| Author | Message | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 5:13 am Post subject: MP's expenses. |
| Benedict Brogan on The Telegraph's MP Expenses Expose
Video:
07 May 09: Chief Political Commentator Benedict Brogan talks about the Telegraph's investigation into MP's expenses.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/?bcpid=4464161001&bclid=0&bctid=22475735001
MPs' expenses: How Brown and his Cabinet exploit expenses system
Gordon Brown and his most senior ministers are facing questions over their use of parliamentary expenses after the Daily Telegraph revealed details of their claims.
By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor
Last Updated: 4:50AM BST 08 May 2009
The Prime Minister is revealed to have paid his brother for “cleaning services” at his private flat in Westminster. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, admitted that he had over-claimed for both his council tax and mortgage bills.
The disclosures show the scale of ministers’ claims and the extent to which politicians have exploited the expenses system to subsidise their lifestyles.
The Prime Minister is among 13 members of the Cabinet facing questions over their use of Parliamentary expenses. On Thursday, after being approached by The Daily Telegraph, Mr Brown repaid a plumbing bill he had claimed for twice during 2006.
Receipts submitted by the Prime Minister to the Parliamentary authorities disclosed that between 2004 and 2006, he paid Andrew Brown for cleaning at his flat. Andrew Brown, a senior executive at EDF Energy, received £6,577 over 26 months. Last night, the Prime Minister’s office said he shared a cleaner with his brother. In a statement, No10 said Mr Brown “reimbursed him [the brother] for his share of the cost”.
The statement is likely to give rise to questions as to why the Prime Minister did not simply lodge receipts directly from the cleaner. He has directly employed other cleaners.
However, the payments to Andrew Brown would not have been disclosed under controversial laws allowing the personal information to be blacked out from the publicly-released documents.
The disclosure of the expenses of the Cabinet raises questions about the parliamentary expenses system, coming within weeks of disclosures over questionable claims made by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary.
This summer, MPs are due to publish a detailed breakdown of claims. However, The Daily Telegraph begins a series of articles today that detail the scandal of members’ expenses across all parties. Many of the claims go beyond what members of the public would find acceptable.
The disclosures underline the need for urgent reform of the system amid fears that the spending of taxpayers’ money was not being appropriately monitored.
It can be disclosed that:
* Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, received a 50 per cent discount on his council tax from his local authority but claimed the full amount. He discovered the “mistake” last summer within weeks of the High Court ordering that MPs release details of their expenses. He has repaid the money.
* Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, claimed thousands of pounds to improve his constituency home after he had announced his resignation as an MP. He sold the property for a profit of £136,000.
* Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, claimed for three different properties in a single year. She spent almost £5,000 on furniture in three months after buying the third flat in an upmarket area of London.
* David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, spent hundreds of pounds on gardening at his constituency home — leading his gardener to question whether it was necessary to spend the money on pot plants “given [the] relatively short time you’ll be here”.
* Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, changed his official “second home” designation four times in four years.
* Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary, also switched his second home, which allowed him to extensively improve his family home in Derbyshire before buying a London town house also funded by the taxpayer.
* Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, Caroline Flint, the Minister for Europe, and Paul Murphy, the Welsh Secretary, also bought flats — or the freehold on a property they already owned — and claimed stamp duty and other moving costs. Mr Burnham warned the parliamentary authorities that his wife might divorce him if expenses were not paid promptly.
In a statement issued on Thursday night, Downing Street defended Mr Brown’s claims.
The statement said: “At all times the Prime Minister has acted with the full approval of the parliamentary authorities. In relation to the cleaning services, Mr Gordon Brown and Mr Andrew Brown employed one cleaner who worked for both of them, the majority of time for Gordon Brown. Payment was made directly to her by Mr Andrew Brown for the work in both flats. Mr Gordon Brown reimbursed him for his share of the cost. Of course, Mr Andrew Brown did not receive any financial benefit.”
Several senior ministers were repeatedly warned by the parliamentary authorities and had claims rejected or withheld.
This newspaper uncovered evidence suggesting that the second homes allowance, which allows annual claims of up to £24,222, has been exploited by dozens of MPs and is in need of immediate reform. In many cases, the House of Commons fees office uncovered serious wrongdoing but the MPs implicated were not independently investigated.
