•
As we know, there are going to be 18 phantom MEPs in the next European Parliament. They’ll get all of the money and do none of the work. As Nigel has said:
“Welcome to virtual politics,” he said. “This has to be the political expenses scandal to end all expenses scandals.”
“The perfect politician for today’s elite is one that takes wages and does no work at all,” Farage added.
But wait, who is it that has brokered this deal? Who is it that thought that paying out million of our money for nothing was a good idea? Step forward Richard Corbett:
The Nice Treaty provides for 736 MEPs, while the Lisbon Treaty foresees 754 MEPs until 2014 and 751 thereafter. A report by Socialist MEP Richard Corbett (UK, Labour) adopted in plenary, provides for granting the outstanding 18 MEPs observer status until the Lisbon Treaty becomes effective.
And what does he say about it?
“This is straightforward and there is no need to make a fuss,” he told the Daily Telegraph newspaper. “They can do all the work of an MEP except taking part in votes. This is a way of making a smooth transition and has been done before.”
No need to make a fuss? This has all been done before, it’s all entirely normal?
Well, perhaps by the standards of the EU….spending those millions of our money on a few more professional politicians to do absolutely damn all.
That’s the European Union wrapped up in a nutshell for you really, isn’t it?
•
But it isn’t yet.
As the Telegraph continues to sift through the expenses files we find this:
Alistair Darling, along with others including Hazel Blears, Geoff Hoon and Jacqui Smith, have all claimed for the costs of accountancy advice using expenses intended to fund their parliamentary and constituency offices.
A tax expert described the claims as “scandalous”, especially as the expenses are tax-free.
Under HM Revenue and Customs rules, most people are not allowed to claim the cost of employing an accountant to fill in a self-assessment tax form as a legitimate business expense.
Not only do we pay for them to dodge the tax laws they themselves have written into the books, they don’t pay tax on that benefit, unlike everyone else in the country would have to.
It’s one thing that they get te expenses, but I think it’s much more dangerous that they don’t have to obey the same laws as the rest of us.
•
Can you believe this one? Even I, accustomed to the Westminster ways, cannot:
ANDY BURNHAM, the culture secretary, has apparently avoided thousands of pounds in capital gains tax by channelling a £16,600 property windfall through the parliamentary expenses system.
Burnham was given the money by a property developer to persuade him to move out of a flat he rented in Dolphin Square, a desirable apartment block near the Palace of Westminster. Tax experts say he would normally have been liable for a tax bill of up to £6,665 on the windfall.
The Commons authorities instead agreed to bend their own rules, and added the windfall to his second home allowance, which is exempt from tax. The special deal meant he was able to claim more than £32,000 on his second home allowance for a single year - far beyond the maximum £21,643 then permitted under the Commons rules. It is believed to be the highest amount ever claimed.
No, no and thrice no. He’s got to go as have the rest of them.
•
The man who released the information says:
“We’ve reached a stage in society where they want to know everything about us – I think we’re entitled to know about them.”
That’s an argument I find it very difficult to disagree with.
And they’re making a habit of being treated differently than the rest of us too. The 2003 Income Tax Act exempts MPs specifically (but not local councillors) from the Inland Revenue rules that expenses must be solely to do with the pursuit of one’s job. And the Childrens’ Database will be so secure that the children of MPs will not be on it.
I don’t know about you but I regard it as one of the basics, that if a law is good enough that we must obey it then so must it be good enough that those who made the law should obey it.
•
I listened to this going out live and simply could not believe my ears.
But his attack embarrassed Conservative officials when he claimed that public outrage over MPs’ expenses was unfair and misplaced. “I think I have behaved impeccably. I have done nothing criminal. And you know what it’s about? Jealousy. I have got a very, very large house. Some people say it looks like Balmoral, but it’s a merchant’s house from the 19th century,” he said. “We have a wretched Government here that has completely mucked up the system and caused the resignation of me and many others, because it was this Government that introduced the Freedom of Information Act and it is this Government that insisted on the things which caught me on the wrong foot.”
Comparing the daily stream of revelations in The Daily Telegraph to a soap opera, he said: “What right does the public have to interfere in my private life? None. Do you know what this reminds me of? An episode of Coronation Street. This is a kangaroo court.”
They really don’t get it, do they? That’s our money they’re spending, not theirs.
•
This is interesting for two reasons:
The deal will mean they can draw full salaries and allowances at an annual cost of over £6 million without any legislative duties to carry out.
The 18 MEPs, from 12 EU countries, including Britain’s West Midlands region, will be paid more than £76,000 a year, with staff and office allowances worth £210,000.
Firstlythat such an amount of money is going to be spent on people who, by law, are not allowed to do anything.
The second is, well, have a look at what an MEP gets to pay their staff (the staff needed to cover a constituency which is 100 times the size of a Westminster one in some cases) and an office.
£ 210,000 a year. So when people shout about Nigel “getting” £2 million over 10 years in “expenses” this is what they mean. That he’s paid the staff he needs to do his job. There is no second home allowance, there is no furniture allowance. This is rather different from moat cleaning, I think we all agree?
•
The Cabinet minister saved thousands of pounds after informing the parliamentary authorities that Manchester was his “main” home while the tax authorities considered London to be his “primary” residence. Mr Purnell claimed for a £395 accountant’s bill that included “tax advice provided in October 2004 regarding sale of flat” on parliamentary expenses which are intended to cover the costs of running an MP’s office.
This is one of those facepalm moments.
Seriously? A Cabinet Minister thinks that the taxpayers should pay his bill to avoid the taxes that all other taxpayers have to pay?
Visions of howling mobs and burning brands float in front of my eyes…..
•
You think that you’ve heard it all, that he bottom of the barrel has been reached. And then you find out that it keeps getting worse.
Another investigation has been launched in the wake of the expenses scandal after allegations that House of Commons officials allowed an MP to reclaim mortgage interest payments he was no longer paying.
It’s not just the MPs, it’s even the officials conspiring with them!
•
Another mortgage still being claimed for after it had been paid off.
All in error, of course, an entirely understandable mistake.
Well, maybe. I’ll believe it’s a mistake when we find an MP who has made the equal and opposite error, that of continuing to pay a mortgage that has already been paid in full. But not claimed for it.
Think we’ll find one of those?
Quite, so not so much of the “mistake” thing then, eh?