Quote: sootyj @ May 18 2009, 5:33 PM BSTI have little problem with MP's messing about with allowances as long as they pay the price when caught, same as anyone else.
Expenses maybe not the biggest deal in and of themselves. That they are the tip of an iceberg of greedy, venal unapologetic professional politicos who I wouldn't trust with a diabetic tuck shop kitty is.
Totally agree.
Quote: sootyj @ May 18 2009, 5:33 PM BSTEach time a rock is lifted on something this government is upto there seem to be slugs underneath it.
Namely Gordon Brown and Michael Martin.
It's also shaming that after a 5 year investigation into expenses in which every effort was stymied. It took sticky fingers and a flash drive to expose it.
If MPs are not going to be open or trust the public, then they only have themselves to blame when vital informations is leaked.
Quote: Aaron @ May 18 2009, 5:56 PM BSTNamely Gordon Brown and Michael Martin.
And that arse with a moat. There have been very few who didn't feather their nests and those that didn't, didn't think it in the public interest to point out their collegues were crooks.
Aaron if you're looking at the Conservatives as purveyors of moral superiority you're on a train ride to disapointment.
Quote: sootyj @ May 18 2009, 5:59 PM BSTAaron if you're looking at the Conservatives as purveyors of moral superiority you're on a train ride to disapointment.
Comparitively, undoubtedly so. Independently, of course not. The problem is on all sides of the House. I've made no distinction between parties.
THey are all theiving f**ks who should be sacked, but they won't be and it'll blow over after a few weeks, when the next pandemic hits. Yes I've been reading the red tops all weekend 
Vince Cable of course had expenses whiter than white.
When are we going to do the right thing and make him the first Liberal Democrat King.
Vince Cable is ace and he should have the power of life and death over us all.
The thing is, I heard the word 'moat' and I knew it was something castley. The last time I heard moat was in a Chaucer book. So I Googled 'moat' and there it was!
A moat ffs.
In fairness OCG has anyone checked out if Hagar the Horrible has been pestering Conservative grandees. I mean a moat would be hugely appropriate under the circumstances.
Quote: oldcowgrazing @ May 18 2009, 2:09 PM BSTAs much as I respect and admire Stephen Fry, I think he's got it spectacularly wrong here. He hasn't so much as hit the nail on the head as shot himself in the foot.
There's no excuse for dishonesty from the people who set themselves as examples to the rest of us. Sorry but there's no excuse. Also if benefits cheats or tax evaders are caught, they are expected to repay all the money, if not imprisoned.
I think Mr Fry is slightly off-beam too. One *could* make the point that he is bound to see dishonesty and expenses fiddles as trivial matters as he is, after all, a convicted fraudster... One *could* make that point, but one won't. 
I've found the whole expenses thing fascinating. In some ways it has shown them all to be as venal and grasping as each other, yet in other ways has highlighted the old differences: i.e. Labour MPs want their mortgages, hotel stays, LCD tellies, cinema systems, mock-tudor beams and expensive rugs paid for. The Tories want their moats and pools cleaned, their country gardens tended and stables rewired. Marvellous!
As for their salaries - Tony Banks once said that MPs were glorified social workers, and he was right. Social workers get £30k.. £64k is a lot of money, and the push for even more is because a lot of NuLab apparatchiks made the choice at university that they would do a law degree and then fight the 'Thatcherite Junta'. And they are damned well not going to forego the salary they could have earned in Chambers.
As someone else said on here, being an MP is a calling; it should be driven from a desire to help. Not just judged a 'viable' career that can get you the house in Islington you'd like.
I'd like to see their salaries kept at that level, or perhaps even reduced. But I would make provision for secretaries, offices and all other expenses to do with 'being an MP' centrally funded; take it out of their hands. All staff and offices to be approved by Parliament, so no employing sons and daughters, or convenient deals with local landlords on constituency offices. And any second home allowances should be based on the practicality of commuting and the amount of time they need to spend in London. Maybe even 'Halls of Residence' for MPs 
Why should an MP get £64k? "To get the best people for the job" doesn't make sense as these aren't business people; they aren't people you can headhunt. And dangling a fat salary and generous expenses package actually attracts quite the wrong people, especially in what is a fairly unregulated job with no 'targets' or 'boss' to manage you...