The rules governing the Parliamentary expenses system are notoriously lax and difficult to interpret. The main principle is that the second home must be “wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred from the purpose of performing your Parliamentary duties”.
Some Cabinet ministers appear to have far more straightforward claims than those highlighted today.
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Secretary, claimed only £6,300 a year in rent for a modest home in his constituency. He also claimed utility and council tax bills. Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, claimed for only his constituency home over the past four years. He also rented a modest property but claimed for food and some furniture. Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, claimed only £147.78 in food. | |  | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 5:19 am Post subject: |
| MPs' expenses: Gordon Brown’s house swap that let him claim thousands
Gordon Brown used his Parliamentary allowances to boost his expenses claims by switching his designated second home shortly before he moved into Downing Street upon becoming Prime Minister.
By Rosa Prince and Holly Watt
Last Updated: 2:52AM BST 08 May 2009
Taking advantage of the opportunity presented by the grace and favour apartment at No 10, Mr Brown signed a declaration stating that he wished to transfer his claims under the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA), which MPs may use to fund a second home, to his Scottish constituency house.
By doing this, he was entitled to claim most of the running costs of the detached property in North Queensferry, Fife, including a gardener and cleaner, and carry out extensive repairs and redecoration at public expense.
He made the transfer on Sept 17, 2006 – 10 days after Tony Blair announced that he would resign as prime minister the following year.
Until then, Mr Brown had declared a flat in Westminster as his second home for the purposes of his allowances, despite having the use of a taxpayer-funded apartment in Downing Street.
It was there that he and his wife, Sarah, paid his brother, Andrew, a high-flying executive, £241.30 a month for “cleaning services”. The payments later increased to £262.
Like other MPs from all parties, the Prime Minister regularly used his Parliamentary allowance to make repairs, carry out decorating projects and buy furnishings. He sent receipts for wallpaper, a fridge, floor tiles and other costs to the Commons fees office.
Among the items he was reimbursed for were lightbulbs worth £15 and a £265 John Lewis vacuum cleaner.
In 2005, the expense of installing a £9,000 Ikea kitchen at the Westminster flat was apparently spread over separate claims covering two financial years, allowing him to remain within the annual ACA budget of just over £21,000.
As Chancellor, Mr Brown declined to live in the grace and favour flat he was entitled to at Downing Street, instead charging the £650-a-month mortgage interest payments, utility bills, council tax, telephone expenses and television licence for the Westminster property to his Commons allowances.
He appears to have paid for little of his own living costs since moving into No 10 on becoming Prime Minister nearly two years ago.
While he did not claim mortgage interest payments on the Fife home, other costs, including cleaning and gardening, were submitted. His cleaner cost £10.50 an hour, while the gardener charged nearly £1,500 a year to maintain the garden overlooking the Firth of Forth.
Mr Brown also submitted claims for incidental expenses – such as calling in Rentokill to deal with an infestation of mice at the property, at a cost to the taxpayer of £352.
In 2006, he accidentally submitted the same bill, for £153 for plumbing work at the Fife home, twice, and was paid accordingly on each occasion. Yesterday, a spokesman told The Daily Telegraph: “The bill which had been accepted by the fees office was inadvertently assigned to two quarters. When this inadvertent error was discovered, the amount was immediately repaid.”
The Prime Minister is believed to have repaid the second bill yesterday after being approached by The Daily Telegraph.
In February 2007, he hired plumbers out to fix a blocked lavatory and charged the £88.13 bill to his allowances.
Mr Brown’s expenses claims, signed in his famous large felt-tipped pen but clearly filled in by another hand, include regular correspondence with the House of Commons fees office.
In 2004, there was a dispute over payment for £105 children’s window blinds, which was rejected by the fees office on the grounds that items for children are not permissible.
A response was sent on “Gordon and Sarah Brown” headed paper, reading: “The Peter Jones receipt for window blinds for London accommodation needs to be reimbursed.
“Marked as noah’s animals on the receipt.”
On the department store’s website, the item is described as a “children’s blind”.
He also regularly submitted claims for food, as well as for his Sky TV subscription, dry cleaning and newspaper bills.
