MP claimed expenses to pay his daughter's rent

[cjp]

Bill Cash MP
His Right of Privacy Bill, which has the support of 307 MPs, is intent on curbing the growing invasion of privacy by the Press
http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_Parliament/Cash_Bill.aspx

had his own behaviour feature in the Daily Telegraph

Bill Cash, a senior Conservative MP, claimed more than £15,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses to pay his daughter rent for her London flat – even though he owned a home closer to Westminster.

Mr Cash MP is a solicitor.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-05-29/another-british-mp-caught-up-in-expenses-scandal/1698980

Surely not motivated by vengance?
but for the good of "the establishment" of which he is a but a humble part.

 

[Johnuk123]

That's nothing compared to her

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-53000-of-expenses-from-taxpayer-8414037.html

The former Labour MP, Margaret Moran, has been given a two-year supervision and treatment order for fiddling her expenses in order to gain £53,000 she was not entitled to.
Ms Moran, 57, who is currently suffering from depression, represented Luton for 13 years.

This woman by claiming an "Ernest Saunders" didn't even get a criminal record.

 

[Roverman]

Bill Cash MP
His Right of Privacy Bill, which has the support of 307 MPs, is intent on curbing the growing invasion of privacy by the Press
http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_Parliament/Cash_Bill.aspx

had his own behaviour feature in the Daily Telegraph



Mr Cash MP is a solicitor.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-05-29/another-british-mp-caught-up-in-expenses-scandal/1698980

Surely not motivated by vengance?
but for the good of "the establishment" of which he is a but a humble part.

The man is an enigma, MP for Stafford and then Stone but lives in leafy Shropshire, worth a fortune yet feels the need to claim expenses for his daughters house? Can't she get a job like the rest of us?

 

[cjp]

That's nothing compared to her

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-53000-of-expenses-from-taxpayer-8414037.html



This woman by claiming an "Ernest Saunders" didn't even get a criminal record.

From your link . . .

Moran wasn't in court because she was declared unfit to attend, due to mental health reasons.

It makes one question the mental state of the constituants who voted for her
There again I always figured if you put up a pig with the right coloured rosette the masses would go along with voting for it. Without questioning.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The man is an enigma, MP for Stafford and then Stone but lives in leafy Shropshire, worth a fortune yet feels the need to claim expenses for his daughters house? Can't she get a job like the rest of us?

According to the ABC link

His daughter Laetitia, 35, who the paper said is hoping to become a Conservative MP herself, sold her flat for a 48,000-pound profit shortly after her father stopped claiming allowances for it.

The short answer is NO"

 

[SS4]

There again I always figured if you put up a pig with the right coloured rosette the masses would go along with voting for it. Without questioning.

That's also a problem with First Past the Post (FPTP). Let's say we have a two party system which is accurate enough for the most part and for this hypothetical election parties A and B are the major parties. C, D and E are also standing but haven't a snowball's chance in hell of getting into power.

The pig, for argument's sake, is standing for party B

A voter has two real choices:

1. he can vote A or he can vote B. If he likes the policies of A then he'll vote for A.
2. If he doesn't like, or is neutral on, the policies of A but dislikes those of B more he'll still vote for A.

Same applies with B of course.

Of course he could vote for C, D or E but it is unlikely they'll get enough votes to win the seat let alone enough to form a government, coalition or majority. He is left with the choice of either voting for A or B to keep the other out of power.

Thus if our hypothetical voter disagrees with what party A plan to do he is all but forced to vote for Party B which is the pig. Should many people in the area feel the same way the pig is elected!

In FPTP the proportion of votes A and B get doesn't matter, it only depends who has more. Now say our hypothetical constituency does not like the policies of A for whatever reason. To stop A getting into power supporters of C, D and E vote B consistently even though B does not reflect their best interests - they are simply less bad than A.

Eventually a safe seat is formed and B need never pay any attention to it because they'll always win there and A need never pay attention because they'll always lose, this means B can put anyone they like into that seat (including the pig from earlier) and they'll be elected - a practice known as parachuting

It's better for A and B to fight in those places where the result is on a knife-edge which gives them undue influence in elections such as "swing states" in the USA.

Hope that wasn't too hard to understand
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

According to the ABC link

The short answer is NO"

Don't bank on it, you have to consider parachuting.

 

[Aictos]

I'm of view that MPs earn more then enough so shouldn't be claiming any expenses, if they want something let them pay for it out of their own pocket and not expect the poor taxpayer to continuous have a unlimited budget to finance the MPs.

