Another MP in trouble?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by jkat

so u would vote for him then xac? its ok if he says "btw i'm paying my family out of your taxes for doing nothing because there are no rules, would u like me to put u on the payroll as well if u dont say anythin?" (hypothetically of course)

If he said "I'm paying people to do nothing" then no, but that isn't the case here, he paid his son to do some work, but the comittee believed it took fewer hours to do than what was paid for.

[jkat]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If he said "I'm paying people to do nothing" then no, but that isn't the case here, he paid his son to do some work, but the comittee believed it took fewer hours to do than what was paid for.

who makes up the committee?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Freezin, company execs waste millions each year, just look at NTL, and do you think they get punished with their massive bonuses and pensions?
No, in the real world of course they don't get punished.

Not the same thing. Company executives are not public servants elected and paid for by the taxpayer.

It doesn't appear he's actually broken any rules as there weren't any written, but the comittee disagreed with how he used the money, so are making him pay it back and suspended him for 10 days.

There is no honour left in politics if we can't trust our politicians to act with integrity because there are no rules. (And they are only making him pay a little of it back.)

Compare that with Hain, or those involved with other dodgy funding schemes of the government.

I did, rotten and rancid, like I said.

From today's Daily Telegraph:

For years, Derek Conway has joked privately to fellow Tory MPs about "Conway Family plc" being bankrolled by the taxpayer.

But those Tory MPs who laughed loudest no longer think the joke is funny, now it has emerged that the family - and a friend of their eldest son's - have received a mighty £1.5 million since 2001.

The rest of this scathing 3 page report, entitled "Derek Conway's head and shoulders in the trough", is here.

[Osem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7223828.stm

Another fine example........

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by freezin

Not the same thing. Company executives are not public servants elected and paid for by the taxpayer.

So why did you compare it to private business then in the first place?

[iglu]

It may have been posted before:Taxi bill and travel for Mrs Martin

But all this is very common with expenses accounts. How else can one afford 6 quid for a class of ordinary plonk?

How many times you forget the receipt and you cannot make a claim?

I was given a lot of *******ing for claiming for a usb charger for my mobile phone: I had to prove that I made no personal calls from the phone... I threw the claim away. And many more....

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So why did you compare it to private business then in the first place?

I compared what would have happened to me, and a hypothetical council employee, if we had stolen money from our employers. In all probability, we'd have been sacked and possibly faced criminal proceedings, unlike MPs.

What makes MPs so special?

[BBKing]

OT, but an interesting example of how expenses aren't always run very well.

A fairly senior manager in an unnamed firm needed to take a trip on Virgin Trains, and looked for the cheapest advance fare. Because the cheap Standard class tickets had all been sold, the cheapest available fare was First Class, with all the trimmings, so she bought that. On submitting the expense claim she was carpeted by a Finance Director for wasting the company's money on First Class rail travel, despite clearly having picked the cheapest ticket...

[punky]

The missus went on Virgin Trains the other day. The First Class ticket was cheaper than the economy one. seriously.

[iglu]

Yes, the First class problem...I was really fed up with explaining to the accountants that almost every Eurostar train has 25 First class seats that are cheaper than second class. In the end, I picked up the phone and I spoke to the senior management of Eurostar. The frogs renamed those seats as "leisure Select" and voila no problem with the accountants...

[ntluser]

Given that MPs are apparently self-employed I wondered if they were governed by the same rules as mere mortals.

If a job comes available in a company, the company is required to advertise and interview candidates. This means that there is a job specification and a person specification that the candidate has to meet. Similar process occur for cvil service posts. Wonder if this process happened in these cases .

It does appear that MPs are above the law in that they don't have to submit to legal requirements which they lay down for others.

They are not subject to the Freedom Of Information Act and now we learn that they appear to be above criminal investigation even by the Anti-Terrorist police.

They are able to claim for allowances for duties which one would have thought to be part of the job e.g. attendance allowance. Imagine if your boss said that every time you came to work you would receive an allowance over and above your salary.

Derek Conway's comment that the wives of a number of MPs have used their maiden names to make the link to the MP less obvious seems to suggest that MPs are conscious of the fact that employing family members would be perceived unfavourably, which indeed it has.

Interesting too that Party Leaders can only ASK MPs to be more transparent rather than like the rest of us be legally required too.

Given all this, it begs the question who are MPs actually accountable too especially as they keep all the business in house, have a rather weak Parliamentary Ombudsman and only react positively when electors become aware of their Parliamentary transgressions?

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by ntluser

...They are able to claim for allowances for duties which one would have thought to be part of the job e.g. attendance allowance. Imagine if your boss said that every time you came to work you would receive an allowance over and above your salary....

Well, don't forget that MPs effectively have two jobs - they have to be available to their constituents, and have to appear in Westminster. Ministers will have even more work to do.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Well, don't forget that MPs effectively have two jobs - they have to be available to their constituents, and have to appear in Westminster. Ministers will have even more work to do.

Surely that would be claimed under travel expenses.

For example when a sales rep turns up to a meeting with a client in one part of the country he does not get an attendance allowance for turning up. He's expected to turn up and has been paid to do so.

If he then has a client in another part of the country similarly he does not receive an attendance allowance just for turning up but claims travel expenses.

We seem to have a system whereby MPs get paid an attendance alllowance and claim expenses as well. Even worse we do not appear to have a rigorous method of auditing MP's claims to see if they are valid.