Name: Gordon Brown
Job: Prime Minister
Salary: £194,250
Second home in Westminster: 1st January 2006 – 31st March 2006
Ground rent: £37
Food: £650
Utilities: £374.38
Telephone: £83.70
Cleaning: £1403.90
Service/Maintenance: £581.87
Repairs: £90.14
Other: £108 (three months of Sky at £36 a month)
Other: £1396 (internal decoration)
Source..... | | | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 7:07 pm Post subject: |
| MPs' expenses: We've been paying too much for Labour's morality for too long
Tory sleaze' was the party's great theme, but now the muck has been spread across Westminster, argues Charles Moore
By Charles Moore
Last Updated: 7:15PM BST 08 May 2009
As The Daily Telegraph, over the coming days, works through its astonishing list of parliamentary expenses, some MPs will be accused of committing fraud. If there is any justice in this country, some criminal prosecutions – and some by-elections – will result.
One hopes that the Inland Revenue will also correlate the sale of "second" homes by MPs with its tax records. Did those MPs pay tax on the capital gain from the sale, or did they suddenly decide that the house was, after all, their principal residence, and so avoid paying any tax at all?
But what is so dismaying about the information now coming out is that fraud is, in a way, the least of it. In any body of 650 or so people, there will always be some who cheat. The much more alarming thing that everyone now understands is that the entire system is a cheat.
For more than a generation, new MPs arriving in the House of Commons have been told that their salaries are kept low because the public would be angered by increases. Therefore, they have been told – often by the whips themselves – "Make the most of your expenses".
"The most" turns out to be a lot. Petrol, subsistence, the fact that receipts were not required for small items – above all, the housing allowances – are all ways of getting richer, invisibly. Of course the poor fees office could not really challenge this, except in its most preposterous forms. How could officials set themselves against the purposes which the House itself had devised? The evil was entrenched.
It is blatantly wrong, for example, that the support for a second home which is supposed to last only as long as an MP sits in Parliament can be used to build up a capital gain which lasts for life. Housing, that peculiarly British obsession, is most people's biggest financial struggle. When we discover that we have been paying MPs to exempt themselves from this struggle, how can we respect them?
The whole thing has been designed to pull the wool over the public's eyes. (No doubt wool, once purchased at the knitting department of John Lewis, can be claimed for.) As David Cameron said at an early stage of this long-running scandal, the point of any set of rules is that "It's got to look right". Each time we learn more, it looks more wrong.
And although Mr Cameron has been the best of the party leaders in dealing with this, the public are correct that what has happened over the years has been a conspiracy stretching across the parties. Many – perhaps most – individual MPs have not been personally greedy, but the parliamentary tribe, uncritically supported by Mr Speaker, has united to further its own interest against ours.
It proves that much more harm is done by the public funding of politicians than by the efforts of private individuals or companies to corrupt them. When the parties were caught out in "cash for honours", they suggested that the cure was state funding – we're so dishonest, you've got to pay us to stop us being so, was the outrageous message. The expenses scandal shows how those with power collude to channel our money in their favour. Quite quickly it leads to minor madness: the Browns arguing with the authorities about "children's blinds" (disallowed), a Lib Dem MP claiming for eyeliner (permitted), a Tory for piano-tuning (ditto), and the taxpayer finding for the Chancellor of the Exchequer the stamp duty which he imposes upon the rest of us.
So I'm afraid that for many people in the European and local elections in June, it will seem perfectly logical to vote for the BNP. The old "they're all the same" refrain seems true; therefore people will want to vote for a party that isn't. The main parties talk of combining to "exchange information" to help keep the BNP out. This is crazy: it will only confirm the idea of an intra-party conspiracy, an attempt by politicians to survive by being, collectively, "too big to fail".
But although every mainstream party is in the mire, it is Labour that will suffer the worst, and
not only because, as the majority party, it has presided over this disaster.
There was much ribald delight at Gordon Brown's venture on to YouTube two weeks ago. But I do not think that enough attention has been paid to what he was up to.
Smiling weirdly, the Prime Minister said what a pity it was that so few of the young people whom he met when he went round the country wanted to be Members of Parliament. He felt that the row about expenses was "casting a cloud", and the matter was so urgent that he was going to pre-empt the work of Sir Christopher Kelly's official body. He promised to get rid of the second-homes allowance and replace it with an unaudited daily attendance allowance at once.
