I've just been told what's in the Telegraph tomorrow. I think this one is already on their website. Barbara Follett has claimed £25,000 for a security guard to patriol outside her London home because she doesn't "feel safe"!!! I feel a by-election coming on.
Phil Hope MP is said to have spent £37,000 on items which would be too big to fit in his flat.
Phil Woolas is threatening to sue the Telegraph so excuse me if I wimp out of detailing what he is alleged to have claimed. Admittedly, it seems implausible.
And Keith Vaz, whose main home is not in his Leiester constituency, but 12 miles from the Commons, also claims for a flat in Westminster.
44 comments:
The BBC just said Woolas has been said to have claimed for nappies and women's clothing!
Isn't the Follett story the biggest scandal of the lot?
Twelve years in power, lying through their teeth about how crime is low and falling, and the tourism minister doesn't feel safe in her home.
Dont you just love it eh, all Liebour and on the side of the working class...This lot have seriously decided that all is doomed and they intended to rip the arse out of it big time before May 2010....
Well done to the mole, should get a knighthood and the bizzys should be looking for thieves like Follett and Smith et al...
These crooks have instigated an investigation into the leaking of the information from Parliament. They are so crooked they cannot stomach not seeking revenge on the person who exposed their widespread corruption.
They use two basic lies.
1) Their claims are within the rules.
The basic rule is that every claim MUST be beyond reproach.
2) The claim has been passed by the accounts dept.
The onus is on the MP to be honorable and not submit a fraudulent claim.
bonfire of the vanities
If I heard correctly on the BBC News at Ten, Woolas denied that he'd ever been paid for the alleged nappies and women's clothing, and, shock, that he might sue The Telegraph (Bring it on then Phil!).
To my mind, there is a difference between what is claimed for and what is paid for - the sort of gap that a slippery politician might use to imply one thing while saying another.
And of course the Folletts are millionaires ...
WV = Dunce, no really!
Barbara Follett is, if I remember, a personal friend of Tony Blair. I am not sure that qualifies her to be so scared as to employ a personal bodyguard.
Woolas is, at best, a fool so anything could be true.
But, watch out - there are some world-class fools on the Tory benches as well. Some appear to be somewhat befuddled by drink when they speak in the House and so perhaps appear more foolish than they really are.
But is the Chipmunk chips? She seems to have been very naughty. What do you say about it, Iain?
I am getting to the point where it may just be that counting the honest politicians can be done with just the fingers on one hand.
I have kept away from commenting on this whole MP's expenses episode so far.......... but "WTF"!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm torn between two options:
1. Total and utter brutal cull of curernt MP's with punishment being as near as possible to "displaying their heads on the wall of the Tower of London".
and.....
2. Major reform of both the House of Lords, MP's and our constitution - whereby a major Charles the 1st / Oliver Cromwwell shoe up the arse event occurs, so that politicians know who butters their bread.
No doubt Woolas will be brandishing the sword of truth and the trusty shield of british fair play.
What is wrong here is that the people who are in charge are A)Levying taxes on the rest of us, who are obliged to pay them, whilst they themselves claim it back on expenses eg Council Tax and B) If someone claimed DHSS Benefits to the extent that MP's claim on expenses, that claimant would be imprisoned for Fraud.
Follett's folly?
The fact is that, in many respects, it isn't the rules that are wrong but the ethics of Parliamentarians, which appear to be non-existent.
This is why the bleating about 'it wasn't against the rules' makes my blood boil.
How could it be ethical for a millionaire's wife to claim taxpayers' money for security because she had been mugged?
How could it be ethical for the Chancellor (et al) to flipflop over his nominated second home, when his Government bleat about the morality of perfectly legal tax avoidance?
How could it be ethical for holier-than-thou New Labouristas to attempt to claim for garden ornaments and super-luxury hotels?
How could it be ethical for members of the Opposition (who wish to be in a position to tell the rest of us how to live our lives) to stick their snouts in the trough, just because it's within the rules?
I hope your by-election predictions will be so forthcoming when then Tory expenses appear. So too do I hope your commentors who crows about NU LIEBORE will be equally as damning to the CONservatives.
Paul Halsall said...
The BBC just said Woolas has been said to have claimed for nappies and women's clothing!
Would that be the same nappy that he soiled when he met Joanna Lumley yesterday?
In light of these developments, the specific voting details of MPs on expenses in July last year are interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/r6wj48
Could be interesting if the mole is caught- do they deny everything, hence having to give evidence as to his accuracy (under cross examination)- or do they give evidence for the prosecution- swearing to the accuracy of the reports?
