Backbenchers are livid at prospect of repaying claims

[Halb]

Seems amazing to me considering we are entering into election time, these pocketliners still don't understand the anger of the electorate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304125.stm
I wonder if any backbencher will have the gonads not to pay the cash back.

Edited by Halb on Tuesday 13th October 16:05

[Don]

Halb said:

Seems amazing to me considering we are entering into election time, these pocketliners still understand the anger of the electorate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304125.stm
I wonder if any backbencher will have the gonads not to pay the cash back.

Only the ones planning on retiring as an MP.

Or perhaps the ones who simply don't have the money any more...Jacqui Smith probably couldn't find the £43K without it hurting quite badly. But she's been let off! fking disgrace.

[Podie]

Don said:

fking disgrace.

[AndrewW-G]

If you were being fired within 6 months and could do nothing about it and had little chance of future employment, you'd be desperate to keep as much cash as possible, this is the mindset of the labour MP's who will try anything not to give the cash back

My own local dribbling fkwit Ben Chapman being a very good case in point, the idiot chapman was claiming for interest on a mortgage he had paid off, and has apparently (cant verify source just yet) stated that he wont be paying back a penny . . . . . . . . . . whether his house in Lower Heswall or his green Rover coupe survive Halloween or Fawkes night is another question as no doubt even the local hoodys are upset at his behaviour

[Don]

I note Cameron has issued a dictat that any Conservative MP asked to repay monies should do so without question...or face deselection. Labour backbenchers have been heckling Brown in outrage over this...will the Tories front up, pay up and shut up for the PR win?

[chris watton]

Ask a thief if it’s unfair to give back what he stole, when caught red handed – what is the difference?

[grumbledoak]

"I stole that money in good faith!"

Tossers. It's no wonder we aren't allowed to shoot burglars...

[john_p]

I think we are well into election mode now - the soon-to-disappear backbenchers are going to burn their bridges - all to save a few £k in cash.

Well, troughers, maybe you should think of all your constitutents, none of whom have any job security in this current environment, before wailing that life is so unfair..

[Don]

chris watton said:

Ask a thief if it’s unfair to give back what he stole, when caught red handed – what is the difference?

To be fair.

There were claims that were "within the rules" just morally questionable.

Then there were claims that were declared "within the rules" but would be utterly unacceptable to the Inland Revenue if made by anyone else and are, frankly, ILLEGAL. The MPs who made these claims should refund the money immediately and without question or face prosecution! I feel sorry for them that they were misadvised. But if I, as a Company Director, am misadvised I am STILL LIABLE - and so should they be!

[chris watton]

Don said:

chris watton said:

Ask a thief if it’s unfair to give back what he stole, when caught red handed – what is the difference?

To be fair.

There were claims that were "within the rules" just morally questionable.

Then there were claims that were declared "within the rules" but would be utterly unacceptable to the Inland Revenue if made by anyone else and are, frankly, ILLEGAL. The MPs who made these claims should refund the money immediately and without question or face prosecution! I feel sorry for them that they were misadvised. But if I, as a Company Director, am misadvised I am STILL LIABLE - and so should they be!

I know, but what I heard on the news last night is that a lot of claims were most certainly not within the rules.

[Mondeohdear]

Don said:

To be fair.

There were claims that were "within the rules" just morally questionable.

I thought one of the rules was that the claim had to be morally acceptable - as in don't do anything that could be seen to a layman as morally questionable.

[Podie]

Don said:

chris watton said:

Ask a thief if it’s unfair to give back what he stole, when caught red handed – what is the difference?

To be fair.

There were claims that were "within the rules" just morally questionable.

Then there were claims that were declared "within the rules" but would be utterly unacceptable to the Inland Revenue if made by anyone else and are, frankly, ILLEGAL. The MPs who made these claims should refund the money immediately and without question or face prosecution! I feel sorry for them that they were misadvised. But if I, as a Company Director, am misadvised I am STILL LIABLE - and so should they be!

Yet the bankers who played within the rules were burned at the stake... but the people who made the rules, ah, well... that's different.

[dougc]

As I understand it, most of the commotion is around the backdating of the new restrictions.

There have been new caps put on things like gardening and cleaning and those that have previously spent over the caps (before they existed) are now being told to pay back the difference for the last x years...

[john_p]

Yup, and any troughing MP that thinks they are justified in expensing more than £2000/yr on cleaning or £1000/yr on garden maintenance should be taken out the back and shot.

The expenses should cover the basic maintenance on a second property that they are unable to do themselves. Fair enough, vacuuming, dusting, mowing the grass. Not landscaping the garden, or doing their ironing.

At low wages that's 5-6 hours a week for a cleaner, and 2-3 hours a week for a gardener. That's surely enough to run the largest of detatched houses.

Edited by john_p on Tuesday 13th October 14:26

[130R]

The government have no problem changing the VED rate for cars that have already been registered so they can bloody well repay expenses they have already claimed that are now outside the new rules.

[B Oeuf]

dougc said:

As I understand it, most of the commotion is around the backdating of the new restrictions.

There have been new caps put on things like gardening and cleaning and those that have previously spent over the caps (before they existed) are now being told to pay back the difference for the last x years...

Tough st, maybe now they realise how unfair retrospective tax on VED felt. I have no sympathy for these people, if they didn't have their hand in the till they knew someone who did.

[anonymous-user]

130R said:

The government have no problem changing the VED rate for cars that have already been registered so they can bloody well repay expenses they have already claimed that are now outside the new rules.

That thought occured to me as well, I doubt the irony will dawn on them. Perhaps someone on QT this week would be good enough to point it out.

[Busa_Rush]

They should be boiled in strong piss, hung up to dry outside a pub on the roughest estate in Manchester and every chav in a 20 mile radius should have the right to whip, punch and spit on them for 48 hours. How about that for "giving back to society" !

[john_p]

The BBC ticker is "LATEST: Some Labour MPs set to challenge Sir Thomas Legg's demands they pay back expenses, BBC learns"

I bet a coffee bean that the word "Labour" gets dropped from the ticker by 6pm

[dougc]

B Oeuf said:

dougc said:

As I understand it, most of the commotion is around the backdating of the new restrictions.

There have been new caps put on things like gardening and cleaning and those that have previously spent over the caps (before they existed) are now being told to pay back the difference for the last x years...

Tough st, maybe now they realise how unfair retrospective tax on VED felt. I have no sympathy for these people, if they didn't have their hand in the till they knew someone who did.

Agree entirely.

More to the point though

£2000 for gardening

£2000!

Two fking thousand pounds!

For gardening!

What?

Some people have that to see them through a whole year of food buying and its an acceptable amount to EXPENSE for gardening?

Whats wrong with chucking the kid next door a fiver to mow the lawn, or better still, do it yourself.