As we know, Mr Brown was in such trouble for other reasons that last week he was forced to avoid calling the vote he himself had demanded. But the question is, why did he come up with his emergency plan in the first place?
People alleged that it was to distract attention from his Chancellor's horrible Budget. I don't think so: I think Mr Brown feared what would happen when the information about expenses saw the light of day. He knew people were hunting for it, and he knew that much of it would anyway be published in July. He did not want to sit and wait for the painful revelations about his Government which would follow.
So he thought that he would, as he always wants to do, take control. If he could impose his new rules quickly, he could say, when the scandal broke, that he had cleaned it all up and "moved on".
He didn't and he hasn't. His proposal for an attendance allowance was itself a cheat. Why should MPs, who are paid anyway to be MPs, be paid again for attending? It is a way of getting them unearned money without the trouble of any receipts at all, an even more unqualified concealed pay rise than the existing ones. Mr Brown was not in any way admitting that MPs had behaved badly. He was seeking a way of sweeping the whole thing under the carpet (carpet, by the way, is allowable, according to the parliamentary Green Book, at up to £35 per square metre). Had it not been for the Gurkhas, he might have succeeded.
This chain of events was forged a very long time ago. After Tony Blair became Labour leader in 1994, "Tory sleaze" became the party's great theme. Many of its attacks were justified, but the central untruth behind the campaign was that New Labour was morally different. In fact, it was generally pretty much the same, and in one respect worse: it was and is much more profligate about politicians taking money from taxpayers.
We have all been paying for this "morality" – too much, for too long. Now Mr Brown will have to do so.
Source.... | | | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 7:14 pm Post subject: |
| MPs' expenses: Commons authorities ask police to investigate
The House of Commons authorities have asked police in London to investigate the leaking of details of MPs' expenses.
Last Updated: 7:47PM BST 08 May 2009
(L to R top) Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Jack Straw, Lord Mandleson (L to R Bottom) Hazel Blears, Andy Burnham, Douglas Alexander, John Prescott Photo: PA
Scotland Yard said in a statement: "The Metropolitan Police can confirm we have received a request from the House of Commons to investigate the alleged unauthorised disclosure of information relating to members' allowances.
"We are currently considering their request."
A spokesman for the House claimed that there were "reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence may have been committed".
"The House authorities have received advice that there are reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence may have been committed in relation to the way in which information relating to members' allowances has been handled," he said.
"A report has been made to the Metropolitan Police, asking them to consider the matter."
The move by the House authorities to contact Scotland Yard followed revelations in The Daily Telegraph about MPs' expenses claims between 2004 and 2008.
The Daily Telegraph broke the story of the allowance claims of Gordon Brown and his senior Cabinet ministers with a special investigation, The Expenses Files.
Gordon Brown blamed long-standing flaws in the expenses system as he and Cabinet ministers faced questions today over the Telegraph revelations.
The Prime Minister refused to defend the conduct of Cabinet ministers who have systematically exploited Commons expenses, but maintained he had done nothing wrong in paying his brother for cleaning services.
Meanwhile, Cabinet Ministers whose expenses claims have been exposed by The Daily Telegraph refused to apologise.
Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, faced calls for her to resign over the number of times she switched her nominated second home to take of advantage of the rules allowing refurbishment of MPs’ properties.
Martin Bell, the former ‘anti-sleaze’ MP, said: “I would have thought that Hazel Blears should resign. To claim public money against three homes in one year is beyond carelessness.”
Mr Bell said there was now “scandals of shamelessness” among MPs. He said if they worked in the private sector they would be sacked.
This summer, MPs are due to publish a detailed breakdown of expenses claims.
However, The Daily Telegraph began a series of articles on Friday morning, detailing the scandal of members’ expenses across all parties. Many of the claims go beyond what members of the public would find acceptable.
The disclosures show the scale of ministers’ claims and the extent to which politicians have exploited the expenses system to subsidise their lifestyles.
They underline the need for urgent reform of the system amid fears that the spending of taxpayers’ money was not being appropriately monitored.
In Friday's article, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, was revealed to have paid his brother for “cleaning services” at his private flat in Westminster.
