Home » Forums

[MSE Lawrence]

Poll between 23-30 march 2009:

Would you spend an MPs expenses?

Recently, a number of MPs have had ‘exposes’ done on their expenses claims. Yet often it's within the letter if not the spirit of the rules.

At £63,000, their salaries are above average, but substantially lower than big business bosses get. See the full MP's pay and allowances rules.

If you were an MP, which of these is closest to what you’d do? (Be honest)

A. Use every available allowance to supplement my salary if possible. 29% (2206 votes)
B. Spend when I need to, but not push the limit. 42% (3249 votes)
C. Try to minimise claims, it's public money. 29% (2261 votes)

Voting has now closed, but you can stilll click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

Enter e-mail to get it:   View Past Emails, FAQ Privacy Policy

[teddyco]

I put B......use it with discretion so it doesn't get taken away

[gravitytolls]

I was honest, I chose A. If I was an MP, or any public servant, I would be cocooned within a culture that not only saw nothing wrong with claiming the available allowances, but ositively encouraged it.

[Deals]

another job like in the private sector. i am sure there are enough people who would be happy with their salaries!!!! they are not that indispensable . wonder what others think? dont think they are more intelligent than others or anything like that. they dont consult the public enough on decisions any way as i think a lot of people in the public have a lot of great ideas! they now want a £100,000 salary!!!
they make the ordinary citizen pay back any debts etc but they seem to get away with it. so it really is one law for them and one law for the others. not surprised that they are probably loads of innocent people in jail too!!!!

Originally Posted by gravitytolls

I was honest, I chose A. If I was an MP, or any public servant, I would be cocooned within a culture that not only saw nothing wrong with claiming the available allowances, but ositively encouraged it.

[rickbonar]

£63,000 a year is too much for what they do.

Similar with Doctors and Lawyers, ... it's no wonder the public are fed up with the greed and the grasping.

As for big business ... it's fine to take whatever you earn as a percentage of the profits as long as it's your own business, but what narks me is the businesses such as the water companies, gas, banks etc.. where it essentially is either a monopoly or where the MD is a salaried employee.

Take Fred Goodwin as an example we're all familiar with.. a man under whose stewardship led it's company into the record books.. Record books for the biggest financial loss in British history for a company.

Now why wasn't he on pay that was profit related?
He isn't the only one though, he only came to attention by chance. Does anyone remember when Railtrack and the MD Gerald Corbett we're taken to court for corporate manslaughter over the Hatfield train derailment. (caused by cutting back on the rail maintenance).
Corbett was never charged and left with a substantial pension and payoff.

This has been happening for a long time.

[benood]

I'd be terrified of being mauled by the media - C

[kazwookie]

Honest is A

MP's have been at it for years, (fiddling their expenses, that is) I would guess, and now people are asking how, what and why, they are spending this money it is all coming out in the open.

But while the 'rules' no doubt set by themselves allow it to be claimed for ,they are going to claim for it, they should all be made to go by public transport / live in small flats etc.

Reminds me of the Lord Someone or other, who spent something like £165 per ROLL of wallpaper for his office, what is wrong with a tub of emulsion paint??

[Gordon the Moron]

Not sure whether to vote for A or B.

Probably nearer to B for me, I would not claim for something I didn't use as that would be fraud and I would not claim for something just for the sake of using the allowance if I didn't need it.

That said I wouldn't feel bad about claiming for everything I could if it was of use to me, to me the problem is not with the MPs making the claims but the fact that they can claim for things they shouldn't be able to.

I doubt I'd use the allowances up to their maximum as I would still spend like it was my own money, so would not spend £165 per roll on wallpaper or do anything else outrageously extravagant like that.

[rickbonar]

Originally Posted by kazwookie

Honest is A

MP's have been at it for years, (fiddling their expenses, that is) I would guess, and now people are asking how, what and why, they are spending this money it is all coming out in the open.

But while the 'rules' no doubt set by themselves allow it to be claimed for ,they are going to claim for it, they should all be made to go by public transport / live in small flats etc.

Reminds me of the Lord Someone or other, who spent something like £165 per ROLL of wallpaper for his office, what is wrong with a tub of emulsion paint??

It was Lord Falconer the previous Lord Chancellor appointed by Tony Blair.

They claimed they would be whiter than white when they came to power yet 12 years on they are just about as corrupt and full of lies as people like Archer, Hamilton, Aitken, Gummer etc were in the previous conservative government.

