Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
Reluctant Hero

Expenses Again

The expenses issue has raised its ugly head again.  A few MPs are a little annoyed at having to pay money back!  And some, Derek Conway, are saying, "It is very difficult for MPs to know what's right or wrong."

I'm sure your electorate will let you know what's right and what's wrong at the next election!

http://page.politicshome.com/uk/c...nsistency_in_expense_rulings.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8305327.stm
Shagpile

Purple piss ebbs from my veins...... from my tear ducts too!

If they are not happy they have three options:

resign;

accept;

seek to change.

They wont do the first, nor the second....... my money's on the third.
Reluctant Hero

David Wiltshire, a Tory MP for somewhere in Surrey, is the latest to be caught up in the expenses scandal.

Unbelievably, he allegedly paid his own company £105,000 over 4 years from public money, but claimed he had done nothing wrong!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8309802.stm
Shagpile

Paper Planes, MIA...... it's on you tube...... That's Tory, Labour, Lib..........
Holebender

Am I the only one who thinks it's fundamentally wrong to change the rules retroactively and then pillory people for breaking the new rules when they were acting within the rules in place at the time?

I have nothing but contempt for those people who made false claims or who played the property market at our expense, and I think they should be subject to criminal proceedings, but to demand repayments for things like cleaners because the new rules set lower limits is just pathetic and seems to have been designed to keep the scandal going.
Ultra

Holebender wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it's fundamentally wrong to change the rules retroactively and then pillory people for breaking the new rules when they were acting within the rules in place at the time?

I have nothing but contempt for those people who made false claims or who played the property market at our expense, and I think they should be subject to criminal proceedings, but to demand repayments for things like cleaners because the new rules set lower limits is just pathetic and seems to have been designed to keep the scandal going.


I agree with you Holebender.

Some of the MP's committed fraud pure and simple and should be presecuted. Claiming fraudulent expenses is money laundering. Failing to declare tax due on capital gains is tax evasion.

But for the others who made legitimate claims you can only work within the framework and guidelines provided at the time the claim was made.

You have to wonder how much tax payers money is being spent on keeping all this going and applying changes retrospectively.

It would be far better to bring in new rules and draw a line under the whole sorry saga.

Not sure if the Government has looked at best practice in some multi national companies who pay 1000's of people expenses and adopt some of them. Some of the things being highlighted in the media being claimed by MP's  are the type of things which could be claimed in most decent companies.
Alasdair

Ultra wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks ....


I agree with you Holebender...


I'm also inclined to agree, however ...

ultra wrote:
But for the others who made legitimate claims you can only work within the framework and guidelines provided at the time the claim was made.


... surely it was these self same people (talking about politicians generally as opposed to specific individuals) who made the rules and the rules seem to have been specifically set-up to allow an abuse to occur.  In considering that, it only seems right that those who have used the rules to their full personal advantage should repay what many people believe to be an abuse, not of the rules, but of their position.

ultra wrote:
Not sure if the Government has looked at best practice in some multi national companies who pay 1000's of people expenses and adopt some of them. Some of the things being highlighted in the media being claimed by MP's  are the type of things which could be claimed in most decent companies.


I also agree that this should be pursued, however, whilst many things may well be claimable under the systems operated by a few companies, many claims would be laughed out of the finance offices.

"what's that you need your moat cleaned? ... uh-huh?! and this relates to your employ in what way?"

You could insert any number of items instead of the moat.  Gardening, cleaning, treatment of dry rot, removal of wysteria ... I'm sure there are more but these are theones that immediately spring to mind.
Holebender

As far as gardening goes, I think it's perfectly reasonable for MPs to be able to claim for work like gardening and cleaning which keeps their constituency home looking presentable while they're not there to take care of it in person. I'm just talking about cutting the grass and weeding, that sort of thing, not major landscaping work, duck houses, etc.
Alasdair

The basic garden maintenance point is a moot one, but yes I can see how that might be justifiable, it's the excesses that were allowed within 'the rules' that bother me and the fact that the rules were put in place seemingly in order to allow excess.

