Clegg Horrifies MPs With Reform Proposals :MPs Would Have 3 Years to Sell Homes
Nick Clegg had his constituency home renovated at our expense and claimed 100% of the maximum allowed expenses last year, so perhaps he has a guilty conscience. Nevertheless he has come up with some good reform proposals that most voters would welcome:
- MPs would no longer be able to claim for mortgage interest payments, only rent.
- MPs should be forced to sell their second homes and return profits to the taxpayer. They would be given 36 months before Parliament refused to fund their mortgage interest payments. A proportion of the capital gain profits would have to be returned.
Clegg’s proposals would also see an end to taxpayers picking up the bill for flat screen TVs, furniture, building work and taxis. Just utility bills and council tax would be paid for by the taxpayers. Mr & Mrs Balls, Mr & Mrs Keen, Mr & Mrs Winterton and Mr & Mrs Robinson would only be able to claim half each. Guido’s heart bleeds for these millionaire troughers.
The Times reports that hair shirts would become compulsory wear:
Ministers with grace and favour accommodation, such as the Prime Minister and Chancellor, would not be allowed to claim rental on any additional property. On travel, MPs would be permitted standard open return tickets when travelling to and from their constituencies. MPs’ salaries would not be raised while the country is still in recession.
Mr Clegg told The Times: “It is easy enough for politicians to talk about how the current system for pay and expenses needs to be changed, but what people want to know is what we are actually going to do about it.”
On the whole this is a basis that many would see as fair and in line with best practice in the private sector. Guido would also like to see a “no receipt, no claim” system – as all of us in the private sector work on that basis – HMRC doesn’t believe taxpayers are honourable and the taxpayers no longer believe members of parliament are honourable. Cameron’s proposals are expected next week, they should be no less stringent if he wants to be credible. The parliamentary gravy train needs to be halted…
Looks like a good STARTING point to me. Next he needs to address employment of family members and sundry other matters.
….and while he doing so he should extend the reforming zeal to the gravy train running local authorities. These often rotten boroughs are top heavy with non jobbers earning more than the PM plus goldplated Bentley pensions and pe(o)rks. Take them all out claim back their pension pots and save 2 billion quid a year.
Bring back the elected Mayor on a stipend.
… and from LAs on to Quangos – same, same.
Nothing wrong with employing family members in itself, I think the Solution to all of this and more is NOT more legislation but more investigative powers and rights to journos.
Actually a very good starting point (pretty much exactly what I suggested on Dale’s blog). “Rentals only” will get rid of the claims on new kitchens, bathrooms and plugs. Also need to make sure the second home is either IN the constituency or in central London. Three years to sort out the second mortgage isn’t bad; I’d have gone for two.
Nick Clegg said this week that he didn’t want our MPs to join “THE BRUSSELS GRAVY TRAIN ! ”
I thought this man, and his party, are dedicated and enthusiastic EU Federation supporters.
a ban on employing relatives is missing from this list.
How do you define relative?
If someone shags their secretary, does she automatically get the sack? or only if she regularly stays over? or only if they get married?
Or what about employing your mates wife/sister/daughter/son etc, while he employs yours?
Banning relatives will be an attack on real families and leave the shits to get on with it.
If, however you were to suggest that only one member of a family (however defined) could be employed anywhere in the public sector, you may be onto something.
Just ban them all. No need for a fine toothcomb for exceptions. There is nothing wrong with attacking ‘real families’ of the kleptocratic classes. They have been enjoying the benefits of our MPs being on the make for years. And I don’t elect or pay my MP to shag his secretary either.
The progeny and concubines of politicos should be banned from employment by anyone in the House of Commons for the duration of their MP parent, lover, sibling or spouse being an MP.
Are we assuming that all secretaries are female? Will they appear in Guido’s Top Totty section? Try not to willy-wave and start taking women in politics seriously. The tone of many of these replies is pathetically boys-own, and i hear male MPs still tell new female recruits “we are mentally undressing you everytime you speak.” Plus ca change. Tories are no better than labour in this respect.
