MP Expenses - Damage Limitation

David Cameron began his career in public relations after the 'normal' prep school, Eton, Oxford route through early life.

Today, the right noises are heard to be made, but those that people are perceived to want to hear. The appearance of acting tough only disguises the real avoidance of decisive action. Those MPs accused of profligacy are not being summarily dismissed. They are being shown the most lucrative door from which to exit: pass GO and collect the rewards of disgrace. Cameron is an MP and MUST be aware of the behaviours and all the (lucrative) attractions as well.

• What do MPs actually do to 'earn' their money? Having a (publicly funded) property (dealing) in London or nearby avoids any lengthy commute so shortening the day when any other commuters must spend personal unpaid time getting to and from the dangerous capital that some MPs apparently find just too daunting. Write a few letters on behalf of constituents, attend parliament occasionally and ...

?

• This property speculation also takes place in other British constituencies outside London. To possess a 'second home' (wherever it may be) appears to be mandatory.

It is very difficult to imagine that Cameron was unaware of the activities that have sunk the parliamentary process so deep that it is not recoverable. Damage limitation is a calculated way forward and a few 'sacrificial heads' should demonstrate real action. This is politics, but the attempt is failing. The host is NOT as gullible as the parasite imagines.

• The trust of the voting public has been betrayed by those who have abused the system for personal gain. The very many people who provided those elected few with a key to the till.

• Some of the amounts involved may be small where others are obnoxiously large, but both types are claimed by grasping individuals because it's there to supplement a low salary (£64,766 and upwards). The entire system has been developed to misdirect the public into believing MPs and ministers do not enjoy special arrangements when the public sector has very restrained pay increases. Pampering MPs at public expense by subterfuge.
  

Disclosure of Expenses

The Andrew MacKay/Julie Kirkbride duo serves as an illustration of the contempt. The Tory MPs are married to each other, yet adopt their separate names.

• Should a women submit a PhD thesis for the doctorate degree, and that women subsequently marries, she would not adopt the married name professionally. The designation 'Dr' could not be used. The title is associated with the name of the individual onto whom the degree was conferred. In the case of MPs there is no such situation and the use of separate names has no foundation, but it does have the benefit of hiding any professional association.

• This would be known by the Tax Doctor
  

MacKay has been an MP since 1997 and with wife Kirkbride have both claimed second home allowances. MacKay for a London flat and Kirkbride for a second (main) home in Bromsgrove. The main Bromsgrove residence was 'flipped' to become a technical second home.

• It's staggering to now understand that this 'trick' was not 'realised' for what it was by the Fees Office. This demonstrates (apparent) collusion and MUST be explained. For without it this joker card could not possibly work. It would be rapidly uncovered, but was successfully kept from public scrutiny.

Until now

• The term 'flipping' is used in the United Kingdom to describe a technique whereby a Member of Parliament switches a second home between several houses, which has the effect of allowing the maximisation of taxpayer-funded allowances: MailOnline. Refurbish and (fully) equip a property using these ACAs, then 'flip and equip' another. It's sustainable flouting of the system using the system and is morally indefensible, but allegedly works 'within the rules', but could only work with the apparent collusion of the House of Commons Fees Office. Clearly, none of this is 'within the rules'.

MacKay is still the sitting MP for Bracknell, and Kirkbride the sitting MP for Bromsgrove. The concept of (forced) standing down at the next election and yet acquiring ALL the BENEFITS has the effect of leaving the constituents without representation for potentially an entire year, unless a general election is called sooner. The public anger displayed by the respective constituents is very hostile. This has led to the standing down, but NOT until the NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. This is not atypical.

• This is analogous to the monkey grasping the reward inside a jar. The closed hand cannot be removed from the jar. The only way for release is to let go of the reward. The monkey cannot do this and is consequently trapped. The only way for a grasping MP to acquire release is to let GO of the grasped rewards. They are not capable of doing the obvious.

Disclosure of expenses
Kirkbride expenses
Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill

• Kirkbride was one of 98 MPs who voted to keep their expenses details secret. Curiously, Andrew MacKay's name does not appear.

Elliot Morley (former agricultural minister) accidentally managed to secure £16,000 for a mortgage that had been settled. Bill Wiggin (Tory whip) made £11,000 through an "honest mistake" and dozens of others have profited from phantom mortgages. As a penalty for being caught out and punished, these honourable individuals enjoy a further year of profiting through expenses and salary until the next general election before standing down. They are not being dismissed immediately as any 'normal' person would.

Family ties

Bill Cash, a senior Conservative MP, claimed more than £15,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses to pay his daughter rent for her London flat – even though he owned a home closer to Westminster. The daughter apparently had aspirations for a career as a future MP. The actions suggest a conspiracy to defraud and any such career has been destroyed before it happened. Maybe. However, politics being as sordid as it is this might NOT be the expected penalty. Twisted as it is, the opposite could still happen.

Nauseating

According to Private Eye, every fortnight sees over 4000 benefit fraud investigations being launched, but in the last fortnight, NO fraud investigations into MPs have been launched.

Future potential of MP salaries
Pay rises capped

- this could be another Thatcher (1985) misdirection (see below)

"Generous exit packages will not be available as an
alternative for those who don't want to do a good day's work. We will not reward failure"

This joker card has been played before.

• Margaret Thatcher in 1985 set the precedent by deluding the public into thinking public sector pay was being restrained yet pumping up MP benefits. An indirect 'salary' increase was cynically engineered. Salaries were hailed as being held back, but other tricks were going on. An Additional Cost Allowance change allowed MPs to begin claiming their mortgage costs rather than hotel bills and rent. So was created the property speculation monster. Tony Blair (Labour) extended this Thatcher (Conservative) concept to London-based ministers since they were always whingeing of not being paid enough.

FOR SALE: MPs' expenses