Bear with me for a moment while I recall my afternoon, I've largely spent it painting my house, something I dearly wish I could afford to pay someone else to do - alas I cannot.  While I was up my ladder I overheard my children playing some childs game or another, the eldest was clearly in charge and had set the rules, what became obvious was that when the rules didn't suit him and he wasn't winning ... he simply changed them.

He won every time and he never cheated, but 'the rules' were heavily weighted in his favour, afterall he'd written them.
Holebender

I don't disagree about the rules being a sham and designed for cheats, but this latest round - asking people to pay back what seem like reasonable expenses because the rules have been arbitrarily and retrospectively changed while ignoring the serious frauds which went on - just seems designed to inflame the whole situation.
Stevie

Apparently the Daily Telegraph reporters have written a book about this murky affair called, 'No expense spared'.   (i.e. in bringing you the truth).

Romeo and Ethel the pirates daughter, "Good title".

... and a dog.
Fidget

The lot of them know no shame. They speak of "rules", what rules? There are no rules that say they must claim for anything.  Instead there are parameters for being able to claim back money for certain expenses and each and every one of them knows where they've taken the piss out of that.  And those shouting about how they hardly claimed anything are just as bad cause they knew fine well the rest were at it and never said a word about it.
Dave Coull

Ultra wrote:
Some of the things being highlighted in the media being claimed by MP's  are the type of things which could be claimed in most decent companies.
That it is easy to envisage some of the claims being made by senior staff of many large banks and businesses is probably true. That the companies in which these claims could be made  are "decent" is a matter of opinion.
Alasdair wrote:
The basic garden maintenance point is a moot one
Surely you mean "a moat one"?
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it's fundamentally wrong to change the rules retroactively and then pillory people for breaking the new rules when they were acting within the rules in place at the time?

I have nothing but contempt for those people who made false claims or who played the property market at our expense, and I think they should be subject to criminal proceedings, but to demand repayments for things like cleaners because the new rules set lower limits is just pathetic and seems to have been designed to keep the scandal going.


Like I said.. what rules? We keep hearing about these "rules" but there aren't any "rules" that say what must or what must not by claimed back. Each and every one of their claims have been based on their integrity, not rules, and are showing themselves up as the parasites that they are by latching onto these non-existant "rules".
Holebender

Of course there are rules. Clearly they are far too lax and very poorly enforced, but there are still rules.
Fidget

Where are these rules then?  Where can I get a copy of this document which sets out "the rules" of you must claim this, you must not claim that. Because that is what we're talking about when it comes to "rules". It doesn't exist though and the word "rules" has just been hijacked to suit unscrupulous MPs.   Rolling Eyes
Holebender

http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/finances.cfm

It took me about five minutes to find that.
Fidget

That's not rules, that's guidelines. MP's latch onto "the rules" as if they were forced to act under them and claim £££s.
Holebender

Try reading them, they give limits and such like, which makes them rules.
Fidget

so, what you're saying then is that if the rule says [whatever] you must do [whatever]? It is rules we're talking about isn't it? Rules - those dictatory things that tell you what you can and can't do, to the letter? Thereby, according to your rules theory.. those MPs who hardly claimed anything have broken the rules.
Holebender

I mean the sort of rule which says you may claim for such and such an item, up to a maximum of x amount. That is a rule; it specifies what is allowed and the upper limit of how much will be reimbursed. If you're looking for a commandment which says you must buy this and you must spend that you are, of course, fantasising.

The online Cambridge English dictionary defines a rule as
Quote:
an accepted principle or instruction that states the way things are or should be done, and tells you what you are allowed or are not allowed to do
I think that's the way just about everybody understands the word. Notice, rules need not be as prescriptive as you would have us believe, they need only set how things should be done and tell you what is allowed or not allowed.
Stevie

Robert Burns

The De'il's Awa Wi' Th' Exciseman[/b]

The deil cam fiddlin thro' the town
And danced awa wi' th' Exciseman;
And ilka wife cries, auld Mahoun,
I wish you luck o' the prize, man.

