So are Labour on their way out?

Alexia · Wed 13 May, 2009 18.41

That lord who laid into Carrie Gracie said she earnt twice as much as an MP.

Not forgetting that MPs are also by and large involved in running companies, on their boards and executive committees etc, and have directorships of others too.

And a guaranteed pension, where as Carrie Gracie is reliant on the BBC's finances being in check and the NUJ lobbying on her behalf.

Sput · Wed 13 May, 2009 18.46

IF they're so rich why would they be trying to scam tens and hundreds of pounds? I don't buy it at all. You just don't go into politics to be rich. These guys are also doctors and laywers and the pay for those professions, which are probably quite a lot simpler in many respects, is at least twice as much as politicians get.

Anyway cdd, what you say is even less fair. If I've got a billion in the bank and want to go into work and they send me to a meeting in London, why shouldn't I get my expenses paid when everyone else around me does too?

Gavin Scott · Wed 13 May, 2009 18.51

Sput wrote:What I spend comes out of the public purse too, I'm not very organised so I wind up taking my own taxi at most conferences. Sometimes people co-ordinate but it's a ballache and draws focus from the actual job. The moment you get people fretting about how they're going to do their job instead of just doing it, there's going to be a price in productivity. You can claim that your taxi anecdote shows bad organisation but you can't call it malicious. I sincerely doubt ANY MP thinks they're getting one over the taxpayer by taking their own taxi. That'd be a shit scam. Taking a LIMO is a scam.

And there ARE grey areas, just depends how you see things. Here's an example: how do we know they don't read briefings in those taxis when alone? How does that productivity change offset the extra cost of the solo taxiing? We don't know, so to declare every single apparent "oh that's not substantially wrong but I have just one piece of information AND I DON'T LIKE IT" expense as some kind of huge moral abyss is just overreacting. You can claim it's not "in the spirit of the rules" but what exactly IS the spirit of the rules? To me it's just "right, I need a taxi, oh there's one. Lovely. I'll get there in good time and practice my talk, then claim this back as I don't really want to be here" so does that make me some awful thief?

Roses? Subjective. Certainly not worth the amount of coverage it got. I believe the guy did his own gardening; would it have been okay to hire a gardener despite it being more expensive? Here's my simile: I claimed for hair styling goo the other week because I couldn't transport liquids on the plane, but buying replacement goo on the other side is cheaper than checking the bag in. Now, if I actually mattered and that receipt was made public it'd look like I was squandering the public's money on vanity, but in actual fact I was saving money overall. Is that wrong? Should I not have done that? (No idea if that'll even be approved, hope so...)

I personally think there is a cost of doing business, be it politics or sales or science, and the worker shouldn't have to shoulder those extra costs (travel, housing and food they otherwise wouldn't have to fork out for). Is the oversight fucked? Yes. Obviously since some of those things shouldn't have gotten through, like the pool and moat stuff, but people are very good at rationalising things/self deluding so I just don't buy this "THIEVES" rhetoric and I just think they're doing what anyone would do, I DON'T expect higher standards from them because I realise that they have to make this shit up as they go along. That's politics, it's sales, it's science. That's what anyone on the front line of anything does. But if being inefficient makes them create better shit as they go along, then that's worth keeping.

As I said earlier, there IS a price of doing business and my feeling is that some unacceptable stuff went down but for the most part it's not that evil. There should be better oversight but I don't think all this navel gazing is helping us get over actual big problems like pandemic, economics, poverty and geopolitical instability. I'd rather like them to get back to it.

Just a second - neither "thieves" nor "evil" passed my lips. I've already pointed out that the media frenzy is set by their objective to titillate, shock and shift copies.

You're using that media over-reaction to dismiss the validity of the essence of the story - and that's exactly the point I made on your facebook.

I have no such goal to shift newspapers. Its just my instinct and my sense of what is the right, and wrong thing to do that's speaking - and that, I can assure you, is not for sale.

I am merely a relatively low earning, tax paying individual who works extremely hard just to get month to month. I AM on the front line, sput. I have been for almost two decades in various sectors. In the course of my work I have to attend meetings; prepare talks or presentations; get on the train and visit customers and clients; and the myriad other things that you, politicians and everyone else has to do. I too have the ability to recoup costs for expenses that are tied to my position. I can charge for those things that allow me to do what I'm supposed to do - with the benefit of nice restaurants and hotels and such and such.

Yep - that's my personal experience talking. I'm thinking, "why the fuck should they be allowed to charge for thousands of pounds of extra goodies, when the private sector is so heavily scrutinised?"

But, if you'll forgive me, it sounds like your personal experience is saying, "For fucks sake, its just a few bits and pieces on the visa card - its not like its DIAMONDS or something..."