Receipts submitted by the Prime Minister to the Parliamentary authorities disclosed that between 2004 and 2006, he paid Andrew Brown for cleaning at his flat. Andrew Brown, a senior executive at EDF Energy, received £6,577 over 26 months.
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, admitted that he had over-claimed for both his council tax and mortgage bills.
Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said politicians have displayed a “lack of moral leadership” over their expenses.
Sir Alistair said ministers and their fellow MPs had been playing the expenses system for personal gain.
He said that the Daily Telegraph’s revelations showed MPs are “stretching the rules to the furthest limit for what looks like personal benefit”.
“It’s very clear that they have been casual with taxpayers’ money,” he told Sky News. “I think a culture developed in the House of Commons that is was legitimate to play the system to maximise your income.”
Today's disclosures about Mr Brown and the other Cabinet ministers' claims were the first of a series planned by the Telegraph.
Our files also show Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, over-claimed for both his council tax and mortgage bills.
Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, is revealed to have changed his official “second home” designation four times in four years.
Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, spent so much on pot plants at his constituency home that his gardener questioned whether they were necessary “given [the] relatively short time you’ll be here”.
But the disclosures put the spotlight most firmly on Mr Brown, who has called for the current expenses system to be replaced.
Source..... | | | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 7:23 pm Post subject: |
| MPs' expenses: Two lavatory seats in two years for John Prescott.
John Prescott had mock Tudor beams attached to the front of his house and put the bill through on his Parliamentary expenses.
By Martin Beckford
Last Updated: 11:50AM BST 08 May 2009
He also had his lavatory seat repaired twice in the space of two years at taxpayers’ expense.
The former deputy prime minister, who has admitted suffering from bulimia, claimed the maximum possible amount for food – £4,800 a year.
After it emerged that he was not paying council tax on one of the four properties he stayed in, Mr Prescott rang the fees office to check if he was breaking any rules but they told him not to worry.
It shows how, while sticking to the regulations, MPs are still able to claim generous amounts for groceries and furnishings.
Mr Prescott, a former ship’s steward, named his grace-and-favour flat at Admiralty House as his main residence. It was there that he conducted an affair with Tracey Temple, his assistant private secretary.
He also paid peppercorn rent for a two-bedroom flat in Clapham that was owned by the RMT rail union, and had free use of Dorneywood, the country estate where he was photographed playing croquet while supposedly in charge of the country.
To claim the Additional Costs Allowance, Mr Prescott nominated his second home as the eight-bedroom, turreted house in his constituency of Hull where he lives with his wife, Pauline.
His files show that he regularly put through bills for repairs and redecoration. In 2004-05, he claimed £1,187 for the outside of his house to be repainted and £609.92 on white goods including a new LG washing machine. In December 2004, a plumber charged £210.79 for repairs to pipework and taps and to “refix WC seat”. Mr Prescott also put through another £22.50 claim to “replace linkage between siphon and handle to WC”. Less than two years later, in September 2006, Mr Prescott was reimbursed by taxpayers for a £112.52 repair bill that included “refit WC seat”.
He claimed £6,772.27 for repair work to the house that included replacing sash windows and a charge of £312 “to supply and fix mock Tudor boards to apex of front gable”.
Taxpayers also paid £2,479 for rewiring of an “extension or office area”, £580 for a saffron-coloured carpet, £2,076.83 for redecoration work that included doing up his downstairs lavatory and £658 for repairs to a “section of drainage”. Mr Prescott claimed the maximum £4,800 on food in 2004-05 and 2006-07. In 2005-06 and 2007-08, he claimed £3,200 although the amount was reduced slightly in the earlier year because of the dissolution of Parliament.
In October 2003, a handwritten note by a member of fees office staff shows that he telephoned to ask what mortgage interest repayments he would be eligible to claim back if he bought a property in London.
He was told that he would have to give up his two-bedroom Admiralty House flat first, and the note states that Mr Prescott “has gone to reconsider his position”. After a newspaper discovered he had not been paying council tax on the grace-and-favour home, he rang the fees office to blame civil servants in his department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. “He now felt that he should have been paying this from his own pocket, but ODPM officials had not brought the matter to his attention,” the note states.