It just seems unfair that a MP earning far more then the majority of the country also gets to claim expenses, they are no better then benefit cheats!

I understand the need for a office and a secretary but that should be provided by the government anyway!

 

[deltic]

I'm of view that MPs earn more then enough so shouldn't be claiming any expenses, if they want something let them pay for it out of their own pocket and not expect the poor taxpayer to continuous have a unlimited budget to finance the MPs.

It just seems unfair that a MP earning far more then the majority of the country also gets to claim expenses, they are no better then benefit cheats!

I understand the need for a office and a secretary but that should be provided by the government anyway!

So an MP representing a seat in Glasgow should not be allowed to claim for their travel expenses to London and then do they have to sleep rough when they get there!

We cant have it both ways - the present cabinet is full of millionaires - why because its damn expensive being an MP. To become an MP you have to campaign to get selected to represent a party - small cost usually involved - you then get selected you have to fight an election - while parties pay most of this most prospective MPs also pay a significant proportion. You are elected - if in Labour their MPs have to pay a proportion of their salary into party coffers.

If you represent a seat outside London you will probably need two homes - renting anything within reasonable travel distance of Westminster is expensive. You have to travel between the two. You need an office, sometimes both in your home town and at Westminster. They need to be equipped and staffed.

The costs go on. While some (many) MPs abused the system why should they be out of pocket for doing their job. MPs get £66k a year - average full time salary in London is £35k - so I dont think they are overpaid for what they do

 

[Aictos]

If you were on 66k a year, I'm pretty sure you could easily afford the travel costs - it's not like they're going to to be short of money now is it

I mean if I was on that sort of money I be going First Class everywhere!

As to a place to live within London, surely the government could buy a property which the MPs could be allocated a flat within to live in while working in London.

The way you go on sounds like they're barely able to afford their expenses, I disagree as they are amongst the highest paid people in the UK.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The man is an enigma, MP for Stafford and then Stone but lives in leafy Shropshire, worth a fortune yet feels the need to claim expenses for his daughters house? Can't she get a job like the rest of us?

Steady on there, young environmentalist. I am sure that Staffordshire has just as many leafy areas as does Shropshire.

I really become annoyed, in terms of comparison, when my own county of Cheshire (East) is always described as "leafy" (usually in connections with its "lanes") to give the view that surrounding county areas are "arboreally challenged".

This is 2013, not the "dark satanic mills" year of 1849...

 

[plarailfan]

I haven't a clue about the reality of these stories regarding MP's allowances, but maybe these people should be treated as companies employees, such as sales reps, etc who regularly work away from their base with a fixed £25 overnight allowance for meals, etc.
A budget price hotel room could be reserved for MP's while in London and maybe the costituency office could be provided by the local council in a Town Hall or other property so that cost can be reined in ! We are in a recession after all.....

 

[Tibbs]

If you were on 66k a year, I'm pretty sure you could easily afford the travel costs - it's not like they're going to to be short of money now is it

I mean if I was on that sort of money I be going First Class everywhere!

As to a place to live within London, surely the government could buy a property which the MPs could be allocated a flat within to live in while working in London.

The way you go on sounds like they're barely able to afford their expenses, I disagree as they are amongst the highest paid people in the UK.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that £66k (£45k post tax) is a lot of money, it's really not, especially if you look at:

1) the responsibility the jobs holds
2) what a lot of these people could be getting paid instead.

You pay peanuts you get monkeys. I would rather give MPs £250k a year and attract a better quality of candidate. But then again, we get the MPs we deserve.

I looked at living in London, and I was looking at £2k a month including rent & bills for a clean but miniscule studio in north London on the borders of zones 1&2. That's £24k a year, so the take home is down to £21k. You then need to add in travel to and from the constituency multiple times a week and the home in the constituency to house the family.

I'd go on, but it's clear from just this quick bit of work just how attractive being an MP would be (i.e. it wouldn't) - who would do the job if they weren't already rich or bankrolled by someone who is?

You seem to want to punish people for being MPs. In reality it should be a job that people aspire to, but we're caught in a vicious circle.

