MP Expenses - The Future

There is no realistic future for British politics. Many cabinet ministers/MPs of various persuasions have seen to that.

Full list of MPs investigated
MPs' Expenses
Additional Cost (Second Home) Allowance - How it works
MPs' Expenses: The Detail (Explanatory Notes)

• Select the appropriate tab to examine the data
  

Ministers At The Trough Of Contempt
Brown, Gordon: Exit Strategy
MPs' Expenses: cash secrets
Westminster Trough Of Hypocrisy

Since in politics correction of past events rarely happens and forward looking to effectively ignore all 'wrong doings' is enabled, the future will demonstrate what might happen and what possibly never will happen, certainly in the way that is currently being publicly discussed. Look to tomorrow and not today and never yesterday. David Cameron claims he will use a scrutiny panel to examine the expense payments of MPs going back four years. Any erroneous payment will be forced to be returned. With interest and other penalties? It's a start.

The very thin and almost non-existent line between tax evasion and avoidance will go nowhere, though the thickness of the line is proportional to status and the higher the alleged standing of the target, the less visible it becomes. The height of standing determines the strength of any attack: the higher the weaker, the lower the more forceful as the target can produce less resource to make any realistic defense. Double standards exist and are jealously guarded.

• Consider: climbing over a fence to gain access to a location that avoids passing in front of a ticket office to gain lawful entry. Is this avoiding paying or taking deliberate action to evade payment and still gain unlawful entry?

There will almost certainly be no criminal action taken against any MP or minister however dark the picture may seem. Nothing usually happens, but there are rare exceptions:

• Aitken, Jonathan
  
• Archer, Jeffrey
  
• Stonehouse, John
  

The Speaker is to go (possibly rewarded by elevation to the House of Lords as is traditional, even though Michael Martin [Gorbels Mick] is the first incumbent to resign since 1695). Traditions are commonly stronger than honesty and integrity in many areas, but an 'opposition' continues to grow.

The whole system of second homes outside the London area is a complete nonsense. The concept is for somewhere to stay when on parliamentary business if the constituency is a long way from London. This can be managed quite easily by overnight hotel stays. The need for a second home in Edinburgh or Southampton is ludicrous and a complete non-starter. It is clearly enabling dealings in the property market and any profit is subject to capital gains tax (CGT).

Any profit from selling a property that has been
enhanced using public money is in
any case morally indefensible

Alistair Darling is Chancellor of the Exchequer and apparently cannot do a personal tax assessment as everyone else has to do. The tax rules specifically exclude any expenses to be claimed for passing on this responsibility. Unless as an apparently incapable Chancellor. But it's still disallowed. The expense (that is disallowed as a business expense to everyone else) was £763.75 (including VAT). This is particularly alarming since the Chancellor is spending £billions of taxpayers' money rescuing the financial system and it would seem cannot do even the simplest of tasks. Darling attempts to justify the appropriateness of this disallowed action by failing to answer the question:

• "Like many MPs, I employed an accountant to prepare tax returns for each of the years in question to ensure that the correct amount of tax was paid".

Nine cabinet ministers played this joker card.

H.M Revenue and Customs statement. However, 'should have paid' is not a declaration of a will to chase any failed payment. Failed payment usually involves interest added, but only to the 'normal' taxpayer.

• 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'.

The Green Book

Possibly the use of 'Green' is to suggest it's OK to Go. Perhaps it should become The Red Book as a cautionary and constant reminder that honesty and integrity are required to continue to be addressed as 'honourable':

Green for honesty
Red for dishonesty

• Deliberately 'flipping' the address of a property in order to escape tax payments must be more like tax evasion rather than tax avoidance. If it's legal then the parasite has set a precedent for the host to follow.

When MPs and ministers are removed, the reward will remain the property itself. This (if actually purchased) is subsidised by the taxpayer through the interest repayments on a mortgage. Capital payments are 'not allowed', though this hasn't stopped some 'honourable' members claiming for them and apparently successfully going through 'on the nod'. In a similar way that some mortgages are phantom ones (accounting errors) and have been successfully reimbursed. The justification is so pathetic it is beyond being simply obnoxious. It is odious beyond contempt.

Almost

If any sitting MP is eventually deselected, many are of (or in excess of) retirement age for other professions. The only loss will be the sustainability of ACAs and by 'staying on' until the next election and then standing down, will return up to one year's full salary of about £65,000. Clearly they must forfeit the potentially lucrative future by being forced out NOW without remuneration of any kind.