In 2007-08, having lost the use of his union flat, Admiralty House and Dorneywood, Mr Prescott changed his second home to a flat on Albert Embankment that he bought after taking out a £667,737 mortgage.
He then claimed £19,225 in mortgage interest payments on the new property in a year. He had not been claiming for a home loan on the Hull house.
Mr Prescott said: “Every expense was entirely consistent within the rules of the House of Commons on claiming expenses at the time.”
Source.... | | | | ktholcombe | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject: Porn and cookies: UK lawmakers odd expenses claims |
| Here's the US Associated Press story FYI for the scrap book.
Ahh blessed government...
Porn and cookies: UK lawmakers odd expenses claims
May 8, 2009
By DAVID STRINGER
Associated Press http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_LAWMAKER_EXPENSES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-05-08-08-35-01
Porn movies. Horse manure. A chocolate Santa Claus. Expense claims by British lawmakers to pay for an array of items were exposed by a newspaper Friday, stoking public anger over lawmaker excess amid the global recession.
Britain's Daily Telegraph published details of claims related to 13 ministers and offered examples of hundreds of other bills submitted by lawmakers to Parliamentary authorities.
The documents revealed how some lawmakers used lax regulations to accumulate hefty bills to pay for housing taxes and costs of furnishing homes, while others claimed for trivial amounts — including a packet of ginger snaps worth about $1, two cans of cat food and an ice cube tray.
One lawmaker claimed the cost of servicing the swimming pool of his country home, while another paid for a hunter to catch moles who'd invaded his garden, according to the newspaper.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown — then Britain's treasury chief — paid his brother Andrew 6,500 pounds ($9,800) for cleaning services between 2004 and 2006. Brown's office said the leader's brother had handled payments for a cleaner the two men shared.
Figures released to Parliament show that the 646 House of Commons legislators claimed 93 million pounds ($134 million) in allowances and expenses last year.
Under Parliament's rules, legislators can claim expenses for a second home and expenses incurred when staying away overnight from their main home. They can claim rent, for example, or mortgage payments and furnishings, such as drapes, carpets and electrical goods.
The price for such furnishings were colloquially known as the "John Lewis list," named after an upscale British department store chain. The list is being axed under reforms of the system currently under discussion.
Lawmakers had long refused to offer receipt by receipt breakdowns of their claims for public money, until a ruling under freedom of information laws ordered them to make the details known.
About 2 million receipts for claims by legislators will be published in July under the ruling, but the newspaper said Friday it had obtained the material ahead of its planned release.
Members of the public complain the expenses system is too generous, isn't independently audited and follows rules drafted by the lawmakers themselves.
"There can be no greater proof of the need for urgent and wholesale reform of MPs' expenses than the fact that so many people at the top of government have been making such dubious claims," said Matthew Elliott of the lobby group the TaxPayers' Alliance.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw claimed the cost of housing taxes he'd never actually paid — though later reimbursed authorities. In a handwritten note explaining his mistake, Straw wrote that "accountancy does not appear to be my strongest suit."
Culture Secretary Andy Burnham urged authorities to speed up an expenses payment. He told Parliament's fees office "he might be in line for a divorce" if he didn't receive the money quickly.
"The system doesn't work," Brown told the BBC. "I've said it doesn't work, it's got to be changed."
Britain's prime minister makes about 189,000 pounds a year ($285,000), while most lawmakers make about 61,000 pounds (about $93,100.) By comparison, U.S. legislators in Washington earn a base salary of $174,000.
A key concern for critics of the system is how lawmakers routinely switched the house they called their primary residence. Those changes meant they could claim second home allowances — like the costs of furniture, decorating and repairs — on several different properties.
Other bills show how lawmakers were prepared to claim even small amounts, including a carrier bag that cost 5p ($0.07), a chocolate Santa Claus-shaped snack priced at 59p ($0.88) and a tape measure costing 43 pence ($0.64). One particularly wealthy Tory MP charged 10 pounds ($15) for a bag of manure for his country retreat.
In March, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith acknowledged she'd claimed the costs of two pay-per-view porn movies watched by her husband. Smith said she later repaid the money.
"The rules are being stretched to the absolute limit in a way which is allowing MPs to enhance their personal income," said Alistair Graham, who was in charge of standards in Britain's Parliament until 2007.
