Tory Party chairman's in a Pickle

BillieTheBot

Work finished quite early last night, so I got the chance to watch Question Time when I came home. For some reason, BBC One Wales insist on starting it half an hour later than the rest of the UK, but no matter. One of the questions that came up was MPs expenses. Recently, Jackboot Jacqui's been caught swindling £116k in expenses for a home which she's hardly ever in, Alistair Darling's been caught doing something very similar and on Sunday, we found out about piggy Tony McNumpty's blatant troughing.

One of those on the panel was Eric Pickles, the Tory Party's chairman. He owns a second home and claims expenses for it, despite being the MP for Brentwood & Ongar. Westminster is only 37 miles away, by his own admission. Watch him pathetically try to explain this, to derision and jeers from the audience. Even Dimbleby takes the piss out of him, for God's sake. I have never seen the audience on QT boo someone like that before. People really are getting fed up, aren't they?

What is the answer to all of this? Or are we always going to have some scandals like this in our politics?

Former Member

I honestly believe people will always try to get attain anything they can get for nothing. If someone offered me the chance to take 16k a year in expenses I'd take it. However they are not and I'm currently having to make due with the pittence of a wage that is dole money.

I digress, could anyone honestly say that if given the opportunity you wouldn't take something that you are legally entitled to?

It's not the fault of MP's for trying to get a bit of extra cash, it sounds like it is the system that is flawed.


(Have you ever considered working for a tabloid newspaper by the way SG, I think you'd be good at it!)

Former Member

Actually, it IS their fault for trying to get extra cash, and if they didn't the trust based system would be adequate. The problem is when people think an allowance put in place in case they need it is something they are entitled to, and then feel the need to ensure they are claiming every last thing they are entitled too.

Former Member

(Have you ever considered working for a tabloid newspaper by the way SG, I think you'd be good at it!)

Renzo, if I was to consider writing for any medium, it would probably be via my own blog. That way, I could say whatever I wanted without pressure from any editors. Unfortunately, I would also make a few hundred thousand pounds less per year as a consequence. (columnist Richard Littlejohn earns about £800k per year, for example, to slag off a country which he doesn't even live in for most of the year) It's only lack of time that currently prevents me from doing it.

Due to these aforementioned time pressures, I'll have to answer the rest of your post later. Work awaits me.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

What is the answer to all of this? Or are we always going to have some scandals like this in our politics?

To the second question, yes probably. To the first question, quite simple. If people can't be trusted take benefits in the manner in which they were intended, they should be forced to do so by changing the rules. It's absolutely ridiculous, for example, that MPs can claim allowances for mortgage payments. It should be for rent only. And the second home should be the one in London if you live outside of it. If needs be, buy or build a bunch of new flats that are free to use for MPs. But we should never be paying for anyone's mortgages. Everything they need should be provided by the state, but either the state should be the one that owns it, or the money should be going back into the economy, not the bank account of politicians. And for everything else, receipts should have to be kept, like every company in the country is required to do. If they can manage it, then MPs can.

Former Member

My suggestion was to have the state buy a block of apartments close to westminster that would remain in ownership of the government, and everytime there are new MPs and such then the apartments get handed over, much like downing street.

If they are lucky enough to have a house in london already then they're not going to be able to pay off their mortgages this way, they will just have an extra apartment if needs be.

Feel free to try to pick holes in it, but I think it's the fairest system.

edit: also consider if you have a job where you work 8.30am - 7pm or such in inner london you may well invest in a second apartment yourself even if you do just live 37 miles out of london (which probably takes a fair amount of time in rush hour)

Former Member

ShyBoy wrote: »

edit: also consider if you have a job where you work 8.30am - 7pm or such in inner london you may well invest in a second apartment yourself even if you do just live 37 miles out of london (which probably takes a fair amount of time in rush hour)

It takes 80 minutes according to National Rail timetables, and less if you're using a car. Eric Pickles, like most of the Tory front bench, is a lazy bastard.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

It takes 80 minutes according to National Rail timetables, and less if you're using a car. Eric Pickles, like most of the Tory front bench, is a lazy bastard.

and how much longer at each end?

Leave home at 7am and be back at 9pm - I wouldn't work those hours

Former Member

Big Gay wrote: »

Leave home at 7am and be back at 9pm - I wouldn't work those hours.

Yeah, but he won't be doing that every day of the week, will he? He talked about Parliament sitting long hours. Not anymore, they don't. They used to sit until the early hours of the morning until Labour changed the system around 10 years ago. Secondly, Parliament rarely sits on Fridays, and is often done early on Thursdays. They also get about 20 weeks holiday per year - nearly four times as much as the average private sector job provides. I'd say that all in all, MPs have it pretty good.

Besides, nobody is forcing our MPs to work these hours. Nobody forced them to become MPs in the first place. If they don't like it, they can always resign and let someone else have a go. In case Pickles hasn't noticed, there's rather a lot of people unemployed at the moment.

Former Member

SG - what I was trying to say, is that in the private sector, you would probably get paid a lot more as an executive and could afford to have a second home in London. The whole reason MPs are given an allowance for a second home is otherwise, only the rich need apply, because poor MPs wouldn't be able to afford to live in london.

I agree with you that its not the perfect situation and he is being a bit annoying about it. Like I said, I think the country should just buy a building with apartments for 500 people to live and work in (how many MPs do we have?). These are not owned by MPs, they can't gain money from it etc. and then after their term is up the 'benefit' isn't stored away in their equity because they've paid off the mortgage, but rather it just gets passed onto the new MPs.