JHL:
Matthew "Sport" Higgins could count the number of honest politicians on just one hand.
But then, he didn't have that many fingers left...
Saw Stuart Bell on the Daily Politics say that MPs a worried about the security implications behind the Telegraph revelations... maybe they should be the first to be issued with ID cards as we all now know these will solve every security problem known to man.
If the Chipmunk bought 2 tellies for her "won bed flutt", where does she keep them?
I wonder how many items were "returned" or found their way into the main residence...
WV: thlype - new word - lying tripe that is typed.
Help, Help! Said the MP who was drowning! More expenses sleaze news from home and abroad
As shameless a link to my own blog re: Barbara Follett's last expenses claimThough my link costs the taxpayer nothing...
I understand that Barbara Follet was claiming expenses for private security outside her London home following her being mugged and attracting a stalker. If an MP is concerned about their security then this is surely a legitimate claim (as opposed to her claiming £500 for a rug). As a former caseworker to an MP I sympathise with MPs concerned about their safety. Does no-one remember the attack on Nigel Jones MP back in 2000?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/622602.stm
Private security was possibly cheaper than her having actual police protection outside her London residence which would have still been paid for by the taxpayer (just not via an expenses claim). Hopefully this type of coverage wont dissuade other MP's from taking out or requesting protection if they will feel they need it. I think the Telegraph should be ashamed of themselves for attacking Follet on this particular issue as this concerns the safety of all MPs.
According to the Telegraph:
"Phil Woolas, the Home Office Minister, claimed for items of women's clothing, tampons and nappies. The parliamentary rules only allow expenses which are "exclusively" for MPs' own use so it is not clear these items were justified."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5298065/MPs-expenses-Four-ministers-who-milked-the-system.html
Tampons? Is there something that Phillipa Woolas hasn't told us?
I look forward to Daley's indignation when the Tory expenses come out over the next few days.
Sadly we can expect equally damning revelations when the Tories expenses are published, with added BBC and MSM spin as to the gravity of Tory Sleaze, whilst all Labour's misdemeanours will have been misunderstandings or inadvertent.
Which makes you wonder if this is the real reason this information suddenly became public.
Oh for a new wave of honourable politicians instead of the self serving scum we have today.
Perhaps Mr Woolas inserts the tampons into his rear, to stop him befouling himself with terror every time he sees a picture of Joanna Lumley.
His threats to sue are pitiful. All it needs to counter them is production of his expense claims in court. Contemptible.
And for Brown to blame "the system" is outrageous evasion, a typical Brownian distortion of reality. What about the people who systematically exploit "the system", for God's sake? Didn't they play a modest part in all this?
We need a General Election. Now.
Isn't it time to stop calling MP's "honourable" and "right honourable" members?
They sure as hell aren't!
Why the fuss? With Jacqui as Home Secretary Private Security Guards should be compulsory
Last year (june) someone pulled a knife on me, last saturday 02/05/09 someone cut my field fence letting my cattle on to a road, cost £200:00 then on friday 07/05/09 same fence trashed again but not as bad as before cost £70:00 please tell me where I can send my claims into?
The most extraordinary comment I've read so far on the expenses business is this morning's Times editorial. In effect, The Times appears to think that:
a) It's the press's fault for printing the claims, and the hypocritical taxpayers' fault for being outraged at discovering the behaviour of their elected representatives;
b) It's "simply untrue" that MPs "have established for themselves a remarkable package with rules that allow them to line their pockets at public expense. "
c) If we dare to complain about what has happened, a much poorer quality of person will enter public life.
I'm still trying to work out who could have written this editorial - Lewis Carroll? Edward Lear? An alien from Planet Zarg?
All this bleating about it having been within the rules at the time don't convince anyone, where rules (such as not claiming for property improvements, or not being allowed to claim for expenses of other family members) seem so clearly to have been broken.
Some resignations, and orders to repay misappropriated money, are in order. These greedy people have undermined democracy, and taken us all for a ride.
Cleaning ladies at Palace of Westminster to go on strike as the PM vows to bring an end to the culture of McBroom and Dust.
I tried to explain this to a friend in America. It came out like this:
UK MPs get paid £66,000 a year (as opposed to $167,000 for US Congress members), but London is a very expensive city. So they feel underpaid.
They have a £24,000 expense account and most of the "claims" are a way to access this pot of money. Some of the claims are apparently scandalous - but mostly it seems most MPs on arrival at Westminster were told by other MPs that this was "how the system worked.".