The Telegraph declined to say whether it had paid to obtain details of the expense claims, or specify how it received the information.
Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown attempts to control his unruly hair, during a ceremony to unveil a memorial to murdered police officer Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford, England, Friday May 8, 2009. Brown claimed thousands of pounds for a cleaner while other ministers claimed for gardeners, beds and television sets, a newspaper report revealed Friday, a disclosure certain to fuel public outrage over lawmaker excess. Brown's office immediately defended the expenses, published in Britain's Daily Telegraph, arguing that no rules were broken. The newspaper reported that some ministers used public money to furnish or upgrade their homes.(AP Photos/John Giles-pa)
Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown attends a ceremony to unveil a memorial to murdered police officer Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford, England, Friday May 8, 2009. Brown claimed thousands of pounds for a cleaner while other ministers claimed for gardeners, beds and television sets, a newspaper report revealed Friday, a disclosure certain to fuel public outrage over lawmaker excess. Brown's office immediately defended the expenses, published in Britain's Daily Telegraph, arguing that no rules were broken. The newspaper reported that some ministers used public money to furnish or upgrade their homes.(AP Photos/John Giles-pa)
Press Association
[Copyright] © 2009 Associated Press | | | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
| SNOUT OF ORDER....
Greedy ... Jacqui Smith, Andy Burnham, Caroline Flint, Paul Murphy and Shaun Woodward.......(and the rest - kt):
MPs named and shamed
WE name and shame the MPs who voted to keep their lavish expenses accounts.
Read the full list below:
LABOUR
Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South)
Graham Allen (Nottingham North)
David Anderson (Blaydon)
Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen)
Ian Austin (Dudley North)
Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West)
Gordon Banks (Ochil & Perthshire South)
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)
Margaret Beckett (Derby South)
Clive Betts (Sheffield Attercliffe)
Liz Blackman (Erewash)
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Durham, City of)
Bob Blizzard (Waveney)
David Borrow (Ribble South (South Ribble))
Nick Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East & Wallsend)
Richard Burden (Birmingham Northfield)
Colin Burgon (Elmet)
Andy Burnham (Leigh)
Stephen Byers (Tyneside North)
Alan Campbell (Tynemouth)
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)
Ben Chapman (Wirral South)
David Chaytor (Bury North)
Tom Clarke (Coatbridge Chryston & Bellshill)
David Clelland (Tyne Bridge)
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
Ann Coffey (Stockport)
Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead)
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow & Falkirk East)
Rosie Cooper (Lancashire West)
Ann Cryer (Keighley)
John Cummings (Easington)
Jim Cunningham (Coventry South)
Tony Cunningham (Workington)
Wayne David (Caerphilly)
Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West)
Janet Dean (Burton)
Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras)
Brian Donohoe (Ayrshire Central)
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West)
Angela Eagle (Wallasey)
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston)
Jeff Ennis (Barnsley East & Mexborough)
Bill Etherington (Sunderland North)
Caroline Flint (Don Valley)
Paul Flynn (Newport West)
Michael Foster (Worcester)
Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings & Rye)
Mike Gapes (Ilford South)
Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich North)
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth Sutton)
Nia Griffith (Llanelli)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton & Reddish)
Mike Hall (Weaver Vale)
David Hamilton (Midlothian)
Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)
Stephen Hesford (Wirral West)
Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead East & Washington West)
Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East)
George Howarth (Knowsley North & Sefton East)
Beverley Hughes (Stretford & Urmston)
Joan Humble (Blackpool North & Fleetwood)
Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East)
Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central)
Adam Ingram (East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow)
Brian Jenkins (Tamworth)
Diana Johnson (Hull North)
Kevan Jones (Durham North)
Martyn Jones (Clwyd South)
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich & West Norwood)
Eric Joyce (Falkirk)
Alan Keen (Feltham & Heston)
David Kidney (Stafford)
Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton)
Bob Laxton (Derby North)
Tom Levitt (High Peak)
Ivan Lewis (Bury South)
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central)
Ian Lucas (Wrexham)
Tommy McAvoy (Rutherglen & Hamilton West)
Stephen McCabe (Birmingham Hall Green)
Christine McCafferty (Calder Valley)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East)
Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Portsmouth North)
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham & Morden)
