"In our report yesterday, we stated that Ed Balls MP and Yvette Cooper MP "were each able to claim the £24,000 a year allowance to help pay for the purchase of their home in the capital." We are happy to make clear Mr and Mrs Balls have never claimed the full allowance, each claiming between 53 per cent and 72 per cent of the full allowance in the period 2005 to 2008."
Well that raises some interesting questions doesn't it? As they each share the same second home, surely the maximum they should be claiming is 50 per cent each? Instead they claim somewhere between 106 per cent and 144 per cent of the allowance. This means that between them, in the four years since 2005 they have trousered somewhere between an extra £2,880 and a whopping £21,120 more than the single allowance of £24,000 second home allowance for one MP.
Why?
Married pensioners do not get double the single pension. Married people on housing benefit are not both entitled to claim.
Two people living in the same house can live more cheaply than two people living in separate houses. That is an indisputable fact whether you're a politician or a teacher. And it's balls to suggest otherwise.
Balls and Cooper should be asked to justify, in detail, why they are fleecing the taxpayer like this. And if it is the rules which allow them to, then the rules stink, and need to be changed.
20 comments:
Open goal for Cameron - ask Brown about Jacqui Smith, then follow it up with the Balls.
Brown will drop his own names in reply then Cameron can say that voters will draw their own conclusions from the PM's excuse being "well we're only doing what the Tories used to do"
As I explained on my blog recently, the rules for MP's allowances are wide open to abuse.
The failure of MPs from any side of the House to put pressure on Jacqui Smith this week shows how fearful they all are of losing their cushy expenses system.
Two people can live in one house cheaper than living in two houses, but not as cheap as one person living in one house.
I thought the Tories were against 'marriage penalties' - why are you so keen to introduce one?
it's complicated
You ask Why? Iain,
The answer is simple. For the same reason that dogs lick their own balls - because they can...
Economic times are hard for ordinary folk, this needed saying, and well done Iain for saying it. We've had similar scandals here too, with husbands paying wives rent on their offices, its scandalous. The rules do stink, and the rules do need changed.
"So Weak!"
The Penguin
D Boothroyd said:
"Two people can live in one house cheaper than living in two houses, but not as cheap as one person living in one house."
Which misses the point. Many MP's have spouses or partners who share the accomodation from time to time, and the second home allowance is adequate for other MP's in this respect. Why should it be any different for the Balls? All any MP needs is an allowance sufficient to accomodate them + spouse/home in a second home. 2 MP's requirements are the same as a single couple.
The alternative would be to grant them a grace & favour apartment. Are you suggesting they should get 2?
By any reasonable definition of the word, this is fraud. If the Commons won't sort themselves out, why won't the Fraud Squad?
These 'rules' should be tested in court and if any MP loses, then the whole lot should be compelled to repay everything they have stolen from the tax payer.
They are beyond parody.
If the rules are at fault then isn't it unfair to string Yvette and Ed up by the ... errr .... balls (so to speak)?
Surely what an MP claims for is reviewed by some Admin person when they make their claim. If these claims are getting thru such a review procedure then its hardly the MP's fault.
My concern here is that it can't be long before the tories start to fall foul of these rules.
Or have I missed sthg?
If Cameron stays silent we will have heard all we need to know about him, his leadership skills and the true state of the Tory party.
I hate Labour with spiteful venom but the Tories (with the honourable exception of my MP Philip Hollobone)appear to be just as corrupt.
C'mon Dave! Show some character and grit instead of combover spin!
Why is their marital status, sexual preference, gender or personal life of any concern to you or me? They are individuals in their own right.
I can't bear this whole 'married couple' discrimination thing (especially when David Cameron bangs on about his stupid idea for 'tax breaks' for married couples). It's social engineering - 100%.
I am happily married and I have nothing against marriage - but it is simply is none of the governments business. I do not want a tax break because of my marital status.
Unfortunately, they have nothing to justify if they have not broken the rules.
The first thing to do is to clarify those rules.
You know plenty of MPs.
Stop being so uselessly shrill and do the job properly.
The Balls and their supporters have managed to demonstrate their complete lack of moral substance. If it's allowed by 'the rules' that's OK then? What 'rules' are these - those they dream up for themselves? So it's my ball, my rules, my game - and sod the rest of you?
In the meantime these disgusting animals complain about Bankers' lack of morality. These 'politicians' are complete and loathsome hypocrites, in short, they are parasitical scum - as are their supporters.
