ffs. So OK, some MPs tried their luck, I've already said they were very naughty. But keep it in perspective. I am much more concerned about the £billions lost through tax avoidance, and other issues.

duck islands... I thought it was you who had raised the issue ?

Well you seem to think they are important, but I don't. And the Tribunal also agreed that only "allowed claims" should be disclosed. Are you interested in mindless (but yet outrageous and shocking) tittle-tattle concerning celebrities too aracer ?

I don't really see why the Tribunal making the mistake of not considering the rejected claims important information for the public to see means we shouldn't see them. Meanwhile your comment about celebrity tittle-tattle is just insulting - if Katy Price were elected by the people and paid from our taxes then I might be more interested in what she gets up to.

this has nothing to do with party politics

The only important contrast between the two being that you read one and consider the other to be beneath contempt.

What a silly comment 😀

I have a very healthy contempt for all newspapers including the Guardian.

ernie_lynch - Member

I find the gushing enthusiasm and belief which many Guardian readers have for their paper, truly depressing.

Posted 3 weeks ago

mummy please make it stop