Hope Clegg gets somewhere and we can finally lose the second homes. In these days of email and webcams they’re just unnecessary.
why is that twat Livingstone on the beeb and other media commenting on this?
who does he represent anymore?
me
PJ: This is the beeb you are talking about and Livingstone is a London-leftie. I think your question is a bit redundant, old chap !
Mainly Because ALL the MPs of ALL the parties daren’t say anything about the subject.
So, he’s probably about the most recognisable person they can get to talk.
I mean, who else vaguely-political-and-not-an-mp could they get to go on tv and spout crap for a while.
Sky reported Boris (elected by the voters) as critical of Quick
BBC led with Livingston (rejected by the voters) saying Quick should not resign – he cited ‘great experience’ following the party line of no time for novices.
Another QUICK promotion for Yates. Is he still reaping the benefits of his cash for honours ‘investigation’.
This might be the first time ever thay anything Nick Clegg has said or done has got any coverage whatsoever. Doesn’t really matter whether he is right or wrong, he’s got himself a better PR/Comms guy.
seriously how long does it take to think up a set of proposals. Why is Cameron’s only due next week? I could write out a set of rules in an hour or less.
If measures such as this were to be introduced, there would be a huge exodus of ex-MPs to Tuscany and wherever else they have bought properties or stashed their (our) cash. In Tuscany they could all assemble at Polly’s place and reminisce – a bit like the old Nazis in South America.
So if DC comes up with something similar, or even harsher – (and lets face it, the Tory MPs should be able to afford to cope), we might achieve both of or one of two things:
(1) Get some money back from the thieving bastards (b) force those thieving bastards who want to avoid paying the taxpayer back – fleeing the country. This also leaves the options of then having European arrest warrants issued for their arrest and extradition. Which leads to an option (c) we get the thieving bastards on way or another.
Translation: “Got everything l want, l’m full to the brim” Oi Nick!…once your name is added to the ATBRL (arses to be ripped list) it cannot be erased.
Quick’s resigned!!
A man with honour.
Or a man with more to hide?
That was Quick!
You’re my wife and I claim my £5!!
The difference between a horse and a duck? One goes Quick and the other goes Quack. more brains in either of those than the arrogant lurcher in charge. Glad he’s out of it! Wonder what his pension will be made up to? Any lower rank would lose his!
Oi! Lurchers are honourable.
A man who has just received the full support of Ken Livingstone …. I think he knew he had to go when he heard that !!
Imagine his face when he resigned – I hope JacquiBoots wasn’t on the receiving of that letter – she would have had some brass neck
Something odd about this. Just as the tragic G20 death is about to blow up in Brown and Smith’s faces, Quick scuttles into No.10. Some media reports said he was discussing “police reform” but almost immediately a major anti-terror operation is launched prematurely.
Then Smith says this:-
“The decision to take such action was an operational matter for the police and the Security Service but the Prime Minister and I were kept fully appraised of developments.”
That seems an unnecessary statement unless you are trying to hide something. I think Brown and Smith ordered the premature launch of the operation to deflect attention from the G20 murder, putting the elbow on their tame New Labour policeman Quick to make it happen.
Brown and Smith are pulling police strings. They are concerned about increasing dissent and disorder (Smith has even talked about it) and are using the police as an enforcement arm of New Labour to suppress it.
if so Quick screwed it all up by waving his files at the cameras so snotty does it again Quick quacked and exited left.
Sorry jackboots must try harder.
Now go prosecute the scum who beat the newspaper seller to the floor before he died or those that pumped the bullets into de Menezes brain or shot the tired and emotional City lawyer in West London.
Not getting a teensy bit paranoid are you ELF?
If history proves anything it is the preponderence of cock-ups over conspiracies. In this context it is much more likely that Quick is a typical woodentop who made a balls than Brown and Smith are launching a pre-emptive strike against decent chaps like you and me.
