Un bridled joy to see the poor little people in the westminster village booing their eyes out again.

If there is any justice every rotten MP associated with farming in this appalling administration will have their gardening claims cut back. This will give the minister man with a girls name a feel of what the rpa are like. I can still see the lights going down on him at the FW awards night and the lottery voice of the balls man telling him to shut up. Wonderful.

 I don't know it appears they can still buy their porn on the expenses as Smith doesn't look as though she'll be writing the large cheque.

Why is it that some Z-rated celeb makes an off-the-cuff ill-advised remark and all hell breaks loose. They are required to grovel and apologise "unreservedly". OK so they should watch what they say when the PC lot are about, but it is generally an unpremeditated one-off comment. However, our politicians can rip the backside off their expenses - public money - in a sustained and prolonged manner and the most you get from Ms Smith is "I apologise" - said in a tone of "It isn't my fault at all". Hopefully, the voters will make their opinions felt shortly!

Considering how often they've condoned retrospective changes to the rules for the rest of us, especially those of us who are self-employed, it is pure hypocrisy for them to be whingeing now.  And indeed, why should they not discover what it's like to have some unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat come down on them?  This is all very sweet justice.

My concern here is that as the reputaton of these people gets ever murkier it will be very hard to try and persuade anyone decent to do the job in future, which can only be bad for democracy.

 

What amuses me is how they try so innocenctly to ask for " CLOSURE" on this issue as though its nothing.When in reality they have been caught with their Hands in the Till.They can come out with all this rubbish about the Regulator changing the Rules but if they were the Boss of a Company and something had gone wrong they would call it Corperate Mismanagement or Misuse and the Victim would be Harried through the Courts yet this Bunch can say Closure and walk away. No Boys you have to face the Music and it's going to hurt.

 But how many will face the music, how many will refuse to pay the money and will just think that if they don't get relected or told to stand down will just think live on a fair sized pension as well as do the dinner speaker circuit.

They are like pigs with their snouts in the trough hoovering up everything they can without the slightest regard for the hard working British taxpayer whose funds they have plundered. If we had defrauded the tax payers in a like manner we would be incarcerated in HM prison somewhere, yet it looks as though they are going to get away with their theft by paying some of it back. Since when did it become ok to steal from someone so long as you paid it back if caught? They make me puke!!

Dick.

ps I wonder when members of the House of Lords and the corrupt  Euro MEPs will be exposed, for I think their fiddles will make ordinary MPs look like angels.

They are so desperate to hide behind the "rules" or "laws" failing to see that there is something called moarality in public life.

Let bad things happen to politicians/civil servants in large and untempered measures.

townie:

Considering how often they've condoned retrospective changes to the rules for the rest of us

I thought it was just me.

I work out of an agricultural college and the claw back and changing of rules is perpetual. There is hardly a day goes by when we don't have some kind of audit and invariably "they" have introduced a new rule or bit of paper or form.

If this wakes the Lilliputian members in the westminster village up to what they have been metering out to their people through the un elected civil servants from room 101 - excellent.

I expect that they will moan and crawl back under their rolling stone. Baby Boomer Bunglers, they will be called to account.

I am more angry about this now than at anytime in this 3 year "process" (they love that word in westminster). I hope that they all get their comeuppance and there is a hung parliament with the SNP holding the balance of power. That might just change something. Not often I call for our friends in the north. I do however think that this will be the challenge to the flat earth morality we are subject to from the patronizing poser parliamentarian pseudos.

They still don't get it.

Motley, I feel your pain! I do however wonder if actually the problem is now so systemically embedded, that like a malignant growth is now nigh on impossible to get rid of without destroying everything around it. I, like you, saw first hand how the system is constantly measuring if it's doing the right thing, reviewing its growth in effect by pulling its own roots up and if not killing itself is so weakened it allows a competitor in to dominate the scene until the new system succumbs to the same dumb logic of its predecessor, all in the aim to achieve instant gratification and to be seen to be accountable.

They (methinks the 'honourable members' do protest to much) still don't get it...and they won't because they have an odd personal moral compass that has been programmed to let them believe that someone else is responsible for their lives, even if the ethics are wrong.

Now I don't hold any pro-pig trough candle for our poor MP's but I do wonder if the cries for retribution go too far.  If this principle of changing agreed allowances/subsidies/benefits up to five years after they have been agreed and paid gets a real hold what's to stop HM Government using it to plug some of the holes in the budget deficit?