I don't think we should spoil MPs, but I don't think we should make their job uncomfortable when it needn't be. These are the people WE have elected to run our country, by any logic we should be saying they SHOULD have second homes in westminster in order to do the job we elected them to do properly.

My idea isn't unique at all - in europe it's often the norm - but it takes the decision out of the hands of the MPs and if they live in london and don't want to use the apartment then there's no real loss.

Former Member

Did you see today about Jacqui Smith claiming porn films under her expenses? Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7970731.stm

Although I can see how that might happen, say you were with virgin media you just pay the one bill for your package don't you? Which includes on demand and TV and phone and such. Doesn't seem malicious, more the news agencies trying to embarress an MP and have done so successfully. The mistake actually cost each person approximately £0.000000166 in tax revenue. (about 16 tenmillionths of a penny lol)

Former Member

It's not the "mistake" it's the principle of it. If they're negligent on this issue, how many other expenses do they just take for granted and not getting the best value for money for the taxpayer? Anyone paying for porn with so much free stuff available is obviously not putting value for money first. Fucking hilarious though.

But seriously, they need a receipt or invoice for absolutely everything they claim. That's the only way to make sure that they're only claiming for things they need. Every other business has to do it. And they're spending their own money, not someone else's.

But Shyboy, just out of interest, when was a subscription to Virgin Media a reasonable expense for a politician to be able to do their job? Or how about two tickets to see Oceans 13, which were apparently also among the expenses?

Former Member

If they're working from home I don't see why it's not an expense. If you run your own business from home you're allowed to claim internet etc. as a business expense (or at least some of it) - which gives tax benefits. We hold politicians to a much higher standard than we hold anyone else. I'm not saying they should be allowed to get away with anything but I think they should spend their time doing their job rather than collecting their expense receipts. If you have a company car and are claiming for the mileage, and take a 10 minute detour on work business to pop into an old friends for lunch, would you bother taking that 5 miles off your expense claim? Maybe I just have a more relaxed attitude to it, that politicians need to do a job, and that they will incur expenses, and that I' rather them have some frivolous expenses because they spent that marginal time (say the extra hour when they got home at 7pm - 8pm) answering constituent mail rather than going through every single receipt and partitioning them which is an arduous enough task as it is.

Then again, don't MPs have accountants to do that for them? So surely the accountant would be responsible? If not, why not? As you say, all companies have to complete financial statements with accountants etc. so why not government ministers?

Former Member

Oh well fucking hell then. Why not give them all the top Sky package with all the sports and movie channels, and let them get any film they want on box office? And then tack on the internet and phone package, and claim it's a business expense because they need the internet for work?

And keeping invoices isn't a difficult thing. All you need is a file to put them in at the end of the day in date order. I can't imagine how it would cost much more than the current expenses system. But having said that, if the current system is a no questions asked credit card as it seems to be, maybe it will cost a fortune. The point is that MPs aren't being held to a higher standard than every business in the country. They're seemingly just trusted to do the right thing, and I'm sorry, but I don't trust them any more than I trust businesses to pay what they think they owe in tax.

Former Member

Well because that's blatantly over the line, but there's no reason they shouldn't be able to claim for the internet as they do need to use it to work. I think in this case it was just an oversight, whether that's because it's just the done thing i.e. there is a culture of not being too fussed or whether because it was a genuine mistake I couldn't say.

But I do think there is a danger of becoming so obsessed with expense reports that it stops the real work getting done. Yes, don't let them have a luxury holiday or a mansion in france on an expense report, but where do we draw the line? If they go on a trip related to their work and get a hotel and breakfast, but at the breakfast bar buy a marsbar for later, would you expect them to spend the time subtracting the marsbar from their expenses?

Remember the newspapers have hundreds of journalists employed just to find out little tidbits like this and blow it out of proportion. So I think we should exercise a little discretion in judging them on trying to con us out of a tv package when they get paid near enough a 6 figure salary anyway.

edit: look at it this way, if an MP gets that mars bar and doesn't declare it as a non deductable expense or something the daily mail will try and get that MP publicly hung pretty much. We, the people, are the shareholders of this country in that sense. If the director of say barclays did the same, the shareholders wouldn't really care - they should just care about the performance of the company. As long as he's not taking the absolute piss, if it makes him more comfortable and look after the thousands of pounds we've got invested then go for it.

I don't think in this case she was just trying to pull a fast one, it seems to be a case of everyone overlooking this expense and the tabloids getting hold of it and going to town. Of course none of us know the full details however.

Former Member

It's for the best if the tax payer pays for their porn. Otherwise they will probably start looking for it on the internet and then more things will get banned.

Former Member

minimi38 wrote: »

It's for the best if the tax payer pays for their porn. Otherwise they will probably start looking for it on the internet and then more things will get banned.

In fact maybe decided politicians should be on the internet at all is a bad thing. Just fuel them with happy disney films and we'll get along just fine.

Former Member

ShyBoy wrote: »

If they go on a trip related to their work and get a hotel and breakfast, but at the breakfast bar buy a marsbar for later, would you expect them to spend the time subtracting the marsbar from their expenses?

Yes, that's exactly what I would expect. It's what every company is supposed to do. I deal with this at work, and you'll often get a receipt with a few things crossed out, because those things were personal items and had nothing to do with the company. No, we shouldn't let this get in the way of running the country (I know there are important things like the theoretical daughter of Prince William being allowed to be queen to be dealt with), and once the rules are changed, it won't need to. Once the rules are in place, I'll have no problem with the odd mistake and someone apologising for it. I have no problem with this mistake really, just the expenses situation overall.