 

[Oswyntail]

Bill Cash is a piece of work! Whenever you read about party rebels you will find his name among them; if a newspaper wants a quote to "prove" how evil Tories are, they will go to him. He seems to revel in proving how out of touch MPs are.:roll:

 

[Tibbs]

I haven't a clue about the reality of these stories regarding MP's allowances, but maybe these people should be treated as companies employees, such as sales reps, etc who regularly work away from their base with a fixed £25 overnight allowance for meals, etc.
A budget price hotel room could be reserved for MP's while in London and maybe the costituency office could be provided by the local council in a Town Hall or other property so that cost can be reined in ! We are in a recession after all.....

What makes you think the local councils in London have that amount of space? There are 650 MPs remember.

MPs aren't travelling sales reps for a soft drinks company, they're the people who set our laws and the strategic direction of our contry. If you had an eqiuvalent role in the private sector for a company the equivalent size of the UK, you'd be put up in the Dorchester.

There seems to be an opinion that MPs should dress in sackcloth and ashes and live like the most ascetic of monks in punishment for wanting to do government service. This attitude is why we get the people we do.

 

[plarailfan]

My view is that we need MP's who are more in touch with reality. These days, some people are juggling and working at three or four different part - time jobs to make ends meet ! They might drive around in a newish car but how they do it is getting ridiculous !
Council workers, for example, on £20 - £30K a year are seeing their jobs scrapped and the minimum wage is way too low to obtain a mortgage !
I'm probably off topic here, so I will shut up, but it does seem unfair that MP's descisions are leaving millions of people high and dry, while they seem to be getting along very nicely thankyou !!

 

[maniacmartin]

My other half works for an MP as a parliamentary assistant so I've learnt how inefficient the setup is.

MPs are not given a constituency office - they have to fund this and any admin staff themselves or out of expenses. Usually this office is the party office (Labour, Conservative etc) and is also used for their political campaigning in the run-up to elections. Every time the electorate changes who they vote for, the new MP might set up a different constituency office and have to buy new desks, computers and other office equipment potentially every 4 years.

They get given an office at Westminster, but again have to pay for any assistants or staff themselves, plus their London residence. This all adds up to a lot of expenses, Plus there is no job security as you might be voted out in the next election.

I believe that a better way would be for their constituency office to be given to them by local government - ie an office in the town hall or other government buildings. They could then benefit from the economies of scale (shared cleaning costs, utilities etc). Of course they would not then be able to do political campaigning from that office,

The problem with the London property is not only do they get to live in these houses, they also get mortgage payments so end up being better off at the end of it. I've always believed there should be something similar to a university halls of residence for MPs in London, or perhaps similar to a Travelodge, where all MPs can have their own room. This would almost certainly be cheaper to run.

I think that the assistants and staff should be employed directly by IPSA or another similar body. That way it would be much more transparent and could all be managed centrally

 

[jb]

Of course he could vote for C, D or E but it is unlikely they'll get enough votes to win the seat let alone enough to form a government, coalition or majority. He is left with the choice of either voting for A or B to keep the other out of power..

An implicit tenet of this entire argument seems to be that votes for candidates that have no chance of "win(ning) the seat let alone enough to form a government, coalition or majority..." are literally wasted. A corollary of this is that MPs cannot and do not represent those in their constituencies who did not vote for them.

Whilst apparently widely held, I believe such views to be more than a little simplistic at best. Taken to their logical conclusion, they veer towards "C, D or E should not stand" or even "C, D or E should be prevented from standing" (although I admit the latter is stretching the point a bit).

Whatever the system, politics (and elections) are about spectrums of views and candidates, not just those of the mainstream or those that have a chance of winning. I have no doubt that some "wasted" votes are more welcome than others. I am sure that many more people are glad that BNP votes just about anywhere are "wasted" than that Labour votes in Surrey or Tory votes in Scotland are.

And with respect to one specific point, parachuting is by no means limited to FPTP systems. One could argue that proportional systems based in part around party lists are more, not less, susceptible to "piggery".

 

[Oswyntail]

.... A corollary of this is that MPs cannot and do not represent those in their constituencies who did not vote for them. ....

Exactly. Why should an MP with a majority of 1 be expected to vote the same way as one with a majority of 10,000? Sadly, as this is the case, we have "safe" constituencies where the only ones who have a representative in Parliament are the selection committee (or, worse, Union ). PR is not the answer, as you would then just have (more) blocs of MPs voting as they were told. IMHO, the answer is a) to abolish "party" within Parliament, making everything a free vote and b) include a full copy of an MPs voting record with election material.