Its funny though, that the very thing Labour has fought for so long is set to symbolise their past 12 years: sleaze, self-interest and nepotism. They have always fought for reform of the House of Lords because they saw it to be a Tory stronghold- well now they've stuffed it with Tony's Cronies, bunging a peerage towards anyone helpful. Stacked with their supporters its all suddenly acceptable and so further reform has conveniently stalled. They were utterly opposed to the hereditary principle, but its a regular thing for sons and daughters of Labour politicians to contest the family seat. There is even talk of Michael Martin hanging on so that his son can take over from him!
We need an election. We won't get one as none of the main parties stand to gain, but they can all inflict pain on Gordon Brown in goading him. There will be a drubbing for all concerned in the Euro elections, then they hope things will be back to normal in 12 months for the General Elections. Therefore Gordon Brown won't have to face a leadership challenge as that would trigger the General Election that nobody wants to fight. So we're lumbered.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ May 18 2009, 9:03 PM BST... no convenient deals with local landlords on constituency offices.
Well, not when they then claim the full amount anyway. Special deals should be sought wherever possible. Save our taxes please.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ May 18 2009, 9:03 PM BSTWhy should an MP get £64k? "To get the best people for the job" doesn't make sense as these aren't business people; they aren't people you can headhunt.
I don't know about that. It takes a certain type of person and a certain level of intellect to make a successful MP.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ May 18 2009, 9:03 PM BSTAnd dangling a fat salary and generous expenses package actually attracts quite the wrong people, especially in what is a fairly unregulated job with no 'targets' or 'boss' to manage you...
Which comes back again to my calls for a return to absolute, direct monarchial rule. 
Quote: Maurice Minor @ May 18 2009, 9:03 PM BSTWe need an election.
Definitely.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ May 18 2009, 9:03 PM BSTWe won't get one as none of the main parties stand to gain
Don't know about that. Labour certainly wouldn't, but both the Conservatives and Lib Dems would, and minor parties would probably be alright too.
Quote: Maurice Minor @ May 18 2009, 9:03 PM BSTthe General Election that nobody wants to fight. So we're lumbered.
Did you watch Cameron's EU campaign launch today? A GE is exactly what he wants. And he can say so because he knows that it'd be very hard for his party to lose if one was called this week.
If this is the era of the "professional politician" I am unimpressed.
Quote: john lucas 101 @ May 18 2009, 3:18 PM BSTSo from this you extrapolate the notion that all journos are 'expense rapists'?
Mmm.
Mmm.
Quote: oldcowgrazing @ May 18 2009, 3:36 PM BSTThat's one of the most idiotic posts I've seen in a long time. Glad I'm not on your payroll. The phrase 'devil in the detail' is there for a reason.
You obviously don't read these forums much...
Devil in the detail my arse. The devil is right in front of us, in poverty, in war, in outrageous weapons spending. This story is NOTHING, absolutely nothing. That's what Stephen Fry was trying to say.
And don't call my f**king posts idiotic. That's really quite rude. Old Cow.
Quote: Lee Henman @ May 18 2009, 11:33 PM BSTMmm.
You obviously don't read these forums much...
Devil in the detail my arse. The devil is right in front of us, in poverty, in war, in outrageous weapons spending. This story is NOTHING, absolutely nothing. That's what Stephen Fry was trying to say.
And don't call my f**king posts idiotic. That's really quite rude. Old Cow.
I do read these forums, and I repeat, your post is the most idiotic one in a long time, pal. Even he's realised how woefully wrong he got it, so what's your problem?
Oooh 'Old Cow'. Offended much. Not really.
