Expenses Watchdog to cost 6 times more than expenses!

[hornetrider]

In true Littlejohn style, you really couldn't make it up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8509815.stm

BBC said:

The parliamentary body for policing expenses will cost about six times as much to set up as MPs have been ordered to repay.

Figures show the start-up cost for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will be £6.6m.

Last week, MPs were told to pay back £1.12m of their second home expenses after an audit of their claims dating back to 2004 by Sir Thomas Legg.

6.5 million startup costs? WTF? Hire an office and a couple of accountants and a secretary - job fecking done.

[marvelharvey]

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

[jesusbuiltmycar]

hornetrider said:

In true Littlejohn style, you really couldn't make it up.


6.5 million startup costs? WTF? Hire an office and a couple of accountants and a secretary - job fecking done.

And charge the fkers for using the service at accountants rates in the same way tath personal tax advice cannot be claimed as an expense....

[Bing o]

There is not a facepalm picture on the web to do this justice!

[FourWheelDrift]

It sounds like it has been planned by Sir Humphrey Appleby.

[Justayellowbadge]

It's a body to police expenses though. It has nothing to do with repaying them.

It is not a case of it going to cost 6.6M to administer MPs paying back 1.2M.

It's going to cost that to set up a body to prevent it happening again.

Non story.

[nonplussed]

Justayellowbadge said:

It's a body to police expenses though. It has nothing to do with repaying them.

It is not a case of it going to cost 6.6M to administer MPs paying back 1.2M.

It's going to cost that to set up a body to prevent it happening again.

Non story.

Absolutely. Handy for keeping the attention away from the real issue though. Where's my tinfoil hat?

[FourWheelDrift]

But from what I have read in statements from MPs all past expenses had to be cleared by someone (in a department). It wouldn't cost 6.6million for a bit of retraining for them to say "no" instead of "yes".

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Thursday 11th February 11:14

[hornetrider]

Justayellowbadge said:

It's a body to police expenses though. It has nothing to do with repaying them.

It is not a case of it going to cost 6.6M to administer MPs paying back 1.2M.

It's going to cost that to set up a body to prevent it happening again.

Non story.

I realise that you nugget.

Article said:

BBC political correspondent Norman Smith said the IPSA costs would come on top of the £1.1m spent on Sir Thomas Legg's audit and the inquiry by the standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly which cost £400,000.

The total sum of expenses to be repaid is 1.12 million - in claims going back to 2004. So... the audit costing 1.5 million hasn't 'broken even' either.

So, in 6 years of expenses 1.12 million must be paid back - less than 200k a year. At 6.6 startup costs it will take 33 years to recoup the saving - and that's not even including the running of the body which frankly, I can't be arsed to work out.

The facts are if we do nothing and allow MPs to make whatever claims they like, that option would be vastly cheaper to the taxpayer than policing them.

Edited by hornetrider on Thursday 11th February 11:24

[nonegreen]

hornetrider said:

Justayellowbadge said:

It's a body to police expenses though. It has nothing to do with repaying them.

It is not a case of it going to cost 6.6M to administer MPs paying back 1.2M.

It's going to cost that to set up a body to prevent it happening again.

Non story.

I realise that you nugget.

Article said:

BBC political correspondent Norman Smith said the IPSA costs would come on top of the £1.1m spent on Sir Thomas Legg's audit and the inquiry by the standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly which cost £400,000.

The total sum of expenses to be repaid is 1.12 million - in claims going back to 2004. So... the audit costing 1.5 million hasn't 'broken even' either.

So, in 6 years of expenses 1.12 million must be paid back - less than 200k a year. At 6.6 startup costs it will take 33 years to recoup the saving - and that's not even including the running of the body which frankly, I can't be arsed to work out.

The facts are if we do nothing and allow MPs to make whatever claims they like, that option would be vastly cheaper to the taxpayer than policing them.

Edited by hornetrider on Thursday 11th February 11:24

The only good kind of civil service is the kind thts just been sacked.

[Justayellowbadge]

hornetrider said:

The facts are if we do nothing and allow MPs to make whatever claims they like, that option would be vastly cheaper to the taxpayer than policing them.

The cost of imprisoning many criminals outweighs the cost of their crimes.