So Quick resigns after having carelessly revealed confidential information. That’s fine by me but I seem to remember Caroline Flint doing the same and also Hazel Blears leaving a computer with classified info. lying around so that it could be stolen. But don’t remember them resigning.
Honour? I bet a bit of digging would reveal a generous settlement somewhere. Quick knows where a number of Home Secretaries have their skeletons buried.
I can only paraphrase Punch`s oft stated shout
“That`s the way to do it” !!!!!!!!
and my own ” bloody be quick about it”
These are good suggestions, but not enough. All past troughing should immediately be repaid in full, upon pain of flogging with leather whips dipped in brine.
Clegg, what a fucking Hoon. Lefties have always been the worst troughers – the Hoons.
“Guido would also like to see a “no receipt, no claim” system – as all of us in the private sector and for that matter HMRC–”
An MP writes:
Look this is completely unfair!
I demand my right to submit claims for expenses for whatever I like or might like or might like to have the cash to use for something I might like.
Can’t you see this is the only just an equitable way Guido? I always thought you were a reasonable and honest man but I regret to say , I am beginning to have my doubts.
and what about a contract with their constituents like here: http://www.johnwallace.me.uk/2009/04/constituents-contract/
This is a very good move by Clegg as I have just posted about myself.
I agree there are things missing from this list but we do have to start somewhere and hopefully this will give the other party leaders a sharp shove in the right direction.
A good start, but lets not forget that this could easily be throwing a bone to the electorate and then the softer deal emerges when all the fuss dies down.
i.e. “Lets work on Clegg’s proposals”….
…
…
Election
…
nah.
When the full rec eipts are revealed, I have a feeling that all hell will be let loose and the Tories and Labour parties will both suffer. This move by Clegg is both timely and quite brilliant.
Could it be in a few months time that the Lib Dems take over the opinion polls as the party likely to WIN an overall majority?
People’s anger is so great that when the full story of greed, corruption etc is revealed the feeling will be that THEY ALL MUST GO!!
The LibDems do not claim for second homes. They are whiter than white! They have Saint Vince! and they now have a free thinking leader, yes a LEADER in Nick Clegg. NOT a Tony Blair Tribute Act – performed by David Cameron!
Put y’money on the Lib Dems to transform our politics!
Dream on kiddo. The Lib Dums couldn’t organise a Timney in a brothel.
They could if it was somebody else’s hand.
Timney and Brothel in the same sentence? Do you think that is correct. It was GAY porn he was watching. You forget that he is the mummy of JackBoots children.
Reminds me when we used to call Tony Bliar the mother of her children.
Support ZaNuLieBore for a gay old time. Is John Precott the only one who shags women?
PS but there again perhaps it was JackBoots who watched Raw Meat 3 on a clandestine visit to Redditch and Timney admitted it to (a) protect the £40k we pay him for looking after JackBoots children (b) protect JackBoots claim that Redditch is her only occaisionaly visited second home. Dig deeper for the real truth.
Er – have you checked Charlie Kennedy’s expenses in the Telegraph’s Excel spread sheet setting expenses claimed against votes, chamber contributions, written Parliamentary Questions etc?
Thought not.
They should operate in accordance with the laws they make and impose on us. They can no longer be above the law.
Ooh err.
we should use Sharia Law for politicians.
Well we’ve all seen what it takes to get a stupid Knacker kicked out. Wonder if it will work on scumbag MPs?
This is all a load of spin and stable-door-bolting. If the useless Clegg and equally useless Cameron were serious about expenses, they would have been bitching about it since they became leaders. They would also have set their own, more stringent rules for their own MPs.
This is just bandwagon jumping, rest assured that neither of them actually wants to do this because it’s going to make things better, they’re just riding on the public mood. If the brouhaha ever goes away, they will quietly drop or water down their proposals or introduce new “flexibility” and carry on arse-raping us as before.
ergo, keep it going Mr Fawkes
Obo – Let’s not forget that Norman Baker was ostracised by his fellow Lib Dem MPs when he made a stand against Parliamentary perks.
Mummy’s boy, Nick Cameron is more full of piss and wind than a barber’s cat.
