MP's expenses (a question to Americans)

[Pedronicus]

Has your insular coverage of world news, informed you of the biggest political story ever to come out of Westminster?

It's the biggest news story in Britain and has been for a couple of weeks.

[thegreekdog]

I'm American. I'm educated. I read some world news. I know nothing about who MP is and what his or her expenses are.

If you could post a link, that'd be great.

[Frigidus]

I did hear something about it, but I don't know the specifics. Isn't it basically politicians spending taxpayer money on stupid bullshit like maid service?

[thegreekdog]

I did hear something about it, but I don't know the specifics. Isn't it basically politicians spending taxpayer money on stupid bullshit like maid service?

Yeah, because that kind of thing never happens in the US...

[Frigidus]

I did hear something about it, but I don't know the specifics. Isn't it basically politicians spending taxpayer money on stupid bullshit like maid service?

Yeah, because that kind of thing never happens in the US...

I think it was less about the act and more the amount squandered...of course I only heard about it in passing.

[jonesthecurl]

It's not just the sums involved - but the things the MPs are claiming for.

The Members of Parliament are allowed, legitimately, to claim money for the fact that, in order to carry out their duties, they may need two homes. The taxpayer is (reasonably) asked to help defray the expense of the "extra" home. However, many were redefining which was the "extra" home at regular intervals - if they need home A redecorated, that is the "extra" home. But if they need repairs on home B, suddenly that becomes the "extra" one. Some of the things that were being claimed for would boggle you. (Cleaning the moat?). The voting public's main problem with this is that it's bloody well cheating, and the response from most political figures was not initially "string 'em up!" but "well, yes, we should define the rules better".

[Frigidus]

It's not just the sums involved - but the things the MPs are claiming for.

The Members of Parliament are allowed, legitimately, to claim money for the fact that, in order to carry out their duties, they may need two homes. The taxpayer is (reasonably) asked to help defray the expense of the "extra" home. However, many were redefining which was the "extra" home at regular intervals - if they need home A redecorated, that is the "extra" home. But if they need repairs on home B, suddenly that becomes the "extra" one. Some of the things that were being claimed for would boggle you. (Cleaning the moat?). The voting public's main problem with this is that it's bloody well cheating, and the response from most political figures was not initially "string 'em up!" but "well, yes, we should define the rules better".

Yeah, the moat cleaning. That was the over the top one. Completely outrageous. And isn't that sort of thing practiced by most of Parliament?

[oVo]

Yes... saw it awhile back. Has it gotten worse and are heads beginning to roll?

[DAZMCFC]

the best one must be the MP's husband who rented out 2 porno's and she claimed the money back.

[Minister Masket]

The irony is that people still can't decide which is worse. Claiming for big things like the aforementioned moat cleaning, or tiny things like biscuits.

[jonesthecurl]

The worst thing, I think, is that they justified it to themselves by saying "We're not breaking the rules, and anyway everyone else does it". it's a peculiar sort of honesty that looks for ways to max a system that is there to help them do their job.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, this kind of thing happens in the US all the time. I think it's gotten to the point where people just don't worry about it anymore because it's so prevelant. Kind of like swine flu.

[jonesthecurl]

The worst thing, I think, is that they justified it to themselves by saying "We're not breaking the rules, and anyway everyone else does it". it's a peculiar sort of honesty that looks for ways to max a system that is there to help them do their job.

...like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8073531.stm

[Pedronicus]

For those not up to speed, here is a link to wiki that is a long read, but sums up all that lead to the expose and who has been caught, for what, so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure ... Parliament

For those who don't want to read through the above link, here is a précis

In January 2005, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force, allowing members of the public to request disclosure of information from public bodies. One such request was made by journalist and freedom of information campaigner Heather Brooke, who asked for details of the expenses claimed by certain MPs to be released.

In January 2009, Harriet Harman, Leader of the House of Commons, tabled a motion which would exempt MPs' expenses from being disclosed under a Freedom of Information request, in order to prevent any further disclosure of information.

The proposals were ultimately dropped on 21 January 2009. The Commons authorities announced that full disclosure of all MPs’ expenses would be published on 1 July 2009

In the tax year 2007-2008, MPs' costs of staying away from their main homes was limited to £23,083

An insider got hold of a copy of the data and The Daily Telegraph bought it from the insider.

The Information on this disc runs into approx. 2 million documents and isn't in any sort of alphabetical order to aid anyone looking through it. The Telegraph have had 25 journalists trawling through the information since they obtained it 3 weeks ago.

I'll let others post some of the more outlandish claims that have made the British public bristle with outrage, as we soldier on through the worst recession since the 30's

[Snorri1234]

The worst thing, I think, is that they justified it to themselves by saying "We're not breaking the rules, and anyway everyone else does it". it's a peculiar sort of honesty that looks for ways to max a system that is there to help them do their job.

...like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8073531.stm

Yeah, the worst things is the "so?"-attitude of some MPs. Like they honestly can't see the problem with it.

[jonesthecurl]

The worst thing, I think, is that they justified it to themselves by saying "We're not breaking the rules, and anyway everyone else does it". it's a peculiar sort of honesty that looks for ways to max a system that is there to help them do their job.

...like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8073531.stm

Yeah, the worst things is the "so?"-attitude of some MPs. Like they honestly can't see the problem with it.

I think that's so. I mean this guy has gotten a flat (no doubt decorated, furnished, etc with expenses) to do his job. No problem so far.
Then he gives the flat rent-free to a family member, and claims the rent for another flat which he pays to another family member. And cannot see why people think this is dodgy.

