OK then.....MPs expensives....

[InsaneApache]

Someone had to to do it. Talk about pachyderms in the front room, blocking the view of the telly...

So? What to do?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not a lot we can do, they seem to have followed the rules.

So all we can do is hope to change the rules... although mostly I am disgusted by the lack of remorse the MP's have shown.

[Fragony]

this about?

[InsaneApache]

Under Inland Revenue rules, expenses are taxed unless they are “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” incurred in the course of employment. MPs, however, voted themselves a special tax break in the Income Tax Act 2003, which means they are exempted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6256702.ece

[Pannonian]

What are the current rules on publishing their expenses? Is it compulsory? Do any of the press actively look at MPs' expenses as a matter or course, in the way that The Times used to cover parliamentary proceedings in detail?

[InsaneApache]

C'mon, this is isn't muck raking and it transcends party politics. Shame on you.

[Pannonian]

C'mon, this is isn't muck raking and it transcends party politics. Shame on you.

Tbh, I didn't know what you were talking about, and assumed you were talking about that minister whose expenses included some dodgy claims. In which case the solution would be to make publishing expenses compulsory, and let the press look it over.

In the story you're talking about, you can lobby Cameron about this issue, as he's more than likely to be the next PM, and ask him to reverse the tax break when his party gains power. You can try Brown of course, but since his party is the one who voted for this tax break, and they're not likely to gain enough political credit from reversing it to make it worthwhile, he's not likely to do anything.

[Fragony]

Gordon Brown, what to say. He indeed can't listen to critisim his brain simply can't register it, he's a sociopath, he has this weird narcistic personality disorder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3_QvPAaxFw

good luck, that man is truly a disaster.

[Banquo's Ghost]

IA, I love the Freudian slip you made in the thread title.

[rory_20_uk]

They state they've followed the rules they put in place. Considering how generous these are it's difficult to break them.

Freedom of Information Act was passed by Government, yet they are functionally exempt on this issue.

MPs should get certain things provided so they can do their job. I don't see their need for expenses. They're not "high fliers", not as a rule massively gifted. We've not payed loads to get the cream, we've got a class that has manage to increase their salary from nothing just over 100 years ago to managing to add to a generous salary / pension expenses which is often more than the average salary in this country.

[InsaneApache]

They bleat on about how they have to have the expenses in order to do their job. Hang on, 88p for a bath plug enables you to do your job? Then they start on about how much more they could earn outside Parliament. Good, resign and go and get that job. No one's forcing you to be an MP. I seriously doubt if any of these clowns could run a market stall, never mind get renumerated at over a hundred grand a year.

Well we can do something about it. Come the general election we just don't vote for the emcumbant. If they too start hogging then the next time we do the same until they get the message. It would concentrate minds wonderfully if they thought that they would only get five years at the most.

I'm starting to think that we should also push for recall laws like they have in the states. Then when we catch the buggers with their hand in the till, we can slam it shut. Now there's talk about all this favouring the BNP at the euro elections. Good. As much as I hate the BNP, it would shock the main three parties into actually listening to the electorate. They are to blame for this disconnect in the first instance. They need a bloody good shaking up. Wassocks.

[HopAlongBunny]

Good, resign and go and get that job. No one's forcing you to be an MP. I seriously doubt if any of these clowns could run a market stall, never mind get renumerated at over a hundred grand a year.

We get that same BS here in Canada everytime the MP's vote themselves a raise; I totally agree with your solution => "Go get that job and keep your hands off the public purse"

Here we can add in the fact that (on average) much less than half of those who voted, voted for the gov't in any case.

[Banquo's Ghost]

On the one hand, you have to admire some of the bare-faced cheek shown by the piggies in the trough. Claiming taxpayers money to clear one's moat demands the kind of sang-froid only available to the aristocracy (albeit rather arriviste).

More seriously, it looks as if this is rapidly escalating into a full-blown constitutional crisis for the UK.

The current Speaker is one of the most controversial figures to have occupied that august chair for 300 years. He has been implicated in fiddling expenses (some time before the current maelstrom) and allowing Mr Plod to ride roughshod over House of Commons privilege. Now, in an extraordinary outburst laced with venom directed not at the snouts in the trough, but at the media and MPs who despair at the porcine excess, he has embarrassed his office beyond compare.

For those not aware, the Speaker of the House of Commons is not like the party animal found in the United States, but upholds the highest standards and aspirations of British democracy. To sully the office must be the ugliest stain any person can bring onto himself. Yet Michael Martin has dragged the Speaker's chair into the foulest of mud - and the supine, cowardly Prime Minister has done nothing to change the situation.

Now we have the unedifying prospect of the first vote of no confidence in the Speaker being tabled for 300 years. Latest reports have the Cabinet going to Brown to demand the Speaker resigns.

I cannot think that the United Kingdom has been in greater peril constitutionally since the days of the Protectorate. Another year of this? How can Dishonourable Members live with themselves and not force this damnable parliament to dissolve itself?