How much support would they get, I wonder, if they decided now that SFP should 'morally' have been capped at 50 Hectares - so sorry all you large farmers we want our money back. 

On the other hand some possibililties have an attraction - how about all companies with names beginnig with T and ending in O should pay super-corporation tax at 99% since 2004.

motley:

townie:

Considering how often they've condoned retrospective changes to the rules for the rest of us

I'm not really sure what townie has in mind here.  Off hand I can't think of any.

Jacobus:

Off hand I can't think of any

OK just a quickie. We worked on a project, and we collected information as requested. They came unto us and changed the collection of data 3 times, with each being retrospective, such that we had to go back and agree information already collected and collect more of the farmer participant. If we were unable to collect this information we would be subjected to claw back. At no time were we given a definitive "john lewis" book simply a contract that ......could be adapted as time went by. At no point were we ever given simple instructions as to what was and was not required it was all subject to undertaking the project and collecting information at milestones and then "testing the water audit" to see if we would be paid.(ever come across a dominius form). Then they would ask us to collect extra information with a new form, and we go back and collect the information from previous participants. Clear as mud this, I know. This happens across government.

How is this different from wheat sent into a mill that mysteriously changes quality between on farm testing and testing on lorry at the mill, and then rejected but Oh we can put into feed wheat bin, sir.

Why do courts of law in property matters adopt a different law to RPA beckett stick (2 metre x-compliance) when measuring property boundaries?

I can go on. I ususally do.

I think Jacobus you do accounts, not certain. Me thinks that the tax man can indulge himself in goal post shifting like the swedish  goalkeeper, if they want. I know you will say it is possible to go to court, that costs and since ton and cherie got at our law it is only the rich that can afford to play the lottery of court justice. We do not have Roman law here we have common law. You want justice, eh.

I have no sympathy they (mps) obfuscated for three years on this when that wonderful women was trying to get them under freedom of information and they went to high court to stop her. So if they had been upfront to begin with they would have been no need for the backdating to when the case began.

Are you telling me old smudger smith as home secretary and unable to count the days she spent in each house was a sign of a good home secretary?

Jacobus:

motley:

townie:

Considering how often they've condoned retrospective changes to the rules for the rest of us

I'm not really sure what townie has in mind here.  Off hand I can't think of any.

 

Well there are a number of cases, but one I had in mind and was particularly close to was the Arctic Systems case where the government attempted to retrospectively apply an obscure piece of tax legislation with a view to coining millions in tax from freelancers.  In the event the House of Lords struck down the attempt, so the government has spent the time since trying to construct some convoluted change to the law to favour themselves.  My point here isn't that that case succeeded, nor that the MPs are wrong about the justice of having their claims examined retrospectively, but that they have in the past had no problem with such a principal and when it now bites them I call that justice

motley:

We worked on a project, and we collected information as requested

Who are 'we', and was the request in a written contract?

motley:

They came unto us and changed the collection of data 3 times, with each being retrospective

Who are 'they' and why did 'we' start work on a project where the data collection was not set in stone in the contract?

motley:

simply a contract that ......could be adapted as time went by

Did 'we' not read it, or did 'we' not understand the implications or did 'we' understand the uncertainties but sign it anyway?

In the case of MPs, they are employees.  I know they are a bit different because, rightly or wrongly, they not only set their own salary levels, but they also set the expenses they could claim.  However hard they have tried to maintain that cosy position, the fact is that now they are going to find themselves in a very different position in the future.  I do not believe that is any justification for retrospectively clawing back past claims unless it can be shown that the claims did not meet the rules that applied at the time.

In the case of Jackie Smith there appears to be no doubt that her claim that her main residence was in London is not borne out by the facts and that she has apparently claimed £106,000 more than she should have done.  I find it hard to believe that she will get away with not having to repay any of this and harder to believe she will be allowed to stand at the next election in Redditch - but to hear Harriet Harperson wriggling in the face of John Humphreys questions on Today, it seems that Brown can't make the decision to have done with her.

There are other cases where MPs have made false or fraudulent claims, no doubt occasionally in error, and where this has happened, even if there is insufficient evidence for prosecution, they should be forced out.  I'm sure most will be, or at least not have the cojones to face their local electorate.

There are a great many employees in the country who are able to claim expenses.  I was one myself for many years.  There were always rules as to what you could claim - mileage allowance, hotel bills, meals allowances for working away, budgets for entertaining staff/clients etc..  Someone was always responsible for checking and signing off ones expenses (in the case of MPs, the Fees Office), and I never heard of any case, except where a fraudulent or mistaken claim came to light after the event, where a company retrospectively changed the expenses it paid. 

