Tuesday, April 28, 2009

MPs allowances: Brown fucks up. Again

A little while ago, the Prime Mentalist announced a review into MPs' expenses, after a succession of our lords and masters were caught blatantly defrauding the taxpayer.

Then the mad, one-eyed, Scots bastard decided, unilaterally, that he was going to ignore the review and propose his own solution—a solution that was described eloquently by The Daily Mash.
PRIME minister Gordon Brown has surprised Westminster by somehow managing to make the scandal over MPs' expenses even worse than it already was.

Mr Brown has proposed abolishing the controversial £24,000 a year second home allowance and replacing it with a £25,000 a year dragging-your-fat-arse-into-work allowance.

Under the old scheme MPs would have to submit receipts to the Commons authorities, thereby allowing the public to at least speculate on the titles and content of the pornography.

Under the new scheme MPs will get around £170 a day just for being where they are supposed to be, but crucially will not have to submit receipts, allowing them to use taxpayers' money to watch as many Hungarian donkey films as they want.

Of course, many of us do get an allowance for turning up for work: it's called a fucking salary. And an MPs' salary is twice that of mine, even if they don't have some fucking extra make-work joke-job to boost that fat paycheck.
Julia Cook, professor of politics at Reading University, said: "I've been up all night racking my brains and I cannot, for the life of me, work out how he managed to fuck this up.

"The key task here was to stop giving MPs lots and lots of free money, or at least make sure that when they got the free money they didn't use it to take the utter piss.

"But what he has actually done is guarantee them even more free money while at the same time - and this is the bit that I love - making it even easier for them to take the piss."

She added: "For a man who has set new benchmarks in being an unmitigated fucking catastrophe, this could be the crowning moment of his career."

Well, it might indeed have been the crowning moment of Gordon's catastrophic career—except that, in typical fashion, our Cyclopean PM has topped it by not being even able to get anyone to support his ludicrous solution.
The government has abandoned plans for a vote on scrapping MPs' second homes allowance, it has announced.

Gordon Brown's plan to replace it with a flat-rate daily allowance failed to win support from the Tories, Lib Dems and many backbench Labour MPs.

Absolutely fucking insulting though Brown's Sign In and Sod Off (SISO ©EU Parliament members) idea was, I have no faith that MPs failed to support it out of any sense of duty or good conscience.

The real reason that these troughing bastards did not want this solution (or any solution) is that a good many of them have been exploiting the expenses system in order to fund extended property portfolios at our expense.

Since any reform means they might have to maintain those portfolios at their own expense, then they might actually have to sell the properties—and they know that, right now, they aren't going to get top dollar.
The prime minister said "swift reform" was still needed and asked standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly to bring forward his report on expenses to July.

But Sir Christopher warned that the issues involved were "not simple".

Yes, they are; the issues are elementary, in fact: quite simply, MPs have been systematically abusing the expenses system for personal gain, and we've had enough.

The solution is quite simple: we will accept nothing but private rental receipts, for properties in London, up to a maximum of, say, £180 per week. Further, MPs are not allowed to get their spouse to "buy" a property and then rent that.

Any bastard MP caught breaking the rules will be liable, at a minimum, to repayment of all monies from their personal income; however, it should be routine that MPs breaking the rules are prosecuted for fraud and corruption in high office. Penalties would include incarceration, swingeing fines and being barred from public office.

This might be harsh but, like naughty children, MPs have proven that they simply cannot be trusted. Basically, we went away on holiday and, at their own request, trusted the teenage MPs to look after the place: and we came back to find that they had taken the opportunity to have an expressly-forbidden party, trash the house, drink all of the good booze and get their sister pregnant.

As such, these cunts are going to be grounded, fined and never trusted again. And, let's face it, if any MP was not abusing the second homes allowances, then they are hardly going to object to its reform: if they were abusing it, then fuck'em, frankly—they are exactly the people that we are targeting.

What is the difficulty here, exactly?


Anonymous said...

When I was working in MoD I received a lodging allowance.

You were not allowed to rent accommodation from yourself, a relative, or anyone you had a financial relationship with.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Timothy Wallace said...

I don't think they should be barred from holding an elected public office - if voters want a fraudulent cock representing them, they're welcome to give it a shot.

Mr Eugenides said...

As you say, it is perfectly simple.

Actually I think £180 is a bit low - can't imagine that £720 a month gets you much in London. Of course they could make up the difference out of their own pocket, but if they have a family home (y'know, a real family home) elsewhere in the country, they will probably be paying a mortgage for that already.

All things considered, I don't think it's unreasonable for the taxpayer to pay towards a decent flat within reasonable commute of Westminster. This is likely to cost rather more than £180 a week. Give them £1000 a month, £1500, whatever. If they want to live a lavish lifestyle, let them do so on their own dime.

The crucial points are that (a) we must know where every single penny of our money is going - full receipting of every expense, with no exceptions; (b) we should get value for money, in so far as that concept has any meaning when applied to the fat pus-sacs we are talking about here; and (c) said MPs are not selling their homes when they get turfed out, making capital gains at our expense, and pocketing the difference.

A rental allowance is the perfect solution. And it is, indeed, very simple.

Anonymous said...

Put 'em on PAYE , with the same allowances as any other taxpayer

Lord Blagger said...

I think a trick was missed.

1. Ask Brown if there is to a special tax regime and perks for MPs.

It's an elephant trap and Brown will have to say no.