And quit going all preachy on me: War, poverty, outrageous weapons (?) please. If you don't understand the devil in the detail remark, then yes, you are indeed an 'arse'.
This post was brought to you by a rude Old Cow.
*f**ks off to save mods the trouble of banning*
Quote: Aaron @ May 18 2009, 10:15 PM BSTI don't know about that. It takes a certain type of person and a certain level of intellect to make a successful MP.
...
Which comes back again to my calls for a return to absolute, direct monarchial rule.
'''
Don't know about that. Labour certainly wouldn't, but both the Conservatives and Lib Dems would, and minor parties would probably be alright too.
'''
Did you watch Cameron's EU campaign launch today? A GE is exactly what he wants. And he can say so because he knows that it'd be very hard for his party to lose if one was called this week.
We've been pondering this at University this year, studying public law. We went through the problems with the Lords, the reforms half completed and the rest of it half-baked, and I couldn't help but come back to the realisation that the hereditary principle worked best. The ideal parliamentarian is someone utterly unmotivated by personal gain and concerned with what is best for the Nation, long-term. The old aristocracy, defined by its land ownership and inherited wealth, is generally not going to be influenced by a few quid from a dodgy businessman trying to fudge a piece of legislation. Every level of politics is now marked by some sort of scandal, some sort of self-interest. It's very depressing.
The problem with 'employing' an MP is who is the best for the job; how do you find them? They shouldn't be 'attracted' by salary or job prospects, but then it's true to say they have to have many qualities that are valued in industry. The trouble is too many of them want the 'career' and want to keep getting promotion and pay rises and they just can't have it. Half of them in the Commons at the moment have never actually worked. Even much of the young Labour intake after 1997 come from nice middle class families where they were indulged and packed off to university to develop a class conscience, then straight to Westminster. All that idealism has worn off very quickly.
And now we have two New Labour peers suspended from the House - the first time since 1642. That is the result of ill-thought-out, botched tinkering with a system that has grown and evolved over 800 years. We now have a Speaker, installed by Blair and completely ineffectual, about to be the first to be forced from office since 1645. So much for progress...
As for Dave and a GE, well yes he would win it if it were held this week, but the public backlash will still affect him and the LibDems, cutting the majority down. Give it 12 months more and his victory will be by a greater margin so that's why I think he'd rather wait. Then he can have a first term like Blair had (which he will need as he will have some stark decisions to make).
Plus now he can play the 'phoney war' game far more comfortably than when Brown had just taken over. Back then he was terrified Brown might actually call an election - Brown bottling it was the best thing that could have happened to Dave. It's similar now - Brown will not call an election, so he can be goaded and poked as much as they like - and from a more secure footing as they have the measure of him now (and also have favourable opinion polls).
On a similar note, the issue with the Speaker is another problem for Gordon. The Speaker will not go before the GE; if he did, his son can't be sure of getting the seat so he's hanging on. The only way the timetable to boot him out can be forced is by the Government (the Speaker said as much today). So in other words, it's with Gordon to make a decision - and Gordon can never make a decision about anything. Just when the media was diverted away from him onto a more general 'parliamentary' scandal, it'll land in his lap again with the potential to make him look indecisive, weak and directionless. Again.
Meandering ever more off topic, but I always thought that one of the most significant influences on New Labour, Blair and Brown, was actually John Major. That nice Mr Major was basically bullied mercilessly for 5 years by Blair and Brown (with help from Max Clifford). The Major government was marred by sleaze and scandal with what seemed like a constant stream of resignations and splits for dodgy reasons. The one lesson Labour took was to do everything possible to avoid giving in to media pressure to sack someone. A scandal has to be managed; to sack someone is a sign of dissent and weakness. They knew what that did to Major and they loved it, but they have been haunted by the fear it'll happen to them. Which is why nobody leaves until a reshuffle. Blears should be out on her ear but isn't, and Michael Martin will not be pushed out either.
And another thing: We're all Telegraph readers now!