Enough has been enough and is already too much.
It's called being summarily sacked.

The Wintertons

(Sir) Nicholas Raymond
(Lady) Jane Ann (née Hodgson)

Ann Winterton became Shadow (Conservative) Rural Affairs Minister in 2001, and was sacked the next year for telling the following joke at a (private) rugby club dinner:

An Englishman, a Cuban, a Japanese man and a Pakistani were all on a train.

The Cuban threw a fine Havana cigar out the window. When he was asked why, he replied:

"They are ten a penny in my country."

The Japanese man threw an expensive Nikon camera out of the carriage, adding:

"These are ten a penny in my country."

The Englishman then picked up the Pakistani and threw him out of the train window.
When the other travellers asked him to account for his actions, he said:

"They are ten a penny in my country."

Another 'joke' involved the deaths of 23 Chinese cocklers at Morecambe Bay (2004):

• One shark turned to the other to say he was fed up chasing tuna and the other said, 'Why don't we go to Morecambe Bay and get some Chinese?'

This 'joke' was made at a dinner that was intended to improve relations between the English and Danish, but they do illustrate the calibre Ann Winterton. This is another pair to 'stand down' at the next election in complete ignominy, but nevertheless collecting a year's salary of around £65,000 each. The allegation has been promulgated that having bought a family home at taxpayers' expense this was then placed into a trust in their childrens' names. This same property was then rented back out to the parents, but charged to the taxpayer. One claim or two separate claims: one from each Winterton? In any case, minimally two bites at the same cherry. This illustrates a new form of evergreening. 'Income' sustainability. The property was valued at £900,000 and the inheritance tax avoidance is clear. This sort of trickery is highly cynical and can never be justified as a mistake or accident. It can only realistically be interpreted as a calculated and deliberate action.

What must not happen is that by standing down avoidance of any future criminal action is thwarted. What has been done, if criminal, must be properly actioned without any method of escape before trial. This is not a vindictive concept, but only natural justice. One legal system for all. Deselection and standing down before the next election must involve the forfeiture of all profits made at taxpayer expense. But the system has been designed to create a win-win-win route into retirement.

Pensions for United Kingdom MPs are regarded as one of the best schemes in the world. Retirement into obscurity has all the contemptible rewards of failure. The character of these 'honourable' people has been self-torpedoed, yet financially they are still able to win by receiving a generous pension, again at the expense of the taxpayer and the entire profit from any property dealings at taxpayers' expense. There may be a few less snouts in the trough, but the final scoop of the swill could still be rather nutritious. In retirement, these individuals will possibly obtain various (lucrative non-executive) directorships that can be viewed as conflicts of interest until being officially retired. The 'expertise' acquired during the career can then become very useful: how things work and contacts. They will probably escape with all the profits and trappings of failure. Jumping before being pushed can create the illusion of 'no issue' since the detail cannot be examined.

Fred "The Shred" Goodwin

• They've been found out and they must go. After returning any ill-gained profit, not 'passing go' and certainly not obtaining '£200'. Promises of payment cannot be accepted.

The second homes and any proceeds
must be forfeit in their entirety

This avoids the CGT issue since there can be no sale.

Worldwide, the focus of attention is on British politics and the farce being played out to a global audience. The damage done is irreparable. The term laughing stock is reasonably close to reality, but not quite close enough to define the ridiculous joke into which this country has sunk. Like Douglas Hogg being de-moated by stepping down at the next election. Hogg is an example of a barrister who cannot distinguish right from what is clearly morally wrong. All the activities are allegedly legal and now that the flood gates are open, the deluge is well on its way.

• British culture has descended to beneath the pit. To rise above the brown stuff is not possible

The House of Commons Fees Office must be abolished. It is totally ineffective.

The Green Book

• This publication needs a complete line-by-line review. Laws need to be water-tight and abuses prevented by those weak and shallow enough to succumb to milking the system. The opportunity to raise the level of British honesty has been completely reversed by setting such a grotesque set of examples. Any moral high ground has been surrendered without a fight.

• Statute laws are mostly without major loopholes, but The Green Book is a veritable colander and is best simply abandoned since the management of the expenses system is so appalling.
  

