MPs fleecing of British Taxpayers

[Dave Greer]

Publication of the so-called "John Lewis" list is just a continuation of the sleaze that has become manifest in British politics over the last few years. MPs are allowed to claim up to £23,000 per year to furnish a second home near Westminster to allow them to spend more time in the House of Commons... all very worthy. What disgusts me is the total amount they can claim, and the amounts deemed acceptable for individual items.

Does an MPs crash-pad really need a £10,000 kitchen? Mine cost 1/4 that and looks mighty fine thanks. (The 10K doesn't include white goods either.)

Do MPs really need a £100 coffee machine in their second home? Whats wrong with a £20 kettle, and a teaspoon for crying out loud?

Carpets... £35 per square metre? What are they doing, eating off them?

£1000 for a bed? I suppose it would need to be fairly sturdy to withstand some Major / Currie action.

And as for £300 for an air-conditioning unit... I know global warming is upon us, but have a word.

All joking aside, with the impending publishing of expenses details for each and every MP over the last few years, there are going to be some rather ruddy faces on display soon.

Good job we're footing the bill for all those air-con units then...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7295150.stm

[Guest David Guyatt]

You right Dave, it's a blood disgrace.

I heard an argument put forward this morning by John Nichol, the former Tornado pilot, on TalkSport radio. The taxpayer should purchase a large block 9or blocks) of flats and do them up as a plush hotel. All London MP's can be housed in these and will have to pay rent -- just like you and I and members of the armed forces have to do when they're based in London.

It's not just tat the MP's get this massive annual housing payment, but they also benefit from the increase in the market value of the property, we the taxpayer purchase for them.

[Maggie Hansen]

Can't they just buy all of them a sofa bed for the office at Westminster? They could build a shower block there too. Though they will have to demolish the pig trough to do that.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Maggie Hansen

[Guest David Guyatt]

They could build a shower block there too. Though they will have to demolish the pig trough to do that.

They could all wash themselves in the gravy train instead?

[Dave Greer]

And therein lies the problem. The only people they're accountable to are themselves. They write their own paychecks. They set the level of their own expenses. Up until now there have been insufficient checks and balances. The signs are that the trough will continue to be filled, and the "John Lewis" list will be done away with, and replaced with an increased salary or a "cover-all" allowance.

The gravy-train won't stop - it will just come under a new guise.

And another thing - why is the true cost of living being pulled over the eyes of the British people with an unrealistic and misrepresetative inflation measurement? Hello? Housing costs? Fuel costs? Water? Electricity?

No... the cost of hiring a wallpaper stripper is a much more important economic indicator.

Rant over - for now.

[Guest David Guyatt]

And therein lies the problem. The only people they're accountable to are themselves. They write their own paychecks. They set the level of their own expenses. Up until now there have been insufficient checks and balances. The signs are that the trough will continue to be filled, and the "John Lewis" list will be done away with, and replaced with an increased salary or a "cover-all" allowance.

The gravy-train won't stop - it will just come under a new guise.

And another thing - why is the true cost of living being pulled over the eyes of the British people with an unrealistic and misrepresetative inflation measurement? Hello? Housing costs? Fuel costs? Water? Electricity?

No... the cost of hiring a wallpaper stripper is a much more important economic indicator.

Rant over - for now.

Don't stop Dave, I was warming to your every telling point.

Keeping the inflation indicator unrealistically low is just a dodge to annually dilute and diminish earnings for the majority. The difference gets trousered by the wealthy and their elected minions.