In my own case with one employer I was called into a meeting with my boss who started to berate the amount I was claiming for mileage.  I was having to visit a client on the south coast several times a month and it was costing too much, I was told.  The partners had discussed it and decided that to reduce the expenditure I would have to have a company car.  I didn't argue that one, but did insist it should be the same as my own car, but new.

 

There was also this case of retrospection, that is apparently now being challenged on human rights grounds.  so if any of these shyster MPs start whingeing about their rights with regard to the expenses fiasco, just remember that they have no regard for anyone else's rights.

I never said there were no cases of retrospection, but they are very rare.  In fact it is general principle in English law that legislation can only be retrospective if there are very compelling reasons for it being so. 

In your first example,as I understand it, it was the Revenue's interpretation of the law which changed and they then decided to impose this re-interpretation retrospectively, and it was actually their interpretation of the law which was quashed on appeal to the Lords, so you can't really ascribe any blame to MPs on the change of the Revenue's attitude. 

In your second case it seems to me that the arguments are twofold, that the UK Government have not properly demonstrated that the retrospective aspect of the change in the law was not properly justified and that they did not prepare an impact assessment of its effects, including the effects on the taxpayers' families and the fact that a number of them will be forced into bankruptcy.  In other words the argument is that the retrospection is unfair and in this case disproportionate because retrospection gives rise not to just the settlement of the unpaid tax, but to penalties and interest for up to six years which in these types of cases tends to be more than the tax involved.

I know that a lot of people do not believe that the MPs involved deserve any sympathy or fair treatment.  I'll bet there would be many that didn't think that tax dodgers should be treated fairly either.  I heard on the radio this morning, an interview with the partner of Austin Mitchell whose most heinous crime appears to be that he claimed for a packet of biscuits that he shouldn't have done.  She said that they are both subjected to abuse from members of the public about this 'crime' including people who equate 'stealing' a packet of biscuits with mass murder. 

Of course all of this stems from the fact the, unless they have independent means, our MPs, especially if married with children, would find it impossible to live in any reasonable manner if they did not get some allowance for a second home.  I know it's probably not a popular view at the moment, but IMHO they are underpaid.  US Congressmen, and Senators, receive a salary of £107,000, 65% more than we pay our MPs.  If we paid our MPs at this sort of level then they could do without the second home allowances including food, which have been the main cause of all this controversy. 

   

Jacobus:

I never said there were no cases of retrospection

True, but you did say ...

Jacobus:

I'm not really sure what townie has in mind here.  Off hand I can't think of any

So I was quoting a couple of examples that sprang to mind; there are more than a few others ....

The first of my examples was strongly supported and sanctioned by the elected MPs that run the relevant department and further and quite vocally supported by a number of MPs who were lobbied on the subject, so they do have a measure of blame over and above HMRC's involvement.  Importantly the fact that a number of MPs on this and other subjects have supported the notion of applying taxation measures retrospectively has a direct bearing on their attitude to having their own financial affairs examined in a similar manner.  FWIW, in both cases I believe the retrospection was wrong and as you rightly point out a violation of an ancient principle of English law.  It is the hypocrisy of the MPs that annoys, not the justice of their claims.

On the subject of the second homes.  I have long believed that MPs should have the same treatement as those other servants of the state who regularly work away from home: the armed forces.  It is a great shame that the old Chelsea barracks were sold off as these would have made an excellent site for the construction of a luxury development to provide every MP upon election with an apartment in close proximity to their main place of work.  These homes could be well fitted out with additional conference and meeting facilities and everything needed to allow the MPs to live there with their families if they so wish.  At no charge whatsoever, including fuel bills, etc.  I haven't done the figures in detail but I believe this could be done such that over the lifetime of the building taxpayers would save on the allowances.  Everything would thus be transparent and anyone not wanting to live in the barrack could make their own arrangements at their own expense.

Jacobus:

I never said there were no cases of retrospection, but they are very rare.  In fact it is general principle in English law that legislation can only be retrospective if there are very compelling reasons for it being so.

 

Hindsight as a retrospective tool is a wonderful thing up there with common sense, one we don't use and the other we don't learn from.

Jacobus:

I know it's probably not a popular view at the moment, but IMHO they are underpaid.  US Congressmen, and Senators, receive a salary of £107,000, 65% more than we pay our MPs.