Unfortunately the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has already considered this matter...
JOINT CLAIMS
93. It has not been necessary for me in considering this complaint to examine whether Members who claim jointly should each be able to claim up to the maximum amount under the Additional Costs Allowance for each Member. I recognise, however, that the Members Estimate Committee deferred consideration of this issue in case it was relevant to my investigation of this complaint.[47] I therefore offer the following comments.
94. I do not subscribe to the adage that two can live as cheaply as one. I do not believe, therefore, that if Members make joint claims, or claim separately in respect of the same accommodation, they should be confined only to a single allowance for that accommodation. But equally I am not convinced that, where Members share accommodation, they should each be able to claim up to the full single Member's allowance. Members sharing properties should have outgoings that are less than double that of a single Member to provide the same standard of accommodation and services. What a reduced shared allocation should be is a matter for further examination by others. Nor would I confine this only to Members who are married couples or who are the partner of another Member. It seems to me that once Members share properties with each other, even if they do not share other aspects of their lives, they should have a sharers allowance which is less than the sum of the allowances available to each Member singly.
95. Accordingly, I recommend that the House consider abating Members' individual Additional Costs Allowances where, for any reason, they share accommodation for which they make claims against that allowance.
Arithmetically it is possible if the total cost of living in the property exceeds the maximum allowance.
For example, say the cost of the property is £32,000 per annum, then Ed could claim, say £18,000 (75% of allowance) and Yvette £14,000 (58% of allowance) and not apparently break the rules.
Not excusing them, just highlighting that it is possible.
Unsworth:
"The Balls and their supporters have managed to demonstrate their complete lack of moral substance. If it's allowed by 'the rules' that's OK then? What 'rules' are these - those they dream up for themselves? So it's my ball, my rules, my game - and sod the rest of you?"
Is this directed at me (among others). My point is simply:
- that it seems infantile to persecute individual MP's if they abided by the rules as they are laid out. By all means change them but without having a pop at the likes of Yvette and Eddie.
If I claimed my expenses as indicated by the regulations of my organisation and then got slagged off for it I would feel that was unfair. The organisation tells me I can claim for sthg and then cirticises me for doing so? Hardly natural justice as I understand it.
From a party political point of view this issue will eventually come back to bite the Tories on the backside so I don't think they should make capital out of it but rather quietly go about changing the system.
I really would prefer the Opposition parties to concentrate their fire on taking Brown et al apart for their mishandling of the economy fo the last 11 years. For ten of those they crowed about their superior economic management, boasting of unparrelled economic growth and stability. People like myself were voices in the wilderness, dismissed as we warned about unbalanced growth, malinvestment, unsustainable booms fuelled by low interest rates, dwindling saving ratios and the long term consequences of such. Well now the full extent of Labour's failure is exposed as the "success" of the last ten years is shown to have been built on sand. And what do we get? Conservative bloggers prattling on about Eddie's expense claim. For pity's sake grow up and focus on what is important. Whatever the buxom young Home Secretary has fiddled (c. £116k I think) is insignificant in comparison to the economic screw up engineeered by Darling, Brown & Balls over the last 11 years. Yes crucify Yvette and Eddie but get some sense of proportion - concentrate on the latter for his role as Brown's economic adviser until recently and Yvette for being hopeless and inneffectual as part of the govt's team in responding to the downturn.
As for the comparison with the bankers: I see your point and its well made. But to my mind the bankers would have got their come uppance last year but instead the govt chose to bail them out. The punishment for failure that would have been exercised by the market was batted out of court by Gordon and Mandy. So we are now left with a mess - which we always are when the govt intervenes. If this mania for persecuting bankers does not end soon we are going to end up with a fully nationalised banking industry which will literally destroy the essence of our market economy and wreak havoc on it for decades to come.
So if a married couple both happen to work for the same employer their allowances are halved?
The words "barrel" and "scrape" spring irresistably to mind.
When we need a courageous sleaze watchdog like Elizabeth Filfin,we are insulted with pussycat Commissioner Lyon.
MPs were petrified of Filkin,wary of Graham but see Lyon as a walkover.He's clearly in the wrong job,but perhaps thats why he was appointed.
The deafening silence from Conservative MPs on Smith,makes you wonder what they are afraid of.
Jimmy the words "pot"and"black" come to mind as do "morals".
Post a Comment