2. An amendment is then made to the bill stating that the per diem allowance is available to all.

175 a day, 240 days a year. 42K a year. You could claim up to this amount tax free.

i.e. Brown get shown up for what he is, a thieving bastard just out of feather the nests of himself and MPs at the publics expense.

The Young Oligarch said...

Would it not end up cheaper if the Government simply bought up some nice flats in London for our MPs to live in ? They could have a flat tied to a specific seat as part of their package , then passed on when when they are voted out or retire .
That way no-one , except us , would be making money out of any rise in property values .

Paying money to private landlords , or property speculators , would be merely bunging our money to another crook .

Ruari C said...

A friend of mine is a private sector worker, who is based abroad. He gets a rental allowance for accomodation. He negotiated with his employer to he get the allowance added to his salary so that instead of renting, he could buy. To his employer, the end result is the same. It pays him the same amount as it would under the rental arrangement. For my mate, it's a win-win, since he gets somewhere to live for the duration of the posting, and can sell it on or keep it at the end, turning a profit. If the amount claimed is the same and would be in any case, why gripe that they make a profit from it at the end? Does the source of the cash matter, if the cash would be spent anyway?

In short, because it's public money, we get pissed off because we see it as an abuse. In a private sector organisation where such arrangements are made, nobody minds. The end result is the same, however. What brasses us off is that MPs have clearly abused the system by pretending to rent and using the cash elsewhere, which is against the spirit of the rules.

If I was paying an MP from outside London, say, £1.5k a month for accomodation, why should I care if they make some money off it at the end, so long as it was genuinely spent on that accomodation? Just publish the mortgage arrangements and ensure that only the mortgage is claimed. It's the same as paying rent, but they get to keep/sell it at the end.

Only alternative to that I can think of is that the Commons buys up homes or builds a 'halls of residence' for MPs. I'd say that's a much more attractive proposition...

Lost in Devon said...

In short, because it's public money, we get pissed off because we see it as an abuse. In a private sector organisation where such arrangements are made, nobody minds. Well, that's exactly the fucking point. If I do business with a private sector organisation, it is by choice, and they can do exactly what they want with what is now THEIR money.

As a public servant, an MP is in receipt of money that was removed from me by force, or the threat of it - no fucking choice whatsoever.

If they now use MY money to make a massive stinking profit, don't you think I'd have the right to be fucking pissed off? Having legislated to remove money from me, then voted on how to remunerate themselves nicely and then making a profit on property stinks of pigs in a fucking trough.

If any profits were given back to the taxpayer, then my rage may ease, but until that day, they can fuck right off and live in a council flat for all I care.

sconzey said...

Well, you see the reason it's not simple is because the snout-in-the-troughers have to vote for any reform put in...

The only way it'll get passed is either a: ejection from the party for anyone who disagrees or b: cross party consensus.

What I would suggest is that we don't reform MPs expenses at all, but we do tighten up the fraud legeslation surrounding the misuse of public money.

"A public servant shall not use public funds for their own enrichment"

Unfortunately we'd also have to do away with parliamentary priveledge

Anonymous said...

@ Tim W:

if voters want a fraudulent cock representing them, they're welcome to give it a shot.Don't you mean that they are welcome to take a pot-shot at them?


Plato said...

Is it me or have you stopped swearing?

I noticed about 4 or 5 posts ago that the **** count was considerably down.

I can't believe that I'm about to say this - I miss it, along with the Devil's scroll look.

*what would my mother think*

Odin's Raven said...

The best solution might be not to give any taxpayers money at all to MP's. Let their parties pay them on whatever basis they choose.

Dick the Prick said...

Loved Julia Cook - brilliant.

Devil's Kitchen said...


"To his employer, the end result is the same. It pays him the same amount as it would under the rental arrangement."Well, not really.

The employer has to pay 12.8% NICs on top of the salary, remember. And the employee has to pay 11% NICs and 20% income tax.

Even were the employer to pay a rental accommodation, the employer or employee would have to pay tax on that as a benefit in kind.

Of course, MPs have a special exemption from tax on benefits-in-kind. One rule for them...


Patrick said...

I'm still aghast frankly DK, that you still think the dying patient called govt has anymore life in it.. I mean its not rocket science to work out how politicos employ smoke and mirrors with their policies that they don't do the same with their expenses?.. When you take money by force and don't actually earn it, what do you expect them to do?.. This cancer will not go into remission, it will merely fester and mutate into termination, while it injects ever larger doses of morphine on the tax payers dime..

DK, govt is a rotten dying carcass, why do you still see hope for it?..

Lord Blagger said...

Hence the Tories should have put in an amendment saying that citizens operate under the same tax regime as MPs.

Then its down to Brown.

Is he prepared to say to the electorate, fuck off, I'm better than you

Anonymous said...

The Young Oligarch has the right idea.

If we spend too much time in an overseas office outside London (my firm has three), we are obliged to take up residence in a firm-owned, serviced apartment. There is a tacit agreement that it benefits no-one to ring up £1150 per week on long-term accommodation.

The HoC knows precisely, a priori, how many apartments are required. They could easily buy one of those beastly estates down in Pimlico.

Mr Eugenides said...

Plus, half the MPs are fucking each other anyway, so they can share accommodation.

I reckon we can squeeze 'em all into 400 or so flats. 350, when Prescott fucks off.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...