'Would you spend an MP's expenses?' poll discussion

Former_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

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

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_2

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!!!!

gravitytolls wrote: »

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

kazwookie wrote: »

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".