My MP is Lib Dem. They DO claim for second homes
So is mine and so does mine, but seeing as he isn’t a London MP that fits with the party line on the issue…
Lib Dems tend to be MPs for parts of the country that nobody cares about, so…
As well as needing a receipt for any expenses claimed, those receipts should ALL be posted on the internet, in an easily searchable form, within a month so that everyone can see what they claimed for. If they KNOW people are going to see the receipt they might think for an extra couple of seconds before claiming for bathplugs, antique fireplaces, and porn.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Bathplugs/
Another IT failure? It takes about 10 hours before your name shows up.
Sounds like a good start to me, and I really look forward to the squealing, tooth-grinding, agonising graunching noises that are made by a grossly overburdened gravy train when it gets shunted over a rusty, seldom-used set of points and into a dead-end siding.
A good starting point, and all perfectly sensible to most taxpayers… so it’s almost guaranteed that they won’t be implemented then.
Why give them 3 years to continue raking in the money? These bastards were mostly responsible for the economic crash we’re now in – force them to sell their second homes now & make up any shortfall to the taxpayer out of their own pocket…
Also, they need to provide full receipts for any expense they want to claim & these receipts must be checked properly before any money is handed out – they must end the rubber-stamping culture that exists now.
Family should be able to continue to be employed, but only once they have been appraised by a House of Parliament staffing agency and assessed as competent in their job, and all future staff must be recruited through the agency in accordance with the current employment legislation that the rest of us have to follow. All salaries should be paid out of this agency directly, and all salaries must be commensurate with equivalent positions in the real world.
There’s so much the politicians need to do to clean up their reputation – Clegg’s ideas are no more than a starting point, but at least he’s starting off on the right lines… it’ll be interesting to see how Cameron & Brown follow on from this.
How the fuck could the current House of Commons assess competence?
Three years to sell a house seems a bit generous. Isn’t usual practise just to send the bailiffs round?
Can we no just give them four weeks notice?
Employing family members has got to be be abolished and now…..not phased in over 3 years.
‘Im indoors will have to get a proper job, the wanker!
Nick Clegg fo PM! Ah, no . . . but he would make a credible member of a Cameron-led coalition if, as I suspect, the Tories don’t quite get an overall majority.
Incidentally, did Clegg’s soul mate Mark Oaten finance his scat sessions from the public purse? Or did he force his kids to eat Tesco own brand corn flakes while he was enjoying the evacuation of the real thing all over his face?
Name for the coalition – Con Lib Dem? I hope they do.
Guido clealy has been and still is very busy scraping arounf in various troughs. He may have missed a very good letter in yesterday’s FT http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eecac0fa-23d2-11de-996a-00144feabdc0.html where a reader suggests that the MPs expenses system may well make the UK parliament a tax haven subject to G20 investigation?
Print the damned letter instead of promoting the FT.
Sir, One of the actions billed to flow from the Group of 20 meeting will be against tax havens. These locations have favourable rules and opaque reporting procedures that enable those who so wish to interpret the rules beneficially, enhance their after tax income and avoid scrutiny of their financial affairs.
The expenses system of our MPs comes to mind. Does this make the UK parliament a tax haven subject to G20 investigation?
Limdem=NONCE’s
London MP Harry Cohen has been reported as saying ‘When MPs were given this allowance they were told “Go and spend it, boys” and that is what I have done. It is my right’ This sounds to me like conspiracy to defraud.
Any lawyers on board who can comment?
Surely any lawyer on here would keep his head down to avoid the piano wire.
They are already plotting a way around this, like perhaps a 100% pay rise next year to compensate.
It’ll take about 30 seconds for them to work out that the “rent only” idea can be circumvented by:
MP A buys a house and rents it out (at a huge gain) to MP B who claims rent back on expenses. MP B buys a house and rents it out to MP A (at a huge gain) to MP A, who claims rent back on expenses.
Job done, snouts still in trough.
What a load of bollocks.