 

This is indeed true, the rightness of your proposition regarding pay rates, though may I suggest the combined Senators (100 members) and Congressmen (435 representatives) in the USA (didn't we have first rights to this once) are overseeing the affairs of a bit bigger economy and larger population and therefore actually are quite cheap by comparison to our representatives, 645 members in House of Commons and 707 in the House of Lords plus a handful not eligible. The fact that it is not a popular view that they should be paid more is correct too, mainly because parliament have been setting their own remuneration affairs for some considerable time and making a right pigs ear of it, the system was their system and one they thought was more palatable than tripling their basic pay in one wallop. If they had been paid 100k plus then we might not have squeaked when faced with the lurid tails of pornographic duck houses, wet tennis courts, property upgrades, dirty moats the wrong type of ivy and concentrated instead on who was doing a job worthy of the income recieved. Equally the MP's could have concentrated on doing the job they were paid to do instead of working out which flipping house to live in to their financial advantage (not all were doing this I fully appreciate).

townie:

The first of my examples was strongly supported and sanctioned by the elected MPs that run the relevant department

 That would be G Brown MP then, presumably also the architect of IR35?  Also the one whose 'prudence' kept down MPs pay rises over the last 13 years while extending their expense allowances and encouraging the claim culture to keep up their incomes.

townie:

I haven't done the figures in detail but I believe this could be done such that over the lifetime of the building taxpayers would save on the allowances.

That would have been a good idea, but I bet Dear Gordon would have insisted it should be in a PFI and so ultimately cost even more than inflated expenses!

the greenth:

This is indeed true, the rightness of your proposition regarding pay rates, though may I suggest the combined Senators (100 members) and Congressmen (435 representatives) in the USA (didn't we have first rights to this once) are overseeing the affairs of a bit bigger economy and larger population and therefore actually are quite cheap by comparison to our representatives, 645 members in House of Commons

I thought it might be interesting to make some more comparisons.  In the USA the average population (not voters) served by each congressman is about 708,000, whereas in the UK parliament the average population served by each MP is only 96,000.  If we were to have a parliament with the same level of representation as the USA there would be only 88 MPs, 74 from England, 7 from Scotland, 4 from Wales and 3 from Northern Ireland.

Listening to the various items on the radio this morning, I thought it interesting to compare how the differing approaches of the people who now seem to be speaking from the front bench of the two main parties reflect their past professions.  For Labour, Harriet Harperson (lawyer) favours sticking to the letter of the rules.  For the Tories, Call me Dave Cameron (PR man) thinks that, whatever the rights or wrongs, the end result must look right.

Jacobus:

townie:

I haven't done the figures in detail but I believe this could be done such that over the lifetime of the building taxpayers would save on the allowances.

That would have been a good idea, but I bet Dear Gordon would have insisted it should be in a PFI and so ultimately cost even more than inflated expenses!

 

Hmmm ... a very good point.  Perhaps this idea will have to wait until Callmedave is in charge and has reformed the whole show, assuming he lives up to his promise.

Actually, just as an exercise, I thought I'd follow the Chelsea Barracks idea up.  According to information gleaned from this site, the development is estimated to be costing around £1Bn to provide 548 apartments.  On this site it says that they paid £959 million for the site.  I am guessing that the first site is referring to the development cost, not the purchase price.  On that basis, they are suggesting each apartment would cost an average of almost £2 million to construct.  That seems ludicrous, but as some of these are premium penthouses and such like with top specs, I'm sure we can come up with a more reasonable figure for, say 600 MPs or let's say half that, so £500 million.  We can compare this to the existing  MPs second home allowance.  This is £23K, but not all do claim the full amount, so let's say an average of around £20K for 300 MPs.  That's £1.2 million / year, which roughly tallies with what I'm seeing on various news sites.  So the development would take over 400 years to pay for itself!  Back to the drawing board ...

Jacobus:

If we were to have a parliament with the same level of representation as the USA there would be only:  88 MPs. (74 from England, 7 from Scotland, 4 from Wales and 3 from Northern Ireland.)

To put Jacobus's figures in a different context: The UK has the following MEPs in Brussels

Jacobus's US comparison = Scotland.     7   Brussels 6

                                      = Wales          4   Brussels 4

                                      = N. Ireland     3   Brussels 3

                                      = England      74  Brussels 59

Conclude from that what you will. It does look however, as though on a per capita basis, Brussels has mirrored the US's representation levels in the cases of Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in the case of Scotland and England. Scotland being under represented by 1 and England by 15.

