There has been much in the media in the past week or so about the abuses of the expense system by Members of Parliament in the UK. They have been milking the system and bending the rules in some cases claiming for everything from hiring porn dvds to houses for ducks. You have had two people claiming for the same thing, you have one claiming for mortgage interest when he no longer has a mortgage. The list is quite amazing of what has been happening. Some are paying back amounts claimed. The whole thing stinks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8064868.stm

This lists some of the claims, everything from eyeliner pencils to dog bowls.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...day-by-day.html

The whole system was wrong from the start, and it should never have been set up like this in the first place.

Please remember that the British divorce courts have regarded this allowance as part of their income, regardless of whether it was claimed or not. Is it surprising that MPs are claiming it? One could argue that anyone who isn't, wouldn't make a very good Chancellor of the exchequer (or though not perhaps a popular one).

To my mind no "honourable" member would have claimed for these silly things. In many ways, showing us who's in politics for the money, and who's in to change Britain.

Oh wow, what an effect this is having on the government at the moment. It is quite extraordinary!

Jacqui Smith has declared she will stand down from the cabinet and now, just two hours before what is going to be a car crash version of PMQs, Hazel Blears has announced her resignation from the cabinet.

Just crazy!

This was set up by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's as she did not want to face a upsrising from the British People, at a time she was bashing the miners the sick and disabled and elderly. The Mp's of the time were looking for a substanial pay rise and she refused to endorse this. The expenses system was created and i am sure Mp's were told to fill there boots. And that they could make more from expenses then the pay rise they sought.

What has been going on in your government, to me, seems to be a new world attitude. More for me, however I can get it; it's more mine than yours; everyone's doing it so how can it be wrong; don't get in my way for more with your moraltities.

er... sorry for the bad typos etc.

I don't get the impression that COntessa is approving of the behaviour, more lamenting the fact that the mantra of
'Greed is Good, Greed works'
has jumped across the pond and embedded itself in British politics.
Sadly COntessa, as the prof will probably tell you, greed amongst the ruling classes has always been dear to their hearts.
My copy of 1066 And All That is out on loan at the moment, but someone will be able to quote their explanation for the Magna Carta more accurately.
Something along the lines of
' Judgement of the Barons by a group of their peers who would understand them.'

Ah yes, the memorable History of England - defined as the bits you can remember. Everyone should read that book, except maybe Americans because when they became top dog History came to a .

(Don't hate me, read the book!)

Now then, the Magna Charter said...

1. That no one was to be put to death, save for some reason (except the Common People).
2. That everyone should be free (except the Common People).
3. That everything should be of the same weight and measure throughout the Realm (except the Common People).
4. That the Courts should be stationary, instead of following a very tiresome medieval official known as the King's Person all over the country.
5. That no person should be fined to his utter ruin (except the King's Person).
6. That the Barons should not be tried except by a special jury of other Barons who would understand.

Magna Charter was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in England, and thus a very Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People).

Nothing's changed there then, lol.

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut.
After the haircut he asked about his bill and the barber replies "I can't accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week."
The florist was pleased and left the shop.
When the barber goes to open his shop next morning there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at the door.
Later, a baker comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies "I can't accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week." The baker is very happy and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open up, there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at the door.
Later that day, a teacher comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies "I can't accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week."
The teacher is very happy and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber opens his shop, waiting for him there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen books, with titles such as 'How to Improve Your Business' and 'Becoming More Successful.'
Then, a Member of Parliament comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies,
"I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week."
The Member of Parliament is very happy and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Members of Parliament lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and our Members of Parliament!

That anecdote was of course 'tongue in cheek', and most MP's are both honest and open in their expense claims. My own MP Charles Walker publishes his salary and expenses on his website, and all his expenses are perfectly legitimate. He is also pro-active and hard working, both locally and within parliament, and frequently speaks in parliamentary debates.

Why does your MP, whose constituency adjoins the M25, need to claim £10,000 for mortgage payments on a London property? I would have thought that his constituents, in a similar position, would commute.

This is what I was thinking about...

Property within 8 minutes dash to the Houses of Parliament for the Division Bell

That was probably a lot more relevant when the House sat all evening and into the night. That was also the argument for London MPs to have second homes 'within the sound of the division bell'.

The hours of the House of Commons have now been amended, and they no longer sit into the evening or late at night, so if an MP is not in the chamber at the time of a vote, the most logical place for him to be would be in his office.

Or perhaps her office.