[dragon1945]

I get pretty angry about MP's expenses which are more than I get for my state pension, which is supposed to cover everything. On top of this they get to vote in their own salary increases.
When I had an Expense Account I had to present receipts for every item claimed. I even had the cost of a bottle of spring water refused because I could have had a glass of free tap water with my meal when entertaining a client. His £45 bottle of wine was accepted unremarked !
My State Pension is going up by less than £6 a week. That won't cover the increases in rent and Council Tax, let alone food, clothing and essentials. They should stop paying percentage increases. 5% of their salary is a tidy sum. 5% on £103 isn't enough to cover the bills.
Last year the increases on my State Pension and Widow's fund totalled £330 p.a. I could have managed on that. However my Income Tax doubled and went up by £245, leaving me with £85 or £1.63 a week to cover all of the swingeing increases in electricity, gas and food. I did get , finally, £120 of that back as a Tax Rebate, but still paid £125 more in Tax than the year before. Instead of losing 10% of my pensions increases in Tax, I now lose 20%. The cost of living percentage rise did not take this into account when the pension rise was calculated.

[pennypinchUK]

I voted A.

Any MP who knowingly breaks the rules is, frankly, a fool. Especially in these times of increased scrutiny. Any MP who manipulates their expenses away from the spirit of the rules had better be ready to defend themselves and suffer the consequences if they can't. For instance, our current Home Secretary should be shamed from office for her gross misuse of public funds, even if she's not actually broken the rules.

However, I'm probably one of the few people who think MP's salaries are too low. But think about it for a moment. They effectively have fixed term contracts of a maximum of 5 years, so their security of employment is low. Also, and crucially, despite many Pay Review Boards recommending larger salaries for MP's their salaries have been pegged back for political expediency for many years. So many MP's use their allowances to supplement their income. Okay, so £63,291 a year is a lot of money in most people's eyes but few people receive as much scrutiny in their job as MP's do. And the good ones work hard for it. But a lot actually don't have anything to do. If you're a back bencher you don't have a formal role - you're just voting fodder.

There are far too many MP's in Parliament. Currently there are 646 MP's in the UK Parliament. (Also there are a huge number of Scottish MP's and Welsh Assembly members, County Councils, District Councils, Parish Councils, the House of Lords and European MP's, so we are overwhelmed by representation.) In comparison, the USA, with a substantially bigger population has 100 Senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives, with a comparatively small State Senate structure, etc.

So we should reduce the number of MP's to roughly 250. MP's should each have a role, as in industry. We should pay our MP's a comparable rate for their role against a similar role in industry, without all the flimsy allowances. That should be balanced by the massively generous pension scheme they get (and the allowance they receive if they lose their seat at an election).

After all, as George Bernard Shaw said, "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Or, as my mother would say, "You get what you pay for".

[The old un]

Lets start with what an MP is a person you have elected to do your bidding.
Unfortunately once the get in power they forget that we are people they are meant to be working for.
Reasonable expenses are acceptable but when you can claim the same expense each year i.e. a new kitchen then it is time for a reality check.
Being an MP is not a charter to rip off the public and line your own pockets.
lets have a full open public review of the expenses and remove the loop holes and save money and while we are at it lets change the cars that are used to ferry people around to electric from jaguars.

[Saucepot]

If I was an MP I would not be undone by financial scandals and play it cautious. My ambition would not be undone by money. I'd be the next PM placing myself as the natural leader of the party. I'd be more concerned about sex scandals and ensure my affairs were with female MP's that had as much to lose, rather than researchers.

Labour are always undone by money scandals, the Tories by sex. Tis the way of it.

Working class MP's are attracted to an easy quid, public school boys to a spanking from a leather clad wh0re. As labour have there share of public school sorts and the Tories let anyone in these days, there is bound to be crossovers, but by and large money corrupts labour and sex corrupts the tories.

The liberals are to busy being spit roasted by rent boys or getting drunk, to attain power.

[de la fox]

Thats the reason they have that job in the first place because they know they can milk it to the extreme , the expenses are so high because they were refused a massive pay rise a few years ago . I have to pay to get to and from work , if I fancy a coffee , I again pay for it so why should this all be allowed in expenses .