 

[Tibbs]

Exactly. Why should an MP with a majority of 1 be expected to vote the same way as one with a majority of 10,000? Sadly, as this is the case, we have "safe" constituencies where the only ones who have a representative in Parliament are the selection committee (or, worse, Union ). PR is not the answer, as you would then just have (more) blocs of MPs voting as they were told. IMHO, the answer is a) to abolish "party" within Parliament, making everything a free vote and b) include a full copy of an MPs voting record with election material.

I agree with both a) and b)

 

[455driver]

So an MP representing a seat in Glasgow should not be allowed to claim for their travel expenses to London and then do they have to sleep rough when they get there!

What about somebody who is in "normal" commuting distance of London though?
Of course someone who lives several hundreds of miles away from London would need a hotel room but why does an MP from say Milton Keynes need a second home in another City like, ooh Southampton where her partner just happens to work!

An MP who may or may not decide to visit parliament has no need for a second home, a decent hotel room yes but a second home (which they get to keep after we have paid for it) definitely not.

If you represent a seat outside London you will probably need two homes

Of course they do!
I mean its not like 1000s of ordinary people travel into London in the morning and out again at the end of the working day is it!
Why should MPs be "special" with the tax payer having to pick the tab up for some very dubious expenses?

 

[cjp]

Every time the electorate changes who they vote for, the new MP might set up a different constituency office and have to buy new desks, computers and other office equipment potentially every 4 years.

Many if not most MPs serve more than one term

They get given an office at Westminster, but again have to pay for any assistants or staff themselves, plus their London residence. This all adds up to a lot of expenses, Plus there is no job security as you might be voted out in the next election.

But we have to pay for our accomodation from our income - so should they.
They can claim for staff but a number claimed for family as staff that did next to nothing except swell the family income.

And they get a pension, a good pension, after even one term as an MP

 

[David Barrett]

That's nothing compared to her

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-53000-of-expenses-from-taxpayer-8414037.html



This woman by claiming an "Ernest Saunders" didn't even get a criminal record.

Perhaps she should have been sent to ATOS for evaluation, as their good services have been relied upon to declare the terminally ill as being fit for work and, by extension, would most certianly after the most in depth consultation that they could carry out, declare this low life scrounger fit to attend court.

 

[Oswyntail]

...Why should MPs be "special" with the tax payer having to pick the tab up for some very dubious expenses?

Perhaps because of the job they do, assuming they actually do it. OK, it doesn't take much qualification to shout "rubbish" occasionally and vote as you're told. But how many here have actually tried reading a draft bill in enough detail to ask sensible questions? Or tried to track through the bureaucracy a long-running legal dispute on behalf of a complete stranger with whom you disagree? Or even made a speech? OK, the expenses should have been better regulated. But if we want the country to be well governed - and we do - then we have to make it an appealing job for those best qualified to do it. Selection processes should be tightened up, but the overall package has to attract the best, just as with any job. Sadly, in most constituencies we do not have the best but simple party hacks as lobby fodder. But we should not let the current state of affairs make us lose sight of what we need.

 

[Greenback]

Exactly. Why should an MP with a majority of 1 be expected to vote the same way as one with a majority of 10,000? Sadly, as this is the case, we have "safe" constituencies where the only ones who have a representative in Parliament are the selection committee (or, worse, Union ). PR is not the answer, as you would then just have (more) blocs of MPs voting as they were told. IMHO, the answer is a) to abolish "party" within Parliament, making everything a free vote and b) include a full copy of an MPs voting record with election material.

This is something I agree with, and have been thinking this way for some time. Sadly, I can't find many others who agree with me (us!).

 

[deltic]

What about somebody who is in "normal" commuting distance of London though?
Of course someone who lives several hundreds of miles away from London would need a hotel room but why does an MP from say Milton Keynes need a second home in another City like, ooh Southampton where her partner just happens to work!

An MP who may or may not decide to visit parliament has no need for a second home, a decent hotel room yes but a second home (which they get to keep after we have paid for it) definitely not.



Of course they do!
I mean its not like 1000s of ordinary people travel into London in the morning and out again at the end of the working day is it!
Why should MPs be "special" with the tax payer having to pick the tab up for some very dubious expenses?

I would agree more should commute but you would need to agree what is a reasonable commuting distance.
In the past the reason few did was due to the strange hours Parliament worked - sittings used to go on to 10pm at night or often later - not sure what hours it sits these days I think it is more normal office hours but with some late evenings.