OK so we need to make another rule :S
It’s a welcome move by Clegg. Hopefully Cameron will be looking at similar cutbacks and between them they can force Jonah’s hand as even he’s not dumb enough to commit political suicide over this. Well, actually lets hope he is as this will just cement his demise!
What about all MPs, or prospective MPs, actually coming and living from the constituencies they represent so that all this business of claiming for a bed sit 10 x 10 and actually living or coming from miles away. Another advantage would be that they would know by experience what that problems are in that constituency.
No one should be able to stand for a constituency unless they and their family currently live there and have lived there for at least 5 years and they undertake that the members of their family will go to local state schools and local NHS facilities.
Unless they “suffer” the life of their constituents how can they represent them?
This measure would stop the political classes being parachuted into constituencies. Local people representing local people.
Might reduce the number of Scottish accents in the Commons too!
Well that’s a bit unfair, (future) MPs should be able to do what they like with their OWN MONEY.
By the way, the GMC pays for private health insurance for their staff, and a large number of NHS consultants also have private insurance.. but if they ever get a NICE-cancer its back to the free NHS
Shut your mouth Scrof. It’s not true ok!
The ability to claim rent is no answer unless at arms length eg via say an agency placement. Too easy to set up daughter/cousin/dog as Buy To Let landlord and pay rent to self effectively. Hotels are the answer, plenty of flexible capacity, some degree of choice, claims capped (but can over pay from own pocket), no wasted payments when not there (ie half the week and during recess). As for staff and stationery, modern day equivalent of typing pool or researcher pool funded and housed centrally by their Party (they have surely heard of remote working, cloud etc) and only if necesssary (ie they are still creating paper) the key to the cupboard (on a chitty system). Jeez, out there I charge for consultancy and here it is for free…
I think a single block to house all MPs is better. Wormwood Scrubs is my favoured location.
Why not Broadmoor ?
I asked Our Beloved Leader if I could modify the Olympic Village with its intrinsic security if that could be used for MP accommodation after the Olympics. The thing is, MPs might actually feel forced to accept this solution whereas they are nlikely to accept the more fitting Wormwood Scubs. If an MP doesn’t use the Village they can’t claim for something else and they can’t claim for expenses on their “home” in their constituency which they should already have.
There’s a petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/MP2ndHome
I’ve put this comment up before, but Guido must becoming very establishment as he removed it. Perhaps he thought it was unjust my hubby was imprisoned by the Italians for just a little fraud (which I of course knew nothing about).
They might scare the inmates at Broadmoor. And if they live in Stratford then they have to get up up at 6am :(
At a time when the building industry is going through a rough patch & properties are remaining unsold & empty, why don’t we get the government to buy empty office blocks, or blocks of flats, that MPs can use to work & sleep in when in London, rather like halls of residence at universities? Any increase in property values would be ours, not the troughing MPs, & everyone would be able to observe the rent boys & hookers employed by some of our political masters at our expense, as well as removing some of the overhang affecting the property market. No prizes for guessing why such an obvious idea won’t get to see the light of day with this bunch of porkine pratts in charge.
I had a brilliant idea and asked Gay Gordon if I could change the design of the Olympic Village to solve this problem. Go to http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/MP2ndHome and sign the petition to convert the Olympic Village with its special security to a compound for MPs staying in London. If they want to stay somewhere else they would pay for it themselves.
Just because my hubby did wrong and is in an Italian Prison please don’t misjudge me. I’m trying to redress the balance with this proposal so please sign up.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/MP2ndHome
But then the nearby residents will be subject to loud partying every night and constant heckling by disgruntled constituents. It would make more sense for separate government owned flats near to Westminster. MPs can pay for renovation or furniture out of their own money.
Why not make MPs subject to the P.A.Y.E. income tax system? Then they would have to justify part of their claims to HMC & Revenue and a large number of perks would also be subject to tax – or am I being revolutionary?
You mean like ‘benefit in kind’ tax that the rest of us have to suffer? Very logical – and probably being shunted down a dead-end even as we debate it.
