Six MP's and peers may face fraud charges

[herewego]

Deva Link said:

herewego said:

I keep wondering about the MPs who took out huge mortgages that they didn't need so that they could claim for £23,000 of repayments. That seems just as bent to me.

The scam the (already wealthy) Winterton husband and wife MP team pulled off was breathtaking.

Once they'd exhausted expenses by paying off the mortgage on their London flat they then transferred ownership of it into a trust in their sons names - and then claimed for rent paid to the trust which they said was required by trust rules!

I agree that's particularly blatent, but it doesn't address my question. e.g. Chapman paid off his mortgage but continued to claim his 23,000 in agreement with the expenses office. He has resigned after complaints. Other MPs who also don't need mortgages have deliberately taken out large mortages because it allows them to claim the max 23,000 alowance. Their own money stays in the bank. What's the difference between the people who claim for a mortgage they don't need and those who claim for a mortgage they don't have?

Edited by herewego on Saturday 21st November 10:25

[streaky]

MPs spend tax-payers' money on furnishing their second (and in some cases, probably, their first home). When they leave office (i.e either resign, are deselected or lose an election) the furniture should be sold and the monies received returned to the Treasury. Why should they keep what is really our property?

If we stick with the system of allowing MPs to purchase second homes for which they recover mortgage interest payments from the public purse, when the property is sold any surplus should be returned to that purse. Of course, for fairness, any short-fall should be made up from that purse.

The Fees Office must police the system better. Why, for instance, did they allow some MPs to claim more than £750 for a TV but chopped some other claims off at that point. And why the heck should an MP need a £750 TV in their second home. Parliamentary officials believe themselves to be above similar workers outside the Palace of Westminster, but they kow-tow to MPs - who think themselves superior to their constituents and all others. The sooner the term "Political class" is dropped, the better.

And, HiRich, the rumour is quite correct. That individual should certainly experience prison life from the inside ... but I have lingering doubts that anything serious will befall the fraudsters. There are too many others - some very senior - who have got away with it and are thinking, "There but for the grace of [fill in blank] go I."

Streaky

[ExChrispy Porker]

Second hand furniture from the Jacqui Smith residence?
No thanks.

[Halb]

The Plaid Cymru MP on QT a few weeks ago confirmed that there definitely would be prosecutions.

[10 Pence Short]

streaky said:

MPs spend tax-payers' money on furnishing their second (and in some cases, probably, their first home). When they leave office (i.e either resign, are deselected or lose an election) the furniture should be sold and the monies received returned to the Treasury. Why should they keep what is really our property?

The real way to solve the whole thing is much more simple, if less politically convenient.

MPs should be paid far more money in the first place, and the need for the expenses system removed. In return for that additional pay, MPs should be held to work in a much more professional manner, be more accountable for their actions and stricter controls on 'gravy training' when they're planning to leave office.

The whole system would be more transparent, fair for everybody and not open to the abuse it so obviously has.

[herewego]

10 Pence Short said:

streaky said:

MPs spend tax-payers' money on furnishing their second (and in some cases, probably, their first home). When they leave office (i.e either resign, are deselected or lose an election) the furniture should be sold and the monies received returned to the Treasury. Why should they keep what is really our property?

The real way to solve the whole thing is much more simple, if less politically convenient.

MPs should be paid far more money in the first place, and the need for the expenses system removed. In return for that additional pay, MPs should be held to work in a much more professional manner, be more accountable for their actions and stricter controls on 'gravy training' when they're planning to leave office.

The whole system would be more transparent, fair for everybody and not open to the abuse it so obviously has.

You'd be giving something like a £30,000 advantage to those with London constituencies and don't need second homes. I'd prefer to see a fixed allowance for all out of town MPs who can then choose whether to get a mortgage, use their own money to buy, rent, borrow or whatever.

[10 Pence Short]

herewego said:

10 Pence Short said:

streaky said:

MPs spend tax-payers' money on furnishing their second (and in some cases, probably, their first home). When they leave office (i.e either resign, are deselected or lose an election) the furniture should be sold and the monies received returned to the Treasury. Why should they keep what is really our property?

The real way to solve the whole thing is much more simple, if less politically convenient.

MPs should be paid far more money in the first place, and the need for the expenses system removed. In return for that additional pay, MPs should be held to work in a much more professional manner, be more accountable for their actions and stricter controls on 'gravy training' when they're planning to leave office.

The whole system would be more transparent, fair for everybody and not open to the abuse it so obviously has.

You'd be giving something like a £30,000 advantage to those with London constituencies and don't need second homes. I'd prefer to see a fixed allowance for all out of town MPs who can then choose whether to get a mortgage, use their own money to buy, rent, borrow or whatever.

Just operate an MP's 'hotel' in London where each MP living a certain distance from Westminster is given an office and living quarters.

I'm sure the taxpayer paying for this would be cheaper than MPs blowing £45,000 a piece on a Monet for the downstairs toilet every time they move.

[Halb]

herewego said:

10 Pence Short said:

streaky said:

MPs spend tax-payers' money on furnishing their second (and in some cases, probably, their first home). When they leave office (i.e either resign, are deselected or lose an election) the furniture should be sold and the monies received returned to the Treasury. Why should they keep what is really our property?

The real way to solve the whole thing is much more simple, if less politically convenient.

MPs should be paid far more money in the first place, and the need for the expenses system removed. In return for that additional pay, MPs should be held to work in a much more professional manner, be more accountable for their actions and stricter controls on 'gravy training' when they're planning to leave office.

The whole system would be more transparent, fair for everybody and not open to the abuse it so obviously has.

You'd be giving something like a £30,000 advantage to those with London constituencies and don't need second homes. I'd prefer to see a fixed allowance for all out of town MPs who can then choose whether to get a mortgage, use their own money to buy, rent, borrow or whatever.

A system like in the USA would be good. I think we mentioned this in some other thread. A block of flats/Apartments close to the Commons which are allocated to the constituencies.

[14-7]

Bit of an update for the first MP (well ex) to be dealt with by a court.

News said:

Former Labour MP David Chaytor has been jailed for 18 months for making false Parliamentary expenses claims.

Chaytor, 61, became the first politician to be convicted and sentenced over the expenses scandal which has rocked Westminster.

He submitted bogus invoices to support claims totalling £22,650 for IT services and renting homes in London and his Bury North constituency.

But the properties were owned by him and his mother, and he did not pay out any of his own money, Southwark Crown Court in London heard.

Chaytor, of Lumbutts, Todmorden, West Yorkshire, pleaded guilty last month to three counts of false accounting between November 2005 and January 2008.

The ones who have pleaded not guilty and are going to trial might be finding their little botties twitching slightly . . . .

[streaky]

10 Pence Short said:

... MPs should be held to work in a much more professional manner, be more accountable for their actions and stricter controls on 'gravy training' when they're planning to leave office.

Is it too much to expect MPs (with the possible exception of John Prescott ... I know he's a Peer now) to know how to slurp their gravy without recourse to tax-payer-funded training? - Streaky

[streaky]

14-7 said:

Bit of an update for the first MP (well ex) to be dealt with by a court.

Do try to keep up

- Streaky

Edited by streaky on Saturday 8th January 10:36

[DPX]

What makes me laugh is some of these people do not know what they are spending or how to account for it .

So how the hell do they expect to sort of UK money issues when they dont have even basic finance or maths sense and correctly claim for a train ticket