Chorus
The deil's awa, the deil's awa
The deil's awa wi' th' Exciseman,
He's danced awa, he's danced awa
He's danced awa wi' th' Exciseman.

We'll mak our maut and we'll brew our drink,
We'll laugh, sing and rejoice, man;
And mony braw thanks to the meikle black deil,
That danc'd awa wi' th' Exciseman.

Chorus

There's threesome reels, there's foursome reels,
There's hornpipes and strathpeys, man,
But the ae best dance e'er cam to the Land
Was, the deil's awa wi' th' Exciseman.

The Brits havnae a poet to kiss his arse.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
I mean the sort of rule which says you may claim for such and such an item, up to a maximum of x amount. That is a rule; it specifies what is allowed and the upper limit of how much will be reimbursed. If you're looking for a commandment which says you must buy this and you must spend that you are, of course, fantasising.

The online Cambridge English dictionary defines a rule as
Quote:
an accepted principle or instruction that states the way things are or should be done, and tells you what you are allowed or are not allowed to do
I think that's the way just about everybody understands the word. Notice, rules need not be as prescriptive as you would have us believe, they need only set how things should be done and tell you what is allowed or not allowed.


I see. You're of the MP ilk then who, because it gives a limit, means that limit must be gotten to as that is the rule.

I hope you don't have any credit cards.
Holebender

Tell me where I have said that the limit is a target. You just make stuff up as you go along, but don't expect me to play your game.

You said the rules didn't exist. I found examples of the rules within five minutes of starting to search and you try to discredit me rather than admit your ignorance. Go and find somebody else to play with because you are not worth my time and I don't take kindly to your personal slurs. You got it wrong and you're not man enough to accept it.

btw, the only money I owe is my mortgage, and that will be paid off in five more months. I have a credit card but I never use it, it has a zero balance. I have a healthy cash balance in the bank, plus a few investments. I have bank accounts in three different currencies. How about you? Debt free, I hope.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
Tell me where I have said that the limit is a target. You just make stuff up as you go along, but don't expect me to play your game.


Forgive me for thinking that this:  

Holebender wrote:
I mean the sort of rule which says you may claim for such and such an item, up to a maximum of x amount.


..meant that you were talking about "a limit".

Holebender wrote:
You said the rules didn't exist. I found examples of the rules within five minutes of starting to search and you try to discredit me rather than admit your ignorance. Go and find somebody else to play with because you are not worth my time and I don't take kindly to your personal slurs. You got it wrong and you're not man enough to accept it.


And I stand by me comment that the "rules" don't exist. It's not rules. It's guidelines. MP's know that fine well.

Holebender wrote:
btw, the only money I owe is my mortgage, and that will be paid off in five more months. I have a credit card but I never use it, it has a zero balance. I have a healthy cash balance in the bank, plus a few investments. I have bank accounts in three different currencies. How about you? Debt free, I hope.


Not at all interested in your personal finances.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Tell me where I have said that the limit is a target. You just make stuff up as you go along, but don't expect me to play your game.


Forgive me for thinking that this:  

Holebender wrote:
I mean the sort of rule which says you may claim for such and such an item, up to a maximum of x amount.


..meant that you were talking about "a limit".

You really seem to have a problem with comprehension; yes it's a limit, but at no point do I say it's a target.

Fidget wrote:
Holebender wrote:
You said the rules didn't exist. I found examples of the rules within five minutes of starting to search and you try to discredit me rather than admit your ignorance. Go and find somebody else to play with because you are not worth my time and I don't take kindly to your personal slurs. You got it wrong and you're not man enough to accept it.


And I stand by me comment that the "rules" don't exist. It's not rules. It's guidelines. MP's know that fine well.

Holebender wrote:
btw, the only money I owe is my mortgage, and that will be paid off in five more months. I have a credit card but I never use it, it has a zero balance. I have a healthy cash balance in the bank, plus a few investments. I have bank accounts in three different currencies. How about you? Debt free, I hope.


Not at all interested in your personal finances.

Then why did you speculate about whether or not I have a credit card? And I note you avoid answering about your own finances. I'm not interested but it seems only fair to reciprocate.