[InsaneApache]

Brenda should step in and dissolve parliament.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkvEeKnTb2Q

[rory_20_uk]

I cannot think that the United Kingdom has been in greater peril constitutionally since the days of the Protectorate. Another year of this? How can Dishonourable Members live with themselves and not force this damnable parliament to dissolve itself?

M-O-N-E-Y

Those that are honest will rightly not see the need to resign. The vast majority who are adhering to the letter of the rules - that they made for themselves - are understandable concerned that they'll loose contributions to their generous pension, salary and perks for the coming months. The recession is still here, so best hand on for a further year until the job market is a bit more buoyant.

Doctors have not only severe guidelines but also an ethical code they have to follow. I think that lawyers have something similar (the ethics section must be interesting). Doctors also are independently overseen. Why shouldn't MPs have a similar independent oversight? A bad doctor can only kill a few people, a bad MP can do vastly more damage.

But this sidetracks the main change: Scrap expenses. Flat salary from about £50 to 100k depending on seniority / job. Some flats might be suitable for the time spent in London. Personally I'd like these to be the same standards that Junior Doctors have, but I doubt this would come to pass.

[Fragony]

Good news no, probably new elections if Brown doesn't call out a national state of emergency (I definately see him doing that)

edit; lol they even declarated dog food is there no end to their shamelesness, tars and feathers.

[Louis VI the Fat]

88p for a bath plug

That is ridiculous.

Unbelievable. If a French politician would get caught with his snout in a trough stealing bathplugs, he'd commit suicide in despair and shame. No French politician could stand the disgrace.

I mean, 88p. Who wants to look that amateurish? Our hardened political class doesn't even get up in the morning for less than 100 million. There is no difference between public and private money in France in the first place.

The UK thinks it is on the brink of a constitutional crisis. The people are continually outraged about the gap between the people and the lofty, out-of-touch political elite. Me, I see it all not as a sign of deteriorating political norms in Britian, but as a sign of growing British democratic maturity.

Try Belgium. France. Italy.

[Scurvy]

M-O-N-E-Y

But this sidetracks the main change: Scrap expenses. Flat salary from about £50 to 100k depending on seniority / job. Some flats might be suitable for the time spent in London. Personally I'd like these to be the same standards that Junior Doctors have, but I doubt this would come to pass.

I see the sense in expenenses - an MP living in Scotland or Northern Ireland will spent much more on work than an MP living in London.

What it needs is proper, independent supervision, MP's voting on their own pay and pay structure is ridiculous.

I am uneasy about ethical contracts, as they are subjective - MP's pay should be as transparent as possible, so why not make all expenses/pay public and attempt to minimize the legal loopholes (very few MP's have actually broken the rules - making it hard to punish them for blatant money-grabbing)

Also Michael Martin should be removed as speaker, it would be a useful scapegoating/symbol of change, and he seems to be hugely unpopular among MP's, not just over this issue, but others aswell.

[KukriKhan]

Brenda should step in and dissolve parliament.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkvEeKnTb2Q

That particular mechanic of UK politics has always fascinated me. A single individual, with the snap of a finger, could implement a "do-over" of an entire government.

How does it work, in practice? PM requests and she assents? Can she just do it of her own volition? Must she formally announce the dissolution?

[Kralizec]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/11/simon-hoggart-mps-expenses-michael-martin
Will he be eased out? Probably not. Gordon Brown will stay loyal to a fellow Labour Scot, and the Tories don't want a new Speaker chosen before they have a majority.

I was a bit surprised to read that - aren't speakers supposed to renounce party ties when they're chosen, anyway?

[InsaneApache]

That particular mechanic of UK politics has always fascinated me. A single individual, with the snap of a finger, could implement a "do-over" of an entire government.

How does it work, in practice? PM requests and she assents? Can she just do it of her own volition? Must she formally announce the dissolution?

Lesson one on the British Constitution.

Right, pay attention at the back. The government is Her Majestys government. As is the treasury, the navy, the police, in fact anything that helps defend/protect/run the country. Except of course in a constitutional monarchy, it's really the voters who decide. Brenda's just a figurehead. She does have some powers though.

She can declare war. She can dissolve parliament. She can give small silver coins out to pensiones as alms. As it's nominally Her government, she can, in theory, dissolve parliament and trigger a general election. However if she were to do so, it would bring about a genuine constitutional crises. How this may pan out is anybodys guess. As the police/army/navy/airforce make an oath of allegience to her, you might think she had all the top cards. She might well have given the buffoons in control at the moment.

However, one of her great-grandads thought the same and got on a bit of a sticky wicket on that one.

It could be interesting if madge did exercise her constitutional right. In the current climate the majority of voters would probably give a sigh of relief. One could argue that it's not democratic but it's often claimed that we live under a elective dictatorship anyway.

Certainly interesting times we live in.

[rory_20_uk]

I would like to see slightly more power in the hands of the Monarchy for times such as these when the elected ministers almost to a person are basically on the same side. Oh, platitudes and apologies are pouring out - but not the hundreds of thousands of pounds they've taken.

Better the monarch can say "oi, you lot - out" and get another lot in.
Would the next lot be any different? Possibly if they thought they too could be removed; if oversight was not via parliment but by the monarchy this again would help reduce the poachers acting as the gamekeepers.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Lesson one on the British Constitution.

