Another Labour nose in the trough

chewmylegoff

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

technically you are right. but hang on a minute, he's an MP. he's serving the public. he has a duty to not play the expenses system to make sure he makes as much profit as possible from the expenses system, but instead to claim what he honestly requires (which in this case was £60,000 less than what he did claim). he has chosen to be an MP, no-one made him do it. he knew what it would entail, i.e. having to go to westminster.

the example he is setting is "line your own pockets, any way you can". his behaviour is disingenuous at best.

the system needs to be reformed. i wonder how many other MPs (of all parties) are doing this - probably just the tip of the iceberg. if they can't be trusted to approach the situation with integrity, then it's time to close the loopholes and introduce a properly audited, invoice-backed expenses system with a capped total. perhaps then some of these charlatans who are only in it for personal enrichment will at least bog off to brussels.

StevieJ

Wookster wrote: »

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.

Change the rules then, questions of morality are always going to be subjective :rolleyes:

Generali

Under the UK Parliamentary system you have a representative from your constituency.

Do you want a representative who follows rules to the letter whilst gaming the system to maximise his/her benefit or someone who applies his moral code and acts accordingly?

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

Under the UK Parliamentary system you have a representative from your constituency.

Do you want a representative who follows rules to the letter whilst gaming the system to maximise his/her benefit or someone who applies his moral code and acts accordingly?

This is the concern about voting the way I want to now on party issues in my area.

StevieJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

technically you are right. but hang on a minute, he's an MP. he's serving the public. he has a duty to not play the expenses system to make sure he makes as much profit as possible from the expenses system, but instead to claim what he honestly requires (which in this case was £60,000 less than what he did claim). he has chosen to be an MP, no-one made him do it. he knew what it would entail, i.e. having to go to westminster.

the example he is setting is "line your own pockets, any way you can". his behaviour is disingenuous at best.

It happens in private entereprises as well:rolleyes: I would be quite happy if our MP's simply never comitted illegal acts e.g. bribery and corruption. without trying to make them into some kind of sainthood

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

Do you want a representative who follows rules to the letter whilst gaming the system to maximise his/her benefit or someone who applies his moral code and acts accordingly?

I think we know the answer to that: as long as its a Labour MP the're free to game on, but not any MP from any other party :rolleyes:

MissMoneypenny

vivatifosi wrote: »

I found a chart showing all of the 133 MPs in the South East who claim expenses

Crayford and Dartford next door to each other.

Bexleyheath and Crayford - David Evennett (Tory), nil

Dartford - Howard Stoate (Labour), £68,446

MissMoneypenny

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.

Don't MPs say they don't have to submit receipts as they regard themselves as honourable people?

Reaper

You have to remember in January Brown tried to issue a 3 line whip to force through a measure to exclude MPs expenses from the Freedom of Information Act. Story here.

So much for Labour's belief in Open Government. Thank goodness we can still name and shame the guilty.

EDIT: P.S. Thankfully it didn't go through in the end when the support Brown thought he was getting from the other 2 parties failed to materialise, probably due to campaigns by the public.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

It happens in private entereprises as well:rolleyes: I would be quite happy if our MP's simply never comitted illegal acts e.g. bribery and corruption. without trying to make them into some kind of sainthood

I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that non-MPs being horrid means that MPs can behave any-old-how.