[Mclovin]

the bureacratic rot is destroying this country...

[zac510]

I suppose the cost is worth it to protect the politicians' public reputations

[Northern Munkee]

hornetrider said:

Justayellowbadge said:

It's a body to police expenses though. It has nothing to do with repaying them.

It is not a case of it going to cost 6.6M to administer MPs paying back 1.2M.

It's going to cost that to set up a body to prevent it happening again.

Non story.

I realise that you nugget.

Article said:

BBC political correspondent Norman Smith said the IPSA costs would come on top of the £1.1m spent on Sir Thomas Legg's audit and the inquiry by the standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly which cost £400,000.

The total sum of expenses to be repaid is 1.12 million - in claims going back to 2004. So... the audit costing 1.5 million hasn't 'broken even' either.

So, in 6 years of expenses 1.12 million must be paid back - less than 200k a year. At 6.6 startup costs it will take 33 years to recoup the saving - and that's not even including the running of the body which frankly, I can't be arsed to work out.

The facts are if we do nothing and allow MPs to make whatever claims they like, that option would be vastly cheaper to the taxpayer than policing them.

Edited by hornetrider on Thursday 11th February 11:24

speaking of nuggets, it's not costing £6.6m cost to save £200k a year for the 1.2m they've repaid, the £1.2m is just what has been pinned on them/proved by evidence as needing repaid, there'll also be a much larger pile of "iffy"/gray items, that are being left to slide as too problematic to pursue. If you are entering into the silly number comparison, let's see £6.6m compared to the total expenses bill for say 07/08 (height of troughing) and then comeback at the end of 10/11 and see if it's proved it's worth.

Oh dear how sensible of me...

Incidently anybody know the total annual mp expenses and allowances bill, I can't recall it being publicised anywhere.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 11th February 19:17

[Northern Munkee]

nonegreen said:

hornetrider said:

Justayellowbadge said:

It's a body to police expenses though. It has nothing to do with repaying them.

It is not a case of it going to cost 6.6M to administer MPs paying back 1.2M.

It's going to cost that to set up a body to prevent it happening again.

Non story.

I realise that you nugget.

Article said:

BBC political correspondent Norman Smith said the IPSA costs would come on top of the £1.1m spent on Sir Thomas Legg's audit and the inquiry by the standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly which cost £400,000.

The total sum of expenses to be repaid is 1.12 million - in claims going back to 2004. So... the audit costing 1.5 million hasn't 'broken even' either.

So, in 6 years of expenses 1.12 million must be paid back - less than 200k a year. At 6.6 startup costs it will take 33 years to recoup the saving - and that's not even including the running of the body which frankly, I can't be arsed to work out.

The facts are if we do nothing and allow MPs to make whatever claims they like, that option would be vastly cheaper to the taxpayer than policing them.

Edited by hornetrider on Thursday 11th February 11:24

The only good kind of civil service is the kind thts just been sacked.

I'm a civil servant, I'd like to claim my prize for identifying you as a major bellend.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 11th February 14:09

Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 11th February 14:12

[fatboy b]

marvelharvey said:

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

Does that mean we need a bigger conveyor belt?

[loltolhurst]

FourWheelDrift said:

It sounds like it has been planned by Sir Humphrey Appleby.

been watching a lot of yes minister on gold at the mo and its scary how relavant it is!

[loltolhurst]

isnt this what the audit office is for???

[Deva Link]

"Value" wise, that will pale into insignificance compared to cost of legal proceeding against 3 MPs and a peer. And they'll surely get off.

[hornetrider]

Northern Munkee said:

speaking of nuggets, it's not £6.6m cost to save £200k a year for the 1.2m they've repaid, the 1.2m is just what has been pinned on them/proved by evidence as needing repaid, there'll also be a much larger pile of "iffy"/gray items, that are being left to slide as too problematic to pursue.

You make an excellent point. It's still abso-fking0lutely outrageous that a seperate body has to be set up at huge cost in order to police the fking MPs. wkers.

/andbreathe

loltolhurst said:

FourWheelDrift said:

It sounds like it has been planned by Sir Humphrey Appleby.

been watching a lot of yes minister on gold at the mo and its scary how relavant it is!

Me too, and agree that it is completely timeless!