Right, pay attention at the back. The government is Her Majestys government. As is the treasury, the navy, the police, in fact anything that helps defend/protect/run the country. Except of course in a constitutional monarchy, it's really the voters who decide. Brenda's just a figurehead. She does have some powers though.

She can declare war. She can dissolve parliament. She can give small silver coins out to pensiones as alms. As it's nominally Her government, she can, in theory, dissolve parliament and trigger a general election. However if she were to do so, it would bring about a genuine constitutional crises. How this may pan out is anybodys guess. As the police/army/navy/airforce make an oath of allegience to her, you might think she had all the top cards. She might well have given the buffoons in control at the moment.

However, one of her great-grandads thought the same and got on a bit of a sticky wicket on that one.

It could be interesting if madge did exercise her constitutional right. In the current climate the majority of voters would probably give a sigh of relief. One could argue that it's not democratic but it's often claimed that we live under a elective dictatorship anyway.

Certainly interesting times we live in.

The joy of an unwritten constitution is that one gets even more leeway to interpret than the wording of an 18th century document.

In fact, you are incorrect in the above analysis. The monarch has (to quote Bagehot) only three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn. In theory, she has the right under the Royal Prerogative to dismiss ministers including the Prime Minister, but dissolution of Parliament can only be done at the request of the Prime Minister (it used to be the whole Cabinet until around 1916).

Unhappily, the Royal Prerogative (which encompasses the powers you ascribe above such as declaring war) is entirely wielded by the Prime Minister.

George V is the ancestor you referred to, and it is commonly believed that he was the last monarch to dissolve Parliament and suffered for it. In fact, he refused to dissolve Parliament in 1923 at Stanley Baldwin's request, instead inviting Ramsay McDonald to form a government after dismissing Baldwin. It is still debated whether this was at all constitutional.

British Prime Ministers effectively have all the monarchial powers deprived from the Crown in 1689.

[Banquo's Ghost]

A scathing but accurate view of the Speaker and his conduct.

His solution – "an Operational Assurance Unit" – is the worst sort of bureaucratic complication. A privatised Fees Office that will end up stooging for the political class.

Cameron's solution is the best. Just put every expense claim online and the problem will solve itself.

We don't need people with an honours degree in accountancy, just people with a degree of honour. Failing that, a degree of shame would do perfectly well.

Hear, hear.

[Tsavong]

As abused as the current form of MPs expenses are its still probably batter that they are there than if there were not. As we may have a parliament filled of the privately wealthy or people sponsored by trade unions etc. And I think having MPs in the pocket of some privet interest group like a trade union would be worse than the current fiddling of expenses.

Also how ever much it seems unfair, to be an MP they should be working in two places London and where ever there constituency is and as parliament can keep MPs in London antill late at night or early in the morning some times. They need somewhere to live in London be it a hotel, house or something else it will still cost money. So the system needs to be reformed but there still needs to be something there else we may end up with a government of the wealthy or people in the pocket of trade unions.

[InsaneApache]

I thought that the Blair government decided they should knock off about tea time.

[Pannonian]

I thought that the Blair government decided they should knock off about tea time.

It was partly the result of the relatively massive influx of women MPs, that parliamentary sessions were rescheduled to end earlier. The previous state of affairs made it practically impossible for anyone with families to attend to to engage in parliamentary politics, which ended late, and had after-session discussions that went on even later. From accounts I've read, the timings of parliamentary matters also encouraged alcoholism, as the MPs would hang around in the bar afterward to "socialise" into ungodly hours. The earlier parliamentary sessions were meant to break up this old boys culture, and make it at conform at least a little with the wider world.

[HoreTore]

So.......

Is it time for you to accept viking rule now?

[FactionHeir]

Please invade, I'll let you use my home

[InsaneApache]

Guess where this is from?

QUESTION TIME AUDIENCE MARCHES ON LONDON

THE audience from BBC1's Question Time was marching on London last night, parading the severed head of housing minister Margaret Beckett on a pike, like some kind of ghoulish mascot.

Amid growing signs that things might be about to kick off, the audience spilled out of the Grimsby Institute at 11.20pm and immediately headed for Market Rasen via the A46.

They then carried on for about 15 miles before taking the Lincoln bypass and finally joining up with the A1 just south of Newark.

Earlier they had stormed the stage, grabbing presenter David Dimbleby and locking him in the ladies' toilet before beheading Mrs Beckett and firing senior Tory MP Teresa May through a stained glass window using a makeshift catapult.

Their fellow panellist, the former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell, has been stripped naked and is being transported to London in a tiny cage made from bamboo.

As of 8am this morning the Question Time audience had stopped at a service station near Biggleswade for refreshments, a toilet break and a chance to wipe some of the gunk from Mrs Beckett's head.

The audience is being led by Grimsby loud-mouth Roy Hobbs, mainly because it's his pike.

Mr Hobbs said: "I went to the trouble of bringing a pike to Question Time so I think it's only fair. And obviously when we get to London they are going to want to talk to whoever's carrying the severed head."