James McGovern (Dundee West)
Anne McGuire (Stirling)
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes)
Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East)
Tony McNulty (Harrow East)
Denis MacShane (Rotherham)
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham Perry Barr)
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West)
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South)
Alan Meale (Mansfield)
Gillian Merron (Lincoln)
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston)
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend)
Jessica Morden (Newport East)
Elliot Morley (Scunthorpe)
George Mudie (Leeds East)
Denis Murphy (Wansbeck)
Paul Murphy (Torfaen)
Mike O'Brien (Warwickshire North)
Eddie O'Hara (Knowsley South)
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock)
James Plaskitt (Warwick & Leamington)
Bridget Prentice (Lewisham East)
Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
Gwyn Prosser (Dover)
Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton North East)
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich)
John Robertson (Glasgow North West)
Terry Rooney (Bradford North)
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd)
Christine Russell (Chester, City of)
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth Devonport)
Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)
Jimmy Sheridan (Paisley & Renfrewshire North)
Angela C Smith (Sheffield Hillsborough)
Angela E Smith (Basildon)
Jacqui Smith (Redditch)
Anne Snelgrove (Swindon South)
John Spellar (Warley)
Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West)
Gavin Strang (Edinburgh East)
Gisela Stuart (Birmingham Edgbaston)
Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South)
Mark Tami (Alyn & Deeside)
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West)
Emily Thornberry (Islington South & Finsbury)
Don Touhig (Islwyn)
Derek Twigg (Halton)
Kitty Ussher (Burnley)
Keith Vaz (Leicester East)
Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge)
Claire Ward (Watford)
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East)
Dave Watts (St Helens North)
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield)
Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central)
Shaun Woodward (St Helens South)
Phil Woolas (Oldham East & Saddleworth)
David Wright (Telford)
Iain Wright (Hartlepool)
Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne & Sheppey)
CONSERVATIVE
David Amess (Southend West)
James Arbuthnot (Hampshire North East)
Henry Bellingham (Norfolk North West)
Brian Binley (Northampton South)
Sir John Butterfill (Bournemouth West)
Christopher Chope (Christchurch)
John Greenway (Ryedale)
Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)
Bernard Jenkin (Essex North)
Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove)
Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)
Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)
Andrew Mackay (Bracknell)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford)
Hugo Swire (Devon East)
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth & Horncastle)
Angela Watkinson (Upminster)
Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald)
David Wilshire (Spelthorne)
Lady Ann Winterton (Congleton)
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
INDEPENDENT
Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent)
Robert Wareing (Liverpool West Derby)
Source. Errrrr.....<cough>....the errrrm....the....the....the.....The Sun! Now Rupie honey....gonna prosecute me/us for stealing your bandwith? I will have your paper in the house to light the fire with from now on, really.... | | | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 11:08 pm Post subject: |
| | JD wrote: | | Here's the US Associated Press story FYI for the scrap book. |
Thanks, JD. This has been simmering away for the last couple of years, but like the govt. itself, I thought 'they' could/would bury it one way or another sooner or later.
I can't imagine why the Telegraph has decided to torch the whole stinking nest at this precise moment.....unless it's tied up with the Barclay Bros losing £700m of their wealth in the last year.
I have absolutely no idea where it's all going at the moment but in addition to the tragedy that is British politics being put on show......it's pretty bloody funny to watch it all pan out. | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:45 am Post subject: |
| Hi KT,
Some headlines @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/
#
Police called in as fresh leaks embarrass MPs
One MP implicated in the latest allegations said he believed a mole was still active
* Tories consider giving up independence on pay
* Trail of clues could flush out Commons mole
* Expenses row: a dozen ways to play the system
* Telegraph could face prosecution
* Interactive: new revelations in detail
#
Ministers on defensive over expenses
Mandelson accuses Daily Telegraph of 'classic smear tactics' as his colleagues defend conduct
* Barbara Follett dragged into row
* Bargain Benn, modest Miliband (Ed, not David)
* Ethics and remuneration experts give their views
* Editorial: Chamber of horrors
May I assume that the focus will be redirection at the 'misconduct' of 'the mole' and not the perps [the ones who should be sitting in jail now and not on benches]? | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
- Kt.