50 Years Ago When Harold Wilson Was In...
ChatterBank0 min ago
No choice of an honest MP .
I would like to vote for an honest MP .
We have 646 MPs of which only 29 didn't claim expenses and my MP isn't one of them.
What should I do ?
We have 646 MPs of which only 29 didn't claim expenses and my MP isn't one of them.
What should I do ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
UKIP would never take advantage of expenses: http://www.guardian.c...ses-ukip-nigel-farage
docspock. It depends where you draw the line for cheating but as an example
only 29 MPs didn't submit expense claims. therefore as a proportion of their parties strength it is Labour 12/345 , Tory 9/193, Liberal 8/63.
So if we call them the good guys and expressing their honesty as a percentage of their parties they are : Labour 3.4% are honest . Tory 4.6% , and Liberal 12%
This may be an oversimplification but it's a bit of a guide.
only 29 MPs didn't submit expense claims. therefore as a proportion of their parties strength it is Labour 12/345 , Tory 9/193, Liberal 8/63.
So if we call them the good guys and expressing their honesty as a percentage of their parties they are : Labour 3.4% are honest . Tory 4.6% , and Liberal 12%
This may be an oversimplification but it's a bit of a guide.
Modeller - you keep saying that most MPs submitted an expenses claim, but you don't seem to want to distinguish between a 'fair' one and an unfair one.
My MP (in Great Yarmouth) who I dislike, submitted (in my opinion) pretty fair claims - eg for postage to keep in touch with constituents, for travel, when travelling to and from Westminster etc.
Do you not think that he should have claimed for those expenses?
My MP (in Great Yarmouth) who I dislike, submitted (in my opinion) pretty fair claims - eg for postage to keep in touch with constituents, for travel, when travelling to and from Westminster etc.
Do you not think that he should have claimed for those expenses?
http://www.theanswerb...cal-party-websites-2/
Maybe worth a look? If you can bring yourself to believe any of them.
Spare Ed
Maybe worth a look? If you can bring yourself to believe any of them.
Spare Ed
"29 didn't claim expenses" : What??? Where did you get that alleged fact from? MPs are entitled to expenses, but it's those who have abused the system who should be taken to task.
The expenses system was a perfectly legitimate vehicle but one which it appears the vast majority of MPs saw fit to rip the proverbial bum out of - at taxpayers' expense.
However, I'm intrigued to know how 29 of them allegedly didn't claim anything? They must all be philanthropical billionaires?
The expenses system was a perfectly legitimate vehicle but one which it appears the vast majority of MPs saw fit to rip the proverbial bum out of - at taxpayers' expense.
However, I'm intrigued to know how 29 of them allegedly didn't claim anything? They must all be philanthropical billionaires?
Like you I can only report what is in the media. In the Telegraph they listed all MPs expenses. They bracketed them under various headings which included the 50 biggest cheats and 50 who claimed the least. I looked at the latter 50 and I saw 29 of them had not claimed anything. This appeared to be exceptionally honest and that is why I sent it to AB.
modeller,
How recent is this information in the Telegraph? Also, there's nothing "exceptionally honest" in people allegedly not claiming expenses to which they're entitled.
Without anything to back up your hearsay, I'm extremely sceptical that you've interpreted what you've seen or heard properly. Something does not add up.
How recent is this information in the Telegraph? Also, there's nothing "exceptionally honest" in people allegedly not claiming expenses to which they're entitled.
Without anything to back up your hearsay, I'm extremely sceptical that you've interpreted what you've seen or heard properly. Something does not add up.
Orcadian I don't know what your definition of ' hearsay ' is , but all the claims are the official figures as eventually publised by the government , obtained by the Telegraph and passed to the media.
I'm not interpretating the results , I'm repeating what is in the public domain.
All of which can be confirmed should you wish in Google .
The details in the Telegraph publication I am using have not been disputed by the government.
At no time have I used the word 'fair' because that is subjective. You might think when
Margaret Moran renovated 3 houses at taxpayers expense was fair because the rules allowed it. Most people would think otherwise.
I'm not interpretating the results , I'm repeating what is in the public domain.
All of which can be confirmed should you wish in Google .
The details in the Telegraph publication I am using have not been disputed by the government.
At no time have I used the word 'fair' because that is subjective. You might think when
Margaret Moran renovated 3 houses at taxpayers expense was fair because the rules allowed it. Most people would think otherwise.
OrcadianOil, I suspect those who claimed nothing were rich landowners or those who lived within central London and didn't bother claiming tube fares. I'm not fussed about people claiming for ball-point pens or even paying family modest amounts for secretarial work (the work does have to be done). And I don't see why basic London homes shouldn't be provided for out-of-towners, otherwise dukes will be the only people who can afford to become MPs.
But moats and duck refuges... I think not.
But moats and duck refuges... I think not.