The total amount involved is just over £15,000,000 per year for all 646 MPs -and most of the expenses were probably justified.
Overall, this is a hugely inflated story.
http://englisheclectic.blogspot.com/2009/05/mps-expenses-storm-in-teacup.html
Woolas is implausible. He reminds me of the nasty little toads who used to be behind the counters in the dole offices of the early 70s.
Pure New Labour apparatchik, with no claim to competence at anything he does, merely the ability to do what he is told by the Brownfuhrer.
Bless Ms. Lumley. My father served with the Ghurkhas and thought them the finest fighting people in the world. They lay down their lives for our country, and New Labour tell them to fuck off.
Hey Paul >> Rubbish ! MPs must submit genuine receipts (therefore the cost must be genuine). Its not part of their salary - even if they think it is.
The point is that the allowance system is being systematically milked for every last penny.
who cares?! is is it really that important - the rules are crap they need changing - MPs arent well paid for what they do and cos the public would not stomach pay rises for MPs they have supplemented their incolem with these allowances.
The bigger issues is the state of the economy - shares have soared since the G20 (despite suggestions from this blog and others that the markets would give a resounding "rasberry" to Brown and the G20 leaders) and the FTSE is now 27% higher than at their lowest point. The Telepgraph's 10 reasons to be cheerful today is also worth a read - it certainly cheered me.
"who cares?"
I care. I don't want to see people losing their jobs and homes across the country while some MPs screw the allowances system at taxpayers expense to:-
* become property developers
* refurbish apartments so they can let them out to tenants
* avoid Stamp Duty while making the rest of us pay it
* buy 4 plasma TVs in 2 years
* pay for their porn bill
* entertain their mistresses / lovers
* fit mock Tudor beams to their home to 'enable them to better serve their constituents'
* pay for cosmetics and eye-liner
* employ security guards because their Government is so incompetent they don't even feel safe in their own homes in opulent areas in central London
* pay for toilet seats, tampons, tins of instant coffee, biscuits, packets of Malteasers, silk cushions, curtains, the refurbishment of Chinese Urns, etc, etc
* give money to relatives for 'jobs' in their offices or to clean homes they don't live in
I now see that there is a formal complaint of criminal deception against one MP. I dont think it will run and for a terrible, terrible reason. The Police and CPS know that any MP arrested will plead that he thought it was within the rules so he could not form the 'mens rea' (guilty mind) necessary for the criminal offence.
Just unpick that. The defence is that so many MPs were rotten and corrupt and lying that the fiddles, evasions and deceptions had become accepted practice. The whole system was so dishonest and corrupt that they thought it was OK to do it.... so that was alright then.
Just what does that say about those that govern us and whom we elect?
The solution to this isn't in the courts, it's in the ballot box.I think the Conservatives and Lib Dems need to grab this issue. They should identify, out and deselect those in their own parties who have committed the most egregious claims and get in a fresh team to replace them. Anyone who has been at this - no matter who - needs to go. We just wont re-elect them.
Cameron must also commit to the total clean up of the system. Brown is like a rabbit caught in headlights on this one. Frozen in indecision, weak and unable to act for fear of his own backbenchers who know that they will soon be ruthlessly culled by the electorate anyway.
This is both a necessity and opportunity for the Party. Cameron must seize it now.
"most MPs on arrival at Westminster were told by other MPs that this was "how the system worked."."
Ah you mean just like the Banks and Hedge Fund managers?
So is that what they call a "conspiracy to defraud"?
Paul
You say the most of the expenses were probably justified. The discussion is about those that were not justified.
The quantum of individual frauds is not the issue - the fact that fraud was perpetrated is the issue.
We are not discussing the tariff of punishment as for the value of goods taken, by a shop-lifter. It is the simple act of theft.
"MPs aren't well paid for what they do"?
What is it that they do that makes their remuneration so poor?
My MPs do bugger all and bleat on about how they do so much for their constituents.
If one considers the quality of legislation that has been enacted over the past 12 years, can you really say we get value for money.
And, don't they always go on about what a privilege it is to be a MP? So why do they need financial sodding inducements?
At May 09, 2009 2:02 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...
NO - no government politician should be allowed to have private security UNLESS this is the normal way to deal with such problems.
Since ordinary people can not even get a real policeman on the beat then the political trash should live with the same results of their social engineering.
They should NOT have extra security.
It is THEIR job to make the country safe for US.
The same goes for their expenses - they MUST comply with the same rules everyone else does.
Post a Comment