2nd homes allowance - They should all stay in their own constituencies and their 2nd homes should in the form of halls of residents similar to student accommodation . Save millions of £££££££££££££££££££££££.

Problem solved - I thank you.

[Sami_Bee]

Originally Posted by kazwookie

Honest is A

MP's have been at it for years, (fiddling their expenses, that is) I would guess, and now people are asking how, what and why, they are spending this money it is all coming out in the open.

But while the 'rules' no doubt set by themselves allow it to be claimed for ,they are going to claim for it, they should all be made to go by public transport / live in small flats etc.

Reminds me of the Lord Someone or other, who spent something like £165 per ROLL of wallpaper for his office, what is wrong with a tub of emulsion paint??

I remeber that - i beleive it was because it was for a listed home or something so had to be in keeping.
I think i managed to get paper for my kitchen/diner,stairway and landing for that much in total tho!

I chose B although maybe if I was the type to me an MP then I would be the type to chose A

[LondonDiva]

Originally Posted by gravitytolls

I was honest, I chose A. If I was an MP, or any public servant, I would be cocooned within a culture that not only saw nothing wrong with claiming the available allowances, but ositively encouraged it.

I take some exception to this.

Having worked in a variety of public sector organisations, we have ALWAYS had to present receipts for everyitem you claim and have it signed off by your line manager who would have to justify the purpose of the expense on demand.

I think it is incredible that until recently MPs didn't have to produce a receipt for items and even now if the item is under £250 can get it reimbursed without a receipt. When it comes up, they point to the honorable part of their title and say it's insulting to be closely questioned! Welcome to the world in which the rest of the world lived in. Can you imagine the Treasury's response to a company unable to produce itemised receipts for that proportion of payments to employees?

I went to a training day where I spent the whole day training clinicians etc and then lost my receipt for the train journey. Even though I had handouts and evaluations to support the fact I had been there and for work purposes, it was only signed off by the director after I explained what had happened face to face.

It's one rule for MPs and their cronies and the rest of the public sector get tarred with the same brush. I have brought in supplies from home at times because we phased out petty cash and it's too much hassle to print off an expense form and wait till the end of the month to get money back for 4 batteries.

[sh856531]

Originally Posted by de la fox

Thats the reason they have that job in the first place because they know they can milk it to the extreme , the expenses are so high because they were refused a massive pay rise a few years ago . I have to pay to get to and from work , if I fancy a coffee , I again pay for it so why should this all be allowed in expenses .

2nd homes allowance - They should all stay in their own constituencies and their 2nd homes should in the form of halls of residents similar to student accommodation . Save millions of £££££££££££££££££££££££.

Problem solved - I thank you.

> Thats the reason they have that job in the first place because they know they can milk it to the extreme

Proof?

> the expenses are so high because they were refused a massive pay rise a few years ago

Proof?

I bet half the people on this board have never even met a politician -nevermind actually gone to parliament to see what they do on a day to day basis.

The media sure does a good job of whipping the chattering masses into a frenzy...

S

[SirGoodKnightIn]

If you are honest you wouldn't be an MP!!!
The only answer befitting these Pinnochios is A. I've had the misfortune to sit with these jokers in committees in the Palace of Westminster. If you asked how they were they would look to their political advisers as to how to answer.
Too few (possibly as few as two) MPs enter Parliament as a career break to serve their fellow man. The herd (or flock) enter Parliament by being parachuted into their seat by their party with no natural business, cultural, family, educational connection to their constituency. They enter politics as a means to serve their party and serve their bank balance and nothing else. The educated ones think "vocation" is a typo for holiday.

Don't get me started on the illusion of democracy with or tracable ballot papers but never a vote on who our political masters are to be.

Any of you who think an MP could answer the question truthfully other than A is either seriously misguided, seriously misrepresented or seriously naive.

[SirGoodKnightIn]

Why should MPs get an allowance for loosing their seat. Or for that matter a minister for loosing or giving up or being sacked from their post. I thought the new mantra was "No reward for failure"

[veloo]

Originally Posted by MSE Lawrence

At £63,000, their salaries are above average, but substantially lower than big business bosses get.

So, are you trying to justify that the MPs are right to overinflate their expenses, because their salaries are "substantially lower than big business bosses"??? It is stupid to compare an MPs salary with the "big business bosses". If MPs wants to make that kind of money, they shouldn't be in public service.

Go become a banker! At least you won't be squirelling off the tax-payers.