I guess the people who do arithmetic in Brussels have qualifications in differential quantum political relativity.

Jacobus:

Who are 'we'

a partnership of colleges.

Jacobus:

Did 'we' not read it, or did 'we' not understand the implications or did 'we' understand the uncertainties but sign it anyway?

What happens in the world of government tendering is a contract is issued and bid for, often late, oh yes but no but we followed "the rules". The tender is successful somewhere and the people who are successful are asked to kick off, because it is close to the year end and we need to do this now to get the ball rolling. Then you say "oh but what about a contract?" answer is "don't worry about that... we are all in this together" (heard that lately?). Then about a year later things kick off with some sort of contract. That is why you can't tie anything down.

The private sector seem to think schools, hospitals and others know their budgets well in advance. They don't. Often you kick the year off with many things out of place.

Nobody cares, Heather Brooke does http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/15/mps-expenses-heather-brooke-foi who spent five years trying to call mps to account which is why the expenses were "back dated". Heather Brooke  should be awarded a gong.

At present your modulated money (I say yours because mysteriously farmers believe that the money from Europe is "theirs") is held by the rpa and is fed out to the regions and administered by the rda's and issued out on a regional basis to a regional plan. Well if only some people would start by asking some questions, but they don't care how "our" modulated money is spent. Like the bloke on question time last night who wanted to move on from the whole question of expenses. Idiot.

Why don't you contact your rda and ask them what they are doing with the modulated funding from rpa and how they are benefiting farmers with it and then ask for the details of the money. Enjoy. the money is all being used by government for government. We need a Heather Brooke in farming to start asking some questions under Freedom of information about how rda's administer your money. Trouble is farmers don't want to expose it because they are in this together and are getting government money already often late, over paid or under paid. If there is no one in farming with the cajones to ask their local rda what is being done with "their modulated" money why should anyone care when they shout and scream.

My I am still really angry about these MPs. I was hoping that a rant on the web would be theraputic, but it just doesn't work any more.

 

motley:

What happens in the world of government tendering is a contract is issued and bid for, often late, oh yes but no but we followed "the rules". The tender is successful somewhere and the people who are successful are asked to kick off, because it is close to the year end and we need to do this now to get the ball rolling. Then you say "oh but what about a contract?" answer is "don't worry about that... we are all in this together" (heard that lately?). Then about a year later things kick off with some sort of contract. That is why you can't tie anything down.

Motley, I have to say 'it's another world'!   Like townie, Mrs J is in the IT contract world.  She has worked for hardware and software companies and has worked directly in many industries and the public sector (which she hates).  It always amuses me when there are problems with public sector IT.  It is always the IT businesses which are blamed for any shortcomings, failures, extended timescales and cost inflation,  No-one ever blames the public sector organisation (who mostly seem to work how you describe) for indecision and constantly changing requirements and for constantly changing requirements for data streams to be added, even though, for the most part, no-one will ever use the reported data.

Of course, IT companies don't behave like your group of colleges.  They don't ever start work until the contract is signed, and that contract will be so specific that even the smallest changes will require a new or additional contract and extra payment.  This concept is alien to the public sector but they have no option but to go with it.  You would think that this would make them really concentrate hard on defining what they want precisely before signing the contract, but it doesn't.  They seem to be organisationally or culturally incapable of this seemingly obvious need.  This seems to be the norm where public meets private sector as the recent report on MOD procurement demonstrates.

re. modulation money.  Farmers know that it is not all going back to farmers, under EU rules the modulation goes for Rural Development, which may be anything from re-furbing your local village hall to a diversification scheme which will provide local jobs.  There is no secrecy about where the money goes (albeit a lot goes on admin) as each RDA produces a report and accounts each year.  Our RDA, Advantage West Midlands has it's accounts on its website.  They are 101 pages long so I haven't read them in full.

Jacobus:

You would think that this would make them really concentrate hard on defining what they want precisely before signing the contract, but it doesn't

In essence the mentality is similar to the first world war generals. Where the generals- senior mangers in public sector- do the bid as they want their job, pension and salary. The project is then put in the mushroom house, where the minions find out what they are supposed to do. I am certain you know what mushroom management is, you strike me as a man of the world ( ah, another song).

Get over the top lads we are right be hind you with bayonets fixed.

I am still really angry with MPs.