[thegreekdog]

This is pretty ridiculous.

What makes it even more ridiculous are: (1) The problem is government and the solution is goverment... therefore, how certain can you Brits be that any of this will be solved; (2) In the US Congress members are paid in excess of $100K, which, by my standards, is good money; so, why do these people need reimbursed expenses at all... especially reimbursements from taxpayers who are making far less money than those that represent them.

Some ones that stood out as being particularly ridiculous on an individual basis (i.e. ignoring the whole "reimbursing them is wrong generally"): the secondary homes that were within 10-15 miles of the primary homes, the expense reimbursements for televisions, comic books, massage chairs and the like, and the flat out increased reimbursements for stuff that did not cost as much as was reimbursed.

Frankly, I wish they'd do this in the US. I guarantee you that most of Congress and the president pay for nothing out of their own pockets.

[Pedronicus]

and when eventually an MP decides 'I really took the piss, I'd better step down' they announce that they are going to step down at the next election, raking in even more salary, bumping up their pension pot, ripping the piss out of the expenses till the bitter end.. but more importantly

They are just watering down the effectivness of Government. Lame ducks with no reason to be in the Houses of Parliament.

[thegreekdog]

and when eventually an MP decides 'I really took the piss, I'd better step down' they announce that they are going to step down at the next election, raking in even more salary, bumping up their pension pot, ripping the piss out of the expenses till the bitter end.. but more importantly

They are just watering down the effectivness of Government. Lame ducks with no reason to be in the Houses of Parliament.

So, generally speaking, what is the Brits' plans to ensure that these sorts of things don't happen again? Is there a heretofore unknown political party? Are they going to change the law? In other words, if the UDKIP (or whatever) party gets in, why wouldn't they do the same thing the outgoing party has done?

[bedub1]

I don't think politicians should be paid...AT ALL. It should be an All Volunteer job. No bonus's, no kickbacks, no expense accounts. Oh, and if you get caught stealing from the cookie jar, you are executed on the spot. no trial, no judge, no jury, just the executioner.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think politicians should be paid...AT ALL. It should be an All Volunteer job. No bonus's, no kickbacks, no expense accounts. Oh, and if you get caught stealing from the cookie jar, you are executed on the spot. no trial, no judge, no jury, just the executioner.

I think they should be paid and I think that their expenses relative to travel should be paid for by us. That's what a regular job would entail. My firm pays for my services and pays for my travel. They don't, however, pay for a maid, a cook, my comic books, or my subscription to CC. There's no need for someone make $150,000 a year to be reimbursed for costs for anything other than work related travel. Furthermore, there is absolutely NO reason why a representative should be paid for his or her time CAMPAIGNING FOR EFFING REELECTION!!! This annoys me more than anything else. These dudes and dudettes who take six months out of a year and campaign and still get paid by me for doing nothing in their capacity as a representative of me.

[Snorri1234]

and when eventually an MP decides 'I really took the piss, I'd better step down' they announce that they are going to step down at the next election, raking in even more salary, bumping up their pension pot, ripping the piss out of the expenses till the bitter end.. but more importantly

They are just watering down the effectivness of Government. Lame ducks with no reason to be in the Houses of Parliament.

So, generally speaking, what is the Brits' plans to ensure that these sorts of things don't happen again? Is there a heretofore unknown political party? Are they going to change the law? In other words, if the UDKIP (or whatever) party gets in, why wouldn't they do the same thing the outgoing party has done?

They will, they just promise they won't.

[barnabus]

The irony is that people still can't decide which is worse. Claiming for big things like the aforementioned moat cleaning, or tiny things like biscuits.

I doff my hat to you for raising the point.

Which is worse?

A person claiming 2nd-home mortgage allowances for a mortgage they've already paid off (totalling 16K pounds for one MP), or a person claiming the tiniest, most measly thing that they couldn't be asked to pay for with the change in their pocket?

Who do you hate more, petty theives or train robbers?

Well, at least train robbers have some romantic rebellion to their action - I've always believed that if you're going to take action, you've gotta go all in.

This is why I dislike the biscuit-claimers more.

[spurgistan]

I don't recall hearing about this before Pedro got angry about it in some thread, and I look it up. Guess you can chalk one up to insularity. Although (this might be a bit harsher than I intend it) this seems kinda like a UK-specific issue. Is it insular to not know things that aren't specifically relevant to my life in the United States? That's a question.

But yeah, this scandal is both interesting for it's scope and for the absolute indifferance of those in power to it. Last year I remember hearing something about Tina Fey the erstwhile Governor of Alaska charging some highly dubious expenses to the state. But that's the only thing that pops into my head like this on this side.

[thegreekdog]

I don't recall hearing about this before Pedro got angry about it in some thread, and I look it up. Guess you can chalk one up to insularity. Although (this might be a bit harsher than I intend it) this seems kinda like a UK-specific issue. Is it insular to not know things that aren't specifically relevant to my life in the United States? That's a question.

But yeah, this scandal is both interesting for it's scope and for the absolute indifferance of those in power to it. Last year I remember hearing something about Tina Fey the erstwhile Governor of Alaska charging some highly dubious expenses to the state. But that's the only thing that pops into my head like this on this side.

I would venture to say it's relevant to a US citizen because, if you did some digging, you will find that US politicians do the exact same thing, sometimes on a much larger scale. You can refer to my post above for some of my thoughts on this subject. Needless to say, it drives me to anger.