There's a clear line in the private sector where you can't take the piss on stuff that's got nothing to do with your job. That's because there's a real person at the top of the chain who doesn't like getting made a mug of.

And in this case as *I* am the tax payer at the top of the chain, I'm entitled to say, "Who the FUCK has been creaming it out of my money? The greedy FUCK!".

Its nonsense to say there's too much going on in the world to look after the little details like expenses. How many million things are you and I dealing with on a daily basis?

Sput · Wed 13 May, 2009 19.01

Just one point: I'm not saying the media's attitude to it makes it invalid, but I don't think it's as simple as they portray and I KNOW that the media dictates what the government's attention is focussed on with scandals. So what I'm saying is that the media did their job but now it's a distraction both to us and them. Nothing can change in the short term (and nor should it. This needs sorting properly and that'll take time) so why is it STILL top of the news? All the saturation coverage from hereon out can do is force continual collective bloodletting and that's not helpful.

Alright, two things: when I do an expense I do expect they'll catch something unreasonable. That's clearly not happened there and that's why I think in a way they shouldn't have to worry about expenses as there should be a safety net that pulls them up, otherwise you're just emboldened to expand on those claims in future. That's how I rationalise it: "someone will say something if this wasn't okay".

Anyway gav, I will wheel out the old "Agree to disagree?" thing! I can see your point of view but I just don't approach things like that and we have different value systems because of it.

marksi · Wed 13 May, 2009 19.10

It is still top of the news agenda because of the staggered way that the Telegraph is releasing the information. Each day brings a fresh angle to the scandal.

Fuck knows what laws they've been passing in the meantime, or how many hospitals and schools they've closed.

We are so over-governed it is ridiculous.

In Northern Ireland (population 1.7 million) there are 582 councillors, 108 MLAs, 18 MPs and 3 MEPs. Lots of them are double or triple jobbing, and for that we're paying them multiple times (see the Robinsons for details).

Gavin Scott · Wed 13 May, 2009 19.50

Sput wrote:Anyway gav, I will wheel out the old "Agree to disagree?" thing! I can see your point of view but I just don't approach things like that and we have different value systems because of it.

Well indeed, it wouldn't do at all if we agreed on everything - but I enjoy putting as persuasive an argument as I can.

I'm not sure our value systems are so far apart - perhaps its just that there's a sort of osmosis in the modus operandi in both the public and private sectors.

You greedy bastard.

fusionlad · Wed 13 May, 2009 20.41

The worst is to come tomorrow, according to the information that the Daily Telegraph are feeding the news channels.

Gavin Scott · Tue 19 May, 2009 12.38

So Michael Martin is stepping down. His sneery handling of the MPs who raised the issue in the Commons was shameful - but I can't help but conclude he's being offered up as a sacrificial slaughter.

Can anyone confirm if those who are seeking to oust him are also on the Telegraph's name and shame list?

all new Phil · Tue 19 May, 2009 13.01

It doesn't feel right, does it? He seems to have been turned on, his speech yesterday was pretty uncomfortable to watch. I feel pretty sorry for him!

Interesting that David Davis has been mentioned as a possible successor - I believe he's "ruled it out", which means he'll probably stand for it. I think he'd be good, he seems to be turning into somewhat of a moral crusader of late.

marksi · Tue 19 May, 2009 13.04

I feel somewhat sorry for Michael Martin too... and also think David Davis would make an excellent Speaker.

I'm really not sure that the present government can continue for another year and think we could be looking at a General Election in the autumn.

Gavin Scott · Tue 19 May, 2009 13.47

His fatal flaw was to overstep the line when he dismissed the MP who called for the police to investigate - but beyond that one would almost *expect* the speaker to be a "staunch defender of the status quo" - which he's being accused of by Clegg.

I mean, as opposed to what? Someone who doesn't take the traditions and rules of the House into consideration?

Any points Clegg had amassed in my head evaporated at that point.

Nonetheless - he cannot, and should not be held accountable for the individual claims made by some of the more unscrupulous MPs who bled the system dry. Like that dick and his wife who claimed on both their homes so they paid not a penny in mortgage costs between them.

All this bullshit about, "when it was brought to my attention I realised it was wrong" - is totally galling. Completely indefensible. And those who claim that for years they have said how "wrong" the system of expenses is, and yet co on to claim above and beyond that which is reasonable to execute their duties - well frankly they are the worst offenders.

At least when the election comes up - soon I expect, voters will be able to make their views on the matter known.

Interestingly, one of my facebook pals (who works in the political realm) is suggesting that "cheap politicians may not be good value for money - if only the public knew this"; as if to suggest its ok to line your pockets with public money if you manage to do the job you're being paid for.

Hmm. Not convinced by that.