• Duplicitous

Minor expenses may be queried, but more serious ones are nodded through. The concept of 'flipping' is ignored:

• The term is used in the United Kingdom to describe a technique whereby a Member of Parliament switches his second home between several houses, which has the effect of allowing the maximisation of taxpayer-funded allowances: MailOnline
  

The mistakes it has made in identifying the problems that have become apparent are many. Approving phantom mortgages. Approving disallowed capital repayments on mortgages that sometimes do not exist when interest only payments should be involved. It is a system that encourages the interest only mortgage to be taken out as this attracts the maximum permissible subsidy. All of it. Any profit is totally kept by the mortgagee even though taxpayers' finance has been used. Not only purchasing the property but paying the running costs, furniture, equipping refurbished kitchens and bathrooms, food bills, gardening costs, Council Tax... Some of the 'discovered' receipts are a joke having scat detail scribbled on scraps of paper. Nothing official, but still accepted seemingly without question. The honourable individuals are assumed to actually be honourable and not to make any questionable claims.

The system is not necessarily rotten, but its management and the abuses certainly are. No audit has been undertaken to oversee the accuracy of claims.

• Gerald Kaufman claimed for a TV: £8,865 (the published allowable maximum is £750).

The level of abuse is staggering. The moral standing of all of the abusers is beneath the bottom of the pit, deep under the mountain of subsidised manure for which some have allegedly claimed. In summary, just a few examples can illustrate the vile abuse and the venal and hypocritical double standards rife in British politics today:

• 'Flipping' is to be outlawed. The term is used in the United Kingdom to describe a technique whereby a Member of Parliament switches his second home between several houses, which has the effect of allowing the maximisation of taxpayer-funded allowances: MailOnline

• Monthly mortgage interest payments are to remain supported by the taxpayer up to £1250, but there is no justification at all for ANY mortgage support

• Chief Whip "Nick" Brown claimed to have 'eaten' his way through £18,800 in four years (£400/month every month for 4 years). All unreceipted. An example of trust in an honourable member

• Margaret Moran claimed £22,500 for dry rot treatment in a second home property in Southampton. Presumably, a survey did NOT reveal the extent of any problem. Or it was known and STILL the property purchased in the expectation of claiming at taxpayers' expense. A property with a known serious problem would be purchased at a substantial discount thereby increasing the eventual resale profit (at taxpayer expense). This is a deliberate and calculated action. If the main residence address was 'flipped' back to Southampton, no CGT would be payable. Other loopholes exist with CGT.
  

• Hazel Blears has been apparently singled out and two others ignored for allegedly identical behaviour through the avoidance/evasion of Capital Gains Tax: the Blears CGT liability was publicly announced as £13,332 and was "totally unacceptable", but Geoff Hoon's liability amounts to £120,000 (40% of £300,000) and James Purnell (?). Purnell has demonstrated his own ability to display hypocrisy. No comment was uttered about the acceptability of this failure to pay. Vindictiveness is suggested here since Blears is not to Brown's taste, having dared being critical. The other two are apparently 'acceptable' flavours.

Brown has painted himself into a corner with that one

• Sir Peter Viggers claimed £1,645 for a duck house

• Anthony Steen claimed for forestry work on a 'few' (500) trees at his £1.5 million estate, but apparently 'cannot understand what all the fuss is about'.

"I think I behaved, if I may say so, impeccably."

That depends on the level of personal standards

"I have done nothing criminal, that's the most awful thing
and do you know what it's all about?"

Jealousy

Incredibly, Steen goes on to say:

"What right does the public to interfere with my private life? None."

The arrogance is really quite breathtaking
and it's what the British people have been
saying about government interference
in their private lives for years,
but the public does not use public money
to fund that private life

• Ruth Kelly allegedly misappropriated public money (and not for the first time) to furnish a property in the Bolton West constituency and claimed for flood damage via the House of Commons Fees Office on the expenses system even though buildings' insurance was in force. The taxpayer-funded claim was settled without any penalty, presumably, on an insurance policy.

• Phantom mortgages: Bill Wiggin (£11,000) and Elliot Morley with dozens of others. This seems to demonstrate complicity by the House of Commons Fees Office by assisting the claimants in these false claims. To be waved through without challenge for so long is difficult to imagine, unless a blind-eye was deliberately unfocused on the issue.

The national rage has never been greater than now:

25th May 2009

British politics (almost) ends here