Exactly . When I was, for short time, employed as a very junior civil servant I, along with number of colleagues, was invited to a drinks reception by a contractor. We were warned that acceptance would result in a tax penalty. Politicians and senior civil servants go to free dinners and sporting events all the time without the taxman becoming involved. Some are obviously more equal under the law.
Just saw this on the HMRC website within guidance given to contractors
“Friends and Family Allowance
Some existing dispensations also include a tax free scale rate for staying with family and friends when employees are required to stay overnight on business. HMRC has reviewed this policy and concluded that there is no legal basis for giving tax relief because it is not linked to any specific underlying expense. Therefore, a scale rate for staying with family and friends will not be included within the advisory system or given in any new dispensations. All agreed tax and NICs free scale rates in existing dispensations covering such an allowance will be withdrawn when the dispensation comes up for review. ”
Stick that in your pipe Jacqui!!
Just get rid of 400 of them. Why do we need 650 MPs in a small island? And WAG, and Scottish Parliament, and a House of Lords……..
All decisions are now taken in Cabinet and the House of Commons just goes with the whips. This is dictatorial democracy.
‘All decisions are now taken in Cabinet” – you having a larf? When did you last hear of any strong debate in Cabinet? It’s been sofa-style govt for the past 12 years, Cabinet meetings are just a sham now. Cabinet is the rubber-stamping facility, we have Phoney Bliar to thanks for that.
Besides, most of our regulations/laws (around 75%) are imposed upon us from beyond our shores – another strong argument for an extensive cull of the Westminster troughers. We simply don’t need 646 MPs, or anything like that number. They rolled over in the face of the European onslaught on our sovereignty, they should now pay the price – unless the next govt can get us out of course…
spot on
Isn’t it 650 next election
If we must live in a Dictatorship, can’t it be someone decent like General Dannat, how long is it since we had someone in charge with any integrity, honour, someone who cares about Britain and the British people.
Nick Clegg had his constituency home renovated at our expense
In that case, Nick Clegg has no room to talk. Well, he has. Several rooms, all paid for by us.
Too late. It’s not enough for these bastards to promise to be good in future. The whole lot of them must be severely (as in death) be punished for what they have already done. Fortuitously their entire rotten system is in terminal collapse, so they will be.
Problem is – all the time they remian in charge of their allowances – or in a position of great influence over them – nothing much will change. I have come to the conclusion that there is no one who is truly independent who will get within a mile of making the sweeping changes required, such is the subversion of public life by the control freaks in govt.
Shouldn’t all prospective new MPs be including something about this in their manifesto?
50: I agree
If an MP does not live in that constituency, the he can move there. If he is not prepared to move there, his parliamentary party should foot any additional expense
No one should be able to stand for a constituency unless they and their family currently live there and have lived there for at least 5 years and they undertake that the members of their family will go to local state schools and local NHS facilities.
Unless they “suffer” the life of their constituents how can they represent them?
This measure would stop the political classes being parachuted into constituencies. Local people representing local people.
Might reduce the number of Scottish accents in the Commons too!
I couldn’t agree more. Come to Wales where most of the AMs and MPs only start to “live” in the constituency once they’ve won the seat. Same rules should apply to councillors too.
MP’s can’t be trusted if they have not seen fit to mend their ways in the past why now?
Clegg is looking for damage limitation.
Mp’s still don’t get it.
Its not going to go away.
In Telegraph Letters today:
Parliament’s website claims 7 principles of public office
selflessness
integrity
objectivity
accountability
openess
honesty
leadership
About time we saw just some of these enacted upon by the majority of MP’s, and Councillors throughout the land.
Objectivity? One can’t run party politics if anyones got that.
The ‘no receipt no claim’ system works in the Scottish Parliament with the MSPs. We expect nothing less here.
How about a retrospective definition of “second homes” while Clegg’s at it: the second home to be sold is that on which allowance was claimed on Jan 1st 2009. That’ll really screw that w***ker, sorry, Labour MP, who claims his caravan is his main home.
