May 12th, 2009 This is getting ridiculous now.
During a time when many people are losing their homes, nevermind their jobs, the members of the Westminster Parliament are still being exposed for making the most outrageous expenses claims on top of their already overblown salaries.
It seems that during the interviews, in which it sounds like they have been forced by their party bosses to explain themselves, the same two soundbites that are heard over and over again.
“The money for that claim has already been paid back.”
Two points.
That implies that had your expenses not been exposed, you wouldn’t have paid them back; and having paid them back, you must have realised that the claim was invalid in the first place.
And who is authorising these claims? Whoever it is gives the impression that they are so far removed from reality, it beggars belief.
“All of these expense claim are within the rules.”
Yes; the rules, you as MP’s, voted in. Sounds suspiciously like “I was only following orders”, or “Everyone else was doing it…”
Apparently, it doesn’t matter how badly the country is doing financially, as long as you can feather your own nest.
Analysis by tax expert Richard Teather of Bournemouth University shows that an MP’s nominal Parliamentary salary [of £64,766] nowhere near reflects their huge package of benefits.
As The Mail on Sunday revealed last week, MPs have voted to make their benefits exempt from tax.
To pocket the same salary, buy the same gold-plated pension and receive the same string of perks as the average MP, an ordinary taxpayer would have to earn a salary of £319,165 – about 18 times the pay of the average voter.
Mr Teather’s findings have been set out in three tables to show how MPs are benefiting and those who are benefiting the most. Here, we show the 20 highest-earning MPs in each of the three categories. You can see the whole list at www.mailonsunday.co.uk/mps.
Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy tops Table 1, which shows the true value of MPs’ pay and perks compared with the average wage of their constituents. The figure for expenses has been adjusted upwards to reflect the tax that would be payable if treated as salary.
To get the equivalent to the wages, pension rights and perks of Mr Murphy, his constituents in Torfaen, South Wales, would have to earn £423,932 before tax and national insurance – 28.1 times their average pay.
[Via: The Daily Mail]
The Speaker, Michael Martin, bore the brunt of my fury during last night’s news.
Patricia Hewitt, the former Cabinet minister, was [also] cut short by Mr Martin as she argued for greater public scrutiny of what MPs are paid and able to claim in allowances.
Mr Martin replied,
“Let me put this to you and to every Hon Member in this House – is it the case that an employee of this House should be able to hand over any private data to any organisation of his or her choosing?”
[Via: The Daily Telegraph]
Since when was how these elected officials spent public money “private data”? Who exactly is this man defending, and on what grounds, because it certainly should not be privacy of the expense claims of public servants.
Shame on you all.
Who the hell do you people think you are? Far from serving us, the public, they are taking us to the cleaners.
Totally agree , who the hell do they think they are? Most of these scumbags use the same exscuse “I claimed within the rules”. These p***ks obviously have no concious or morales , that is what people are getting annoyed about. At no point did they stop think “Should I claim ?” it was clearly more a case of “What CAN I claim ?” , shoot the bloody lot of them. The reason the Speaker and many other politicians are upset is the fact they’ve been caught red handed with their trotters in the cookie jar. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ! THIS MUST END NOW !