You still aren't man enough to admit you got it wrong about the rules not existing, but then again you aren't smart enough to understand what a rule actually is.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:

You really seem to have a problem with comprehension; yes it's a limit, but at no point do I say it's a target.


Neither did I, if you choose to go back and look.

Holebender wrote:


Then why did you speculate about whether or not I have a credit card? And I note you avoid answering about your own finances. I'm not interested but it seems only fair to reciprocate.


Class it as speculating if you choose. I can't see me discussing my finances on a messageboard though. No offence or anything.

Holebender wrote:
You still aren't man enough to admit you got it wrong about the rules not existing, but then again you aren't smart enough to understand what a rule actually is.


Well.. if under your 'rule' that none of these paras.. sorry - politicians, have done anything wrong then I am humbly at your bequest.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
Holebender wrote:

You really seem to have a problem with comprehension; yes it's a limit, but at no point do I say it's a target.


Neither did I, if you choose to go back and look.


I went back and looked, and look here you are saying
Fidget wrote:
You're of the MP ilk then who, because it gives a limit, means that limit must be gotten to as that is the rule.

That was you saying the limit was a target. You say the "limit must be gotten to" because the rule says so.
Fidget

I said you are of the ilk who think that.
Reluctant Hero

Unbelievably, MPs are looking at giving themselves a 5% pay increase to "compensate" for loss of expenses.

If ever there was an admission that the expenses system was being abused, there it is.

All this when they are trying to freeze public sector pay and spouting rubbish like "we are all in this together".

Absolutely unbelievable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...e-for-MPs-to-stop-rebellion.html#
Stevie

Reluctant Hero wrote:
Unbelievably, MPs are looking at giving themselves a 5% pay increase to "compensate" for loss of expenses.


I can explain this... they're b*****s.
Aventinian

Stevie wrote:
Robert Burns

The De'il's Awa Wi' Th' Exciseman[/b]

The deil cam fiddlin thro' the town
And danced awa wi' th' Exciseman;
And ilka wife cries, auld Mahoun,
I wish you luck o' the prize, man.

Chorus
The deil's awa, the deil's awa
The deil's awa wi' th' Exciseman,
He's danced awa, he's danced awa
He's danced awa wi' th' Exciseman.

We'll mak our maut and we'll brew our drink,
We'll laugh, sing and rejoice, man;
And mony braw thanks to the meikle black deil,
That danc'd awa wi' th' Exciseman.

Chorus

There's threesome reels, there's foursome reels,
There's hornpipes and strathpeys, man,
But the ae best dance e'er cam to the Land
Was, the deil's awa wi' th' Exciseman.

The Brits havnae a poet to kiss his arse.


Er, Robert Burns was a 'Brit' - he was a British citizen. Indeed, he worked for the British state - as an exciseman indeed - and a volunteer soldier.

But of course, there are lots of excellent British poets.
Shagpile

Reluctant Hero wrote:
Unbelievably, MPs are looking at giving themselves a 5% pay increase to "compensate" for loss of expenses.

If ever there was an admission that the expenses system was being abused, there it is.

All this when they are trying to freeze public sector pay and spouting rubbish like "we are all in this together".

Absolutely unbelievable.


You know, I kind of expected that would happen. Am I surprised...... NO.

I would have been surprised had they not thought about it.

To every Lobby Fodder Scum out there....... GET A REAL JOB! Oh, there's not one? Well there's another fine mess YOU got the union into. So you'll jump on Bankers' bonuses for the part THEY played...... and reward YOURSELVES at the same time?

You really could not make it up, laughable were it not so serious!
Reluctant Hero

No mention of MPs expenses in the old wifey's speech the other day.

And I thought it was supposed to be an important issue as well
Fidget

Some sort of acknowledgment of it all would've been wise since it's exactly the sort of thing that the average voter relates to. But in-house fighting isn't something that appears during the state opening of parliament and I suspect it wasn't mentioned because it's still an in-house hot potato and it couldn't really be mentioned in any matter of fact way of "this is how it is going to be from now on".

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics