Forums

Posted: 02-11-2012 15:55 Post subject:

I too despise successful people and those deliberately born into wealthy families.

Posted: 02-11-2012 16:08 Post subject:

Posted: 15-11-2012 09:14 Post subject:

John Bercow and his bullies bring shame on our Parliament
The Speaker is leading an ambush by MPs of the body set up to control their expenses
By Peter Oborne
9:11PM GMT 14 Nov 2012

Incredibly, a largish proportion of MPs are still unable to accept that they did anything wrong in the expenses scandal. Privately they maintain that the Telegraph was at fault for revealing the story – and not the parliamentarians themselves for their greedy and (in many cases) criminal conduct.

This state of denial first became obvious with the election of John Bercow as Commons Speaker, after Michael Martin was obliged to resign. Several untainted MPs put themselves up for election, of whom the most admirable was Richard Shepherd. But the Commons made an extraordinary public statement when it elected Bercow, one of the most notorious expenses claimants, as Mr Martin’s successor.

The Buckinghamshire MP had “flipped” the designation of his main and second homes between London and his constituency, and designated each as his main home at the time he sold it. This meant he paid no capital gains tax on either sale. When the facts came out, Bercow insisted he had done nothing wrong. He announced, nevertheless, that he would “voluntarily” pay the sum of £6,508 plus interest to the Inland Revenue, reflecting the tax which he could have been required to pay in respect of the sale of one of the two houses.

In ordinary life, this kind of behaviour would have been regarded with disgust, and disqualified him from responsible office. In the House of Commons, by contrast, Bercow’s greed and amorality presented no impediment to one of the highest, and in theory the most honourable, offices in the land. The identity of the present Commons Speaker symbolises the fact that the Commons, as an institution, still feels zero contrition for the moral squalor and criminality of the expenses scandal.

Such was the enormity of the wrongdoing, and the scale of public anger, that Bercow and his fellow MPs had no choice but to hand over the management of their finances to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). But they bitterly resent the scrutiny that has resulted, and the need to place their expenses claims before Ipsa for authorisation.

Right from the moment that Ipsa was created, just over two years ago, Bercow has tolerated a series of vicious and unscrupulous assaults on the expenses watchdog. Ipsa staff have been abused and intimidated – one was even reduced to tears when subjected to a foul-mouthed personal attack by Denis MacShane, who was this month finally obliged to resign his Rotherham seat because of his fraudulent expenses claims.

Another Labour MP, Ann Clwyd, accused, under parliamentary privilege, a member of Ipsa staff, who has since left the organisation, of leaking details of MPs’ expenses to the press. This attack was especially low grade because, as Ms Clwyd would have known, the official in question was in no position to answer back. There is no evidence that Speaker Bercow has ever rebuked Ms Clwyd for this cowardly attack. Her allegation was never proved. Unsavoury practices are returning to the Commons, as a Channel 4 Dispatches film, to be screened shortly I believe, will reveal.

Meanwhile, Bercow allowed the full machinery of the House of Commons to be deployed in an effort to scrutinise Ipsa and cause it embarrassment. Over the past two years this tiny organisation has been subjected to no fewer than five separate audits and parliamentary reviews. It has been examined by the public accounts committee, by the office of government commerce, by the committee on members’ expenses, and twice by the National Audit Office. Now, it goes without saying that Ipsa should not be exempt from scrutiny. The level of examination endured by the watchdog is, however, unprecedented for a body of its importance and size. It amounts to repeated and deliberate harassment.

Yesterday, Ipsa cracked. Four of its five board members are leaving, reportedly concerned about the meddling by Bercow. These are all serious and respected people, including a former high court judge, Sir Scott Baker, who carried out the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Professor Isobel Sharp, who has served on the UK’s Accounting Standards Board.

The Ipsa four are victims of a power grab engineered by Bercow. Ever since the regulatory body was set up two years ago, his MPs have been determined to reclaim the right to govern their own affairs that they were forced to cede in the wake of the expenses scandal.

etc...

It is time that David Cameron intervened personally to bring a halt to the Speaker’s outrageous plan to diminish Ipsa – or before long he, too, will be discredited by this sordid and unpleasant affair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9678200/John-Bercow-and-his-bullies-bring-shame-on-our-Parliament.html

Truly shameful. Evil or Very Mad

Posted: 16-11-2012 10:36 Post subject:

Pity we have no recommend button. They just don't get it. Do they really think the letter of the law (or the letter of the rules, in this case) is the only arbiter of moral and civilised behaviour? If so, how dare they whine on about tax avoidance?

Posted: 19-11-2012 09:03 Post subject:

More MPs bill taxpayer for rent as they let out their homes
At least 32 MPs have been found to be claiming rent for second homes on their expenses while simultaneously letting out property nearby, an investigation reveals.
By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent
10:00PM GMT 18 Nov 2012

The MPs, including former Cabinet ministers, are claiming expenses of up to £20,000 a year each for rent, as well as receiving money from properties that were often bought and refurbished with taxpayer assistance.
Last month it was disclosed that 27 MPs were letting out their second homes while charging the taxpayer for renting another property.

Tonight’s Channel 4’s Dispatches programme found five more — three MPs who were carrying out the practice in London and another two who were renting and letting properties in their constituencies.

The MPs now found to be renting out homes in London are: John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the culture, media and sport committee, the Tory MP Mark Pritchard and John Denham, a former Labour cabinet minister.
Labour’s Michael Meacher was also found by Dispatches to have moved out of his home in Oldham to rent a new property, while Pat McFadden, a Labour former minister, did the same in Wolverhampton.

The rules of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) state that “members of Parliament must not exploit the system for personal financial advantage”.
The MPs insist they have done nothing wrong, and were forced to act by new Ipsa rules banning claims for mortgage interest payments from the end of August.

The full details will be disclosed by the authority today when it publishes names of the landlords of more than 300 MPs, defying the wishes of John Bercow, the Speaker.
Officials from Ipsa have worked through the weekend to get the information published today. Some of the names of the MPs’ landlords have been redacted for security reasons, sources told The Daily Telegraph.

The list will also give the names of another four MPs who are either letting properties to or renting from another MP, that effectively allows them to build up property nest-eggs at taxpayers’ expense.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686861/More-MPs-bill-taxpayer-for-rent-as-they-let-out-their-homes.html

Dispatches — MPs: Are They Still At It? is on Monday at 8pm on Channel 4.

Posted: 19-11-2012 12:34 Post subject:

I'm not sure this is "MPs at it again" so much as unintended consequences from the change in the rules barring claims for mortgage interest payments. It might have been more sensible to allow existing arrangements to continue but place a ban on new claims for mortgages.

In essence the whole system is broken and a more sensible approach would be to pay MPs a significantly higher salary and then let them decide how to spend it - ie if they want to sleep on a friend's sofa and bank the cash that's up to them, if they want to push the boat out on a nice flat somewhere that's also their call. This won't happen of course because of the media sh*tfit that would follow such a change so we will continue to have these dreary articles and programmes.

Posted: 10-05-2013 08:39 Post subject:

Twenty MPs pocket up to £180,000 each on taxpayer-funded second homes
Almost 20 ministers and MPs have pocketed up to £180,000 each after selling their taxpayer-funded second homes for a profit.
By Steven Swinford, and Rowena Mason
9:50PM BST 09 May 2013

The MPs have jointly made more than £1 million by selling their second homes, and under parliamentary rules they are entitled to keep the money.
The scale of their windfall was disclosed for the first time in figures released by the parliamentary watchdog today, and prompted accusations that MPs were making a personal profit from taxpayers' money.

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, handed all the profit he made on the sale of his second home to House of Commons authorities in 2011.
Sources close to Mr Clegg said the Liberal Democrat leader believed it was the "right thing to do", although it is largely up to MPs to decide whether they want to do the same.

Martin Bell, the former MP who has campaigned for greater transparency, said that MPs should repay any profit they make on the properties.
He said: "It's an open and shut case, of course they should pay it back. There is the spirit of the law, why are they making a personal profit from allowances which they receive from the taxpayer? In this case they very clearly are." However one MP said that as he was not required to pay the money back he would not be doing so. Another said that she had used the money to reduce the mortgage on her family home, while a third said he was investing his profit for his grandchildren.

A total of 29 MPs have been asked to repay profits made since 2010, under new rules that came into effect after the expenses scandal, according to figures published by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Only one of them, Stewart Jackson, a Conservative MP, refused to repay the money. He is now being sued by the expenses watchdog for the £54,000.
He disputes the claim and says Ipsa has been "heavy handed". He also claims that his property has actually fallen in value since he bought it.

Under the previous expenses regime MPs were able to claim mortgage payments, furnishings, stamp duty, legal fees and other costs on their second homes.

Following the formation of Ipsa in May 2010, the watchdog moved to ban the use of Commons expenses to pay mortgage interest, in the wake of public fury over the expenses scandal.

Transitional arrangements meant MPs elected before 2010 could keep claiming the money until last August as long as they agreed to return any profits they made if they sold a taxpayer funded residence. The rules state MPs are only required to hand back profits made on their properties between May 2010 and August 2012.

The requirement means that MPs whose homes have been funded by the taxpayer for years have to return only a small amount of the profit. Ipsa today disclosed that a total of 19 MPs sold their homes between 2010 and 2012.

David Gauke, the Tory Exchequer Secretary, made a £67,000 profit from the sale of his flat in Kennington, south London, but has only been asked to repay £26,762.
His main home is in Chorleywood, Herts, which is a 45-minute commute to London. Mr Gauke bought his Kennington flat in 2007 for £285,000, and claimed more than £13,000 in mortgage interest between 2010 and 2012.
He sold the flat in August last year for £352,000. A spokesman said he had "abided by the rules" at all times. Mr Gauke previously said it was "morally wrong" to pay tradesmen cash-in-hand.

Lorely Burt, chair manof the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party, has claimed expenses against her flat in Victoria, central London, since she bought it for £380,000 in 2005.
She sold the property for £560,000 in 2010, having made a £180,000 profit. She has not been asked to pay any of the money back to Ipsa, because the profit did not relate to the 2010-12 period.

She said her decision to keep the repayment was within the rules and justified by the "large amount" of her own money she spent buying the property. Mrs Burt said she used the profit to reduce the mortgage of her family home in Solihull.
She said the mortgage repayments were the[n] cheaper than the cost of the hotel she now stays in while in London.

Malcolm Bruce, a Liberal Democrat MP, made £111,000 on the sale of his home in Kennington, south London, in 2010, and has not been required to pay any of the money back.
He said: "I'm not required [to give it back]. I paid the capital gains tax and that's the end of it. I also invested a lot of my own money over the 20 odd years."

Ronnie Campbell, a Labour MP, made £90,000 on the sale of his Kennington flat in 2011.
"I have invested it for my grandkids. That [money] is mine, that's mine, I put a £15,000 deposit down on that flat. We did make a profit, properties do go up [in value], but it's mine."

He said that his mortgage payments were signicantly cheaper to the taxpayer than renting a flat, as he does now. He said: "By throwing me out on the British streets like a dog in the night, the taxpayer has lost a lot of money.

Angela Smith, shadow deputy leader of the house, made a £170,000 profit and was asked to repay just £8,496. She said she had "co-operated fully with the IPSA" and "repaid monies without question or delay".

Hazel Blears, Labour MP for Salford and a former Cabinet minister, made a £120,000 profit when she sold her London home for £420,000 in 2010.
She said she had only claimed against the property for six months and had paid £13,000 in capital gains tax which she did not need to.

Alan Whitehead, another Labour MP, made an £89,400 profit when he sold his London home last year. He said he had put a large amount of his own money into the property and that the mortgage had been 50 per cent of the purchase price.
He said: "By the time we entered into the age of IPSA, the mortgage was 21 per cent of the value of the property, and the [capital gains] repayment reflected that."

All of the MPs would have been expected to pay capital gains tax on the sales.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10047884/Twenty-MPs-pocket-up-to-180000-each-on-taxpayer-funded-second-homes.html

Posted: 10-05-2013 09:00 Post subject:

Being an MP is strictly a rich man's game. Hurrah! for Eton.

Posted: 11-05-2013 09:35 Post subject:

Following the big expenses scandal the other year, I felt that at least 50 MPs justified sacking - without a pay-off, because no-one else would get one if sacked for fraud and theft - and of those, 10-20 should have gone to jail. As it was, what happened? 3-4 jail sentences, and were any actually kicked out on their arses? Of course, then, it is no surprise that stuff like this still goes on.

Assuming that half of the sitting MPs are up to their necks in this trough-slurping orgy of greed, why don't we just keep the other half? I can't see why this nation couldn't survive with only 300 or so MPs.

Posted: 13-05-2013 13:35 Post subject:

Posted: 20-05-2013 19:43 Post subject:

I personally think that many folk are incredibly naive in that morality and "what is fundamentally fair" matters anything to politicians, of any party.

During the past Expenses Scandal - which has now gone down the pan in public awareness like the newspapers which filled their pages with it - the common cry was "We've done nothing wrong - it's all legal".
And, of course, nothing will change this perfectly legal situation since those that make the laws, abuse them.

Posted: 28-05-2013 12:41 Post subject:

Yeah !! What Stormy Said with bells on.....

Posted: 29-05-2013 11:33 Post subject:

I previously suggested (and was mocked by some) that the issue of second homes in London for MP's could be easily resolved and be fairer to the public purse, if the government bought property or built a secure residential building and let out said properties to MP's. The MP would be given an allowance to redecorate when he/she takes over a property. It would be furnished, again based on a strictly controlled budget. If they want a 60 inch plasma TV, then thats for their own pocket.

If someone doesn't want to live there, then give them a set allowance, and they can use it as they see fit to go towards a property of their choice. However, if they buy, and the property has risen in value, then they only get back any monies made above and beyond the allowance paid, and the allowance is repaid to the treasury.

One of my detractors said something like how ridiculous the security issues would be, but then we have Soldiers housed all in one readily identifiable building, we have trainee Police officers all housed together and so on. On the plus side for security, it's easier to watch over a group of people in one building, than to consider hundreds scattered across a city the size of London.

Posted: 29-05-2013 13:22 Post subject:

Although I think security would be an issue - that number of legislators in one place would attract the crazies looking for a spectacular in the way that a single MP living quietly in a residental street would not - I do think that the provision of grace and favour apartments of this sort is probably the way to go. There is no political will to increase MPs' salaries to a level where they could easily afford accommodation in zones 1 or 2 and the expenses/allowances system is wholly discredited. The security issue could perhaps be addressed by having a number of flats in various places rather than them all in the same place.

As you say though, we manage to protect other terrorist targets such as airports and embassies so I'm sure it's not beyond the will of man to do something similar for a building of MPs.

Posted: 10-06-2013 20:38 Post subject:

Many wealthy folk, celebrities etc. manage to live in highly secure houses - usually in rural areas - and gated communities, so security is hardly an issue. We're not talking about bunging them all in a block of flats in East London here (though this appeals to me) but well-built housing with security.

Keep 'em all in one place and it's easier to keep secure. Until, of course, they decide they want to stay the night at their lover's gaff.