Of course there are some MPs on the make but I have met plenty who put in long hours usually 6 days a week 48 weeks a year. Most could earn far more outside parliament

 

[Butts]

I think MP's should be paid at least £100,000 per year plus expenses for running an office and subsistence allowances.

If we can pay a Footballer more per week than an MP gets in a year something has distorted the values we place on professions.

No one seems to object to the NHS paying Consultants over £100k per year which is topped up with a substantial private income.

Is it a "race to the bottom" and envy motivating these complaints

 

[Johnuk123]

No one seems to object to the NHS paying Consultants over £100k per year which is topped up with a substantial private income.

You can't possibly equate a consultant with an m.p. they have nothing whatsoever in common.

A consultant is someone who has risen through the ranks and is highly skilled.

To become an m.p. you need no qualifications whatsoever and when you look at some of them they are very lucky to get the salary they do.

As somebody has already said in many areas as long as you have the correct rosette you're in no questions asked.


Eventually it will all be irrelevant anyway as parliaments like we have now are ultimately doomed as they are rapidly being reduced to simple quaint talking shops. The European superstate is rapidly engulfing and undermining centuries old parliaments with its relentless march towards federalism.

 

[jon0844]

You want ordinary people to be able to become an MP too, but that isn't very likely as you or I would have to give up a lot to do it - and one day suddenly be kicked out and unemployed.

Fancy the risk? It's hardly a secure job - it's more a contract job, and they generally pay more.

If we want to stop rich people doing it and doing it more as a hobby, or trying to secure a job afterwards on the board of a firm they've helped out, we can't suddenly go cutting the salaries and expecting them to fund their own expenses that any other employee would cover should they need to travel or work out of hours.

On the flip side, get caught fiddling expenses and you bring in the police - or at worst, you kick them out there and then. Zero tolerance, unless it can be proven it was a genuine mistake (and that would usually mean a one off and there being some reasonable element of doubt as to whether it was intentional).

 

[cjp]

I think MP's should be paid at least £100,000 per year plus expenses for running an office and subsistence allowances.

If we can pay a Footballer more per week than an MP gets in a year something has distorted the values we place on professions.

No one seems to object to the NHS paying Consultants over £100k per year which is topped up with a substantial private income.

Professions?
The footballer is a professional (& perhaps overpaid) unless an amateur
A MP's role ought to be a vocation - with renumeration.

But do NHS consultants massage their expenses like MPs have a track record of doing?
Which is what this thread started as being but the wandering route is an interesting permitted route
And Consultants may well save or enhance lives whereas MP's toe the party line and enjoy the power and glamour.
And I have yet to hear a medical consultant called sleezy

 

[jon0844]

I imagine some NHS consultants do 'massage' their expenses. We've even seen that the police have fiddled expenses, so everyone seems to be doing it.

 

[Oswyntail]

Professions?

There is confusion when the word "profession" is used. A "Profession" is defined as "a non-manual occupation requiring some degree of learning or training". There also tend to be independent "professional bodies" that regulate and set standards for the profession.

The footballer is a professional (& perhaps overpaid) unless an amateur

This is where the confusion lies, because "professional" as an adjective is often used to describe non-amateurs. There is no way that football is a profession. It is essentially a physical job like labouring, and has no professional standards body.

A MP's role ought to be a vocation - with renumeration.

The role of an MP is somewhere betwixt and between. While, as has rightly been pointed out, no one requires any training for the job - even a footballer could become an MP - it does have professional-style regulation and standards. These have not been well applied in the last decade. In an ideal world, everyone's occupation should be a vocation, but this should not be an excuse for paying them appropriately.

But do NHS consultants massage their expenses like MPs have a track record of doing? .......
And Consultants may well save or enhance lives whereas MP's toe the party line and enjoy the power and glamour

.On the other hand, Consultants manipulate their contracts so that they get paid a fortune for little time in the NHS, leaving themselves free for private work using NHS resources. And MPs can work very hard as constituency representatives (their job) and as scrutinisers of legislation. There are good and bad examples of both. One of the problems of assessing this question is that most of us have no experience either of consultants or MPs other than what the media report. Over the last few years, the emphasis has been on corrupt MPs and hard-working doctors. This is not necessarily an accurate representation.

And I have yet to hear a medical consultant called sleezy

Really?! Not seen the stories of consultants struck off for touching up patients? Or having their "independent research" financed by big pharma? Or having junior doctors reveal that their leadership role consists mainly of bullying, and their NHS time is spent "on call" on the golf course?