Twat Clegg – Cameron-lite (mmm, now that’s lite!) – can say what he likes because he knows he’ll never be elected to anything other than leader of the sandal-n’-socks party.
Cameron has to make proposals that’ll stick. And the only way out of the circular argument (or circle of Dante) that is MPs voting themselves pay and conditions and then self-scrutinizing (ho ho ho) is for them to vote away those powers to some kind of independent, extra-governmental ‘awards body’.
Ah, you say (and so do I), but who appoints the members of the awards body? Why MPs, naturally.
Doh!
They were saying the same thing about Labour 100 years ago.
Who?
>MPs would no longer be able to claim for mortgage interest payments only rent.
Hmm. Would the Winterton “sell our house to our children and rent it back” setup still get round that?
Off topic, but chesk this out..
http://www.france24.com/en/20090406-barometer-world-leader-influence-popularity-dalai-lama-merkel-blair-brown-benoit-XVI-sarkozy-april-2009
[...] http://www.order-order.com/2009/04/clegg-horrifies-mps-with-reform-proposalsmps-would-have-3-years-t... [...]
Allowing MPs to claim for rent rather than mortgage interest just opens the door to another scam. Here’s how it goes. An MP’s partner buys the second home with a buy-to-let mortgage which they then quite within the rules rent to the MP who then claims the rent back on expenses. If they’re smart the MP’s rent would conveniently include a percentage above the underlying mortgage payment thus allowing the MP to make a healthy profit via the rental payments. On top of the rental profits the MP would also be able to profit from any future sale of the house. Effectively these proposed rules could be used by MPs to grab yet more money from taxpayers.
What happened to the pig ratings? Guido did you run out of pigs?
3 Years ? Does Cleggy know something ? Is he assuming that Paw Broon has postponed the General Election until 2012. Or is he counting his bawbees until then.
Clegg’s talking out of his arse. As usual.
Brilliant journalism, Guido. Watch out for the hubris that is taking down the evil ones. We need you.
Yet more evidence – as if we needed more – that our politicians are incapable of accepting democracy. And they wonder why the percentage of voters has fallen even to the extent of asking what they should do about it!!
Get rid of all advisers and other staff, party lags et al and make do with one secretary would be a start. Then instead of being out of touch they could actually go and talk to their constituents to find out what we think about them and what they are doing and why we won’t vote for them.
When any party needs a ‘McBride’ it should be clear that they have lost the plot. But that always seems to be the labour way; they don’t know what to do or how to do it so they treat their civil servants like lackys, scream and bawl at their staff, and wonder why so many things go wrong and just how so much of that gets into the public domain. I know all the parties get up to some of this but labour is always way out in front. John Major, that pallid cardboard cutout, promised no slease; Blair did the same; a lot of hot air by those who made no effort to control it.
Sack the lot of them. Let’s have lots of independent MPs!
With regard to the housing issue for Mp’s why dont they build a block of flats with enough room to house all of those necessary thn they wont have to woorry about paying expenses there will be ready made flats for whichever seat is filled in the house.
And they have the basics installed too so they dont have to be given money for furnishings.
Then all we’d have to pay would be the cost of maintianing it and protecting it which I’m sure would still be a damn site cheaper than the free for all that currently goes on.
There’s a simple solution to the problem of MPs expense allowances.
MP’s allowances should be the same as those allowed by Revenue and Customs for any taxpayer who has two places of work. If the taxman allows normal taxpayers to claim an item against tax, then MP’s would be reimbursed; if the taxman doesn’t allow it then MP’s should pay out of their own pockets like ordinary taxpayers.
Advantages:
1) Its fair. What’s good enough for the taxpayer should be good enough for MP’s.
2) There’s no need to invent a new set of allowances for MP’s. These allowances have been developed over a long period and can be adopted immediately. Lots of people have more than one place of work: MP’s aren’t a special case in this respect.
3) If MP’s don’t like the Revenue and Customs rules, they can change them – bearing in mind that ordinary taxpayers will benefit from any changes.