MPs missed an opportunity to clean up their act tonight when they voted on their own pay and expenses. They bowed to Gordon Brown's pressure by holding down their pay but then threw all the possible benefits away by voting to keep their present "second homes" allowance, including the infamous "John Lewis list" which allows them to claim for furniture and fittings. That will mean more bad headlines tomorrow which will only reduce the standing of politicians in the public's minds even further. Not so much snouts in the trough but falling headfirst into it.
The plans to reform MPs' expenses by a committee chaired by the Speaker Michael Martin seemed sensible enough. Yet 33 ministers voted against them in a free vote. "They took all the nice bits of the package but not the ones they didn't like," said Nick Harvey, a Liberal Democrat MP on the committee." They took the spoonful of sugar but refused the medicine."
In future, MPs will not decide their own pay rise -- and not before time. I can't think of anyone else who does, in the public sector at least. After tonight's damaging votes, MPs should surely lose their right to set their expenses too.
Correct me if i am wrong..........
but as far as i can see everytime an MP is elected to Westminster, the tax payer finances their 2nd mortgage on their London home in full and £20.000 towards filling it with goodies.
The MP is then free to buy the property outright or sell it at the end of their term and collect the profits in the form of the complete market value of the property at point of sale, which then can be turned into a personal trust to avoid inhertiance tax.
So MPs buying in Chelsea, Pimlico, Islington, Westminster for example will all get a golden hand shake very much in their favour, of a fashionable London town house essentially given for free or it's market value - which given the state of the housing market means anything between 500,000 to 1000.000 worth of assets.
This happens each time an MP is elected. Unlike the Priminister & Chancellor, who is given the choice of a temporary home during their time at NO 10 & No.11 all other MPs make a killing at tax payers expenses.
Why isn't it law that each constituency accross the country must buy their own member's house in London, which is then vacated & reinhabited when their MP finishes their duties and a new MP is elected to westminster ? It seems so obvious. Currently we all pay for new houses on a regualr basis -which we then literally give away each and everytime and the MP collects the value of that house we have paid for.
This is a form of corruption because MPs essentially collect a property fortune even if they are elected out of office because we dont think much of them, and this fortune is the equivilant to what most ordinary Britains spend years of their working lives having to pay for and for which many who are hard working are never able to afford - the MPs get it all for free. If you look at the Wintertons case for example, and you divide their property fortune of £700.000 (the current value of the flat we paid for them to keep) over 20 years service that is the equivilant of £35.000 tax free income PA which would increase todays MPs' anual income from around £61.000 to £ 96.000 - except it iss more because that extra cash is tax free. But this is what these golden handshakes do to MPs salaries. We have to ask ourselves why do we allow this to happen ? MPs are elected as servants, we have a duty to provide them with appropriate accomodation in London, but to give that State asset away on a regualr basis, would be like giving the queen Buckingham Palace or Prince Charles St James Palace upon the end of their royal appointments. It is just so corrupt what ever way you look at it and MPs know this very well.
Posted by: nicholson | Friday, 04 July 2008 at 08:00 AM
It beggars belief, MP's (of all parties) have a system of money laundering (public funds) which they can vote to keep!!! Time these public servants were accountable to their employers - the British Public and I don't mean through a quango or committee of other public servants.
We already have to pick up the tab for their incompetencies e.g. Northern Rock, The Railways etc.
They argue they should be remunerated as are those in similar jobs in the real world - which world is that?
They would be sacked and prosecuted in my real world!
Posted by: PeterE | Friday, 04 July 2008 at 01:30 PM