Another Labour nose in the trough

Wookster

McNulty: 'I have not broken expenses rules'

A Government minister today insisted that he has not broken House of Commons rules by claiming a parliamentary allowance to pay the mortgage on the house where his parents live.

Employment minister Tony McNulty said he would not return the estimated £60,000 he has received for the property in his Harrow East constituency since 2001/02, but confirmed that he has stopped claiming the second home allowance.

Mr McNulty said that he uses the house as a base two or three days a week while working in the constituency, and used to sleep there at weekends when he first entered Parliament.

But Conservatives questioned the claim, pointing out that Mr McNulty's constituency office where he holds regular weekly surgeries is less than two minutes' drive away and suggesting that he appears to visit the house only to see his parents.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mcnulty-i-have-not-broken-expenses-rules-1651467.html

Just disgusting!

vivatifosi

This really winds me up, we need to get the troughers out. Whether or not MPs can legally claim an allowance it is not morally correct and having MPs discussing the ethics of bankers when their own morality is questionable stinks.

I found a chart showing all of the 133 MPs in the South East who claim expenses in the Mail (sorry, I googled it and that's what paper up, you need to scroll down a bit to see the charts). Interesting to see that my local MP didn't claim anything (he's a pretty good MP too) whereas closer to London on the train the local MP felt the need to claw back not far short of £100k.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163792/Ministers-60-000-expenses-parents-home-Rumbled-Tony-McNulty-drops-claim--calls-curtailed.html#comments

StevieJ

If it is legal fine, If we don't like it change the rules :rolleyes: Simple as, if our MP votes against a rule change, vote him out.
Some call it democracy:D

vivatifosi

I agree Stevie, but visibility of the numbers is a relatively recent thing. I think that this will be a big issue at the next General Election, and its clearly not a party political thing either as all parties are guilty.

Can you imagine living in Croydon? The MP for Croydon North (Lab) claimed a bit over £9k in expenses, whereas the MP for the clearly much more difficult to get to Croydon South:rolleyes: (Tory) claimed just shy of £102k. But if you vote for the opposition you risk getting more Brown and Darling :eek:. Rock and hard place springs to mind.

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

I agree Stevie, but visibility of the numbers is a relatively recent thing. I think that this will be a big issue at the next General Election, and its clearly not a party political thing either as all parties are guilty.

Can you imagine living in Croydon? The MP for Croydon North (Lab) claimed a bit over £9k in expenses, whereas the MP for the clearly much more difficult to get to Croydon South:rolleyes: (Tory) claimed just shy of £102k. But if you vote for the opposition you risk getting more Brown and Darling :eek:. Rock and hard place springs to mind.

I'm in accord. I agree with Stevie, its legal,and therefore...our righteous indigation must have a limit, I also agree with you, its not 'right'. I personally feel a change in legislation is called for, and think it might eventually happen. What is considered commutable for other long hours London workers could be considered commutable for an MP, imo.

On the other hand, with the other scandal of employing family members, I think its harder. Often a marital partner is a good choice of colleague/employee. They want to make your life easier (hopefully) and are prepared, often, to put in unpaid hours to help, in in that case, offer very good value for money to the public too. I think that one is a harder one to police, personally.

kaya

we are all a bunch of spineless idiots in this country, we allow the people in power to abuse every privilige and do nothing about it, it's plain and simple benefit fraud, we need to completely restructure the way our country is run, how can we let these people make rules for us when they can't even govern there own behaviour

StevieJ

kaya wrote: »

we are all a bunch of spineless idiots in this country, we allow the people in power to abuse every privilige and do nothing about it, it's plain and simple benefit fraud, we need to completely restructure the way our country is run, how can we let these people make rules for us when they can't even govern there own behaviour

I thought fraud was illegal, might be wrong though

vivatifosi

I don't have a problem with the family members either lir. My biggest issue is with large expense bills that don't require a receipt. Pretty much everyone else in both the public and private sectors have to submit receipts, MPs should do the same. I just don't know how you get turkeys to vote for Christmas.

StevieJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the family members either lir. My biggest issue is with large expense bills that don't require a receipt. Pretty much everyone else in both the public and private sectors have to submit receipts, MPs should do the same. I just don't know how you get turkeys to vote for Christmas.

You don't tell them what is on the menu

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the family members either lir. My biggest issue is with large expense bills that don't require a receipt. Pretty much everyone else in both the public and private sectors have to submit receipts, MPs should do the same. I just don't know how you get turkeys to vote for Christmas.

LOL. People with morals do exist, I believe in a few in govenment. :eek::D. But, yes, I think for a majority of them a 'turkey vote' would be the issue. How I would do it if I were in a position to? I'd suggest very, very stringent, inflexible and indeed, unreasonable limits so that the more sensible proposals were a welcome alternative. Its not a bad thing to have representatives that feel fulfilled and fairly , indeed, well treated. Its a bad thing to have representatives who feel they are 'getting away' with a possibly unnecessary 'perk'. Perks are, again, not a bad thing, but they should feel like a perk, not a standard entitlement.

Wookster

StevieJ wrote: »

If it is legal fine, If we don't like it change the rules :rolleyes: Simple as, if our MP votes against a rule change, vote him out.
Some call it democracy:D

You're missing the point here. If McNulty's best defence is he didn't break the rules rather than that the second 'home' was infact a second home then he has already lost. Its like Fred's pension - how can Crash appeal to him to the 'right' thing when his boy has his nose in the trough. Both cases are legal but immoral.