The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The Government's personal spending habits are all over the news at the moment (Tesco are probably taking notes to send them advertising) but a lot of it seems to be media hype again.
Everyone in a certain job with requirements to relocate or travel should have expenses paid by their company. The main differences here seem to be that it's tax payer's money and that a few MPs seem to be claiming for more than they should (or for odd things).
This, of course, should come as no surprise. We all realise that some people, given a position of power, will try to sneak through any system in order to get something for nothing, MPs especially.
So the question isn't really whether they should be spending this money (obviously not in many cases reported) but should there really be so much fuss and surprise about what's been going on?
Also, how would you regulate MP's spending?
I'd first give them a budget cap so they can only spend up to an agreed amount, then give them a stricter set of rules across the board so it's fair and above board.
Everyone in a certain job with requirements to relocate or travel should have expenses paid by their company. The main differences here seem to be that it's tax payer's money and that a few MPs seem to be claiming for more than they should (or for odd things).
This, of course, should come as no surprise. We all realise that some people, given a position of power, will try to sneak through any system in order to get something for nothing, MPs especially.
So the question isn't really whether they should be spending this money (obviously not in many cases reported) but should there really be so much fuss and surprise about what's been going on?
Also, how would you regulate MP's spending?
I'd first give them a budget cap so they can only spend up to an agreed amount, then give them a stricter set of rules across the board so it's fair and above board.
Page:
Sex and Violence wrote:
> I'd expect better from you YH, that's a ridiculous comparison.
It was a light hearted comment, hence the :-) at the end.
Without going over too much ground that has already been covered, I see it like this:
At best we have incompetant MPs who can't sort their receipts out at the end of each month. If they can't do that, are they capable of running our country? At worst we have outright theives and fraudsters running our country.
Either way, it doesn't look good, eh?
As for QT, I thought it was interesting and entertaining - the bloke from McDonalds spoke a lot of sense.
EDIT - "Expect more from me"? You must have changed your name, as it's not one I recognise yet you seem to have an idea about me. Interesting.
> I'd expect better from you YH, that's a ridiculous comparison.
It was a light hearted comment, hence the :-) at the end.
Without going over too much ground that has already been covered, I see it like this:
At best we have incompetant MPs who can't sort their receipts out at the end of each month. If they can't do that, are they capable of running our country? At worst we have outright theives and fraudsters running our country.
Either way, it doesn't look good, eh?
As for QT, I thought it was interesting and entertaining - the bloke from McDonalds spoke a lot of sense.
EDIT - "Expect more from me"? You must have changed your name, as it's not one I recognise yet you seem to have an idea about me. Interesting.
Sibs wrote:
> 3) MPs do need to go to parliament, and therefore are likely to
> require a place to stay in London. So why not have purpose built
> accomodation, like halls of residence, for MPs. The building can
> have high security, good public transport links, etc. Why don't
> we have this rather than allowing MPs to bill us to help pay for
> their expensive London pads?
I mean this is a good point (along with the hotel idea mentioned earlier. If they had purpose built accomodation, they could keep all MPs in one area and all the benefits Sibs as explained.
When i worked for Nationwide, all the training was in Bournemouth, so in my very short stay there, I went 3 times - I didn't get offered money for a second home - I had my expenses paid (which I think is fair enough) but I think my 3 trips cost the company £300 in total (6 nights, Full board plus travel costs). I couldn't have seen the entire years expenses being more than £2000 at most - so why do we just give MPs a lump sum for whatever they deem is neccessary?
The hotel/accomodation idea would be brilliant - as it is all in house, rooms would be cheaper - food expenses/toiletries bought through the place they are staying, no weird and wonderful receipts to scrutinise and it could be local to where they need to go (which is the whole point - unlike some MPs whose second home is actually further away from parliament than their current home).
> 3) MPs do need to go to parliament, and therefore are likely to
> require a place to stay in London. So why not have purpose built
> accomodation, like halls of residence, for MPs. The building can
> have high security, good public transport links, etc. Why don't
> we have this rather than allowing MPs to bill us to help pay for
> their expensive London pads?
I mean this is a good point (along with the hotel idea mentioned earlier. If they had purpose built accomodation, they could keep all MPs in one area and all the benefits Sibs as explained.
When i worked for Nationwide, all the training was in Bournemouth, so in my very short stay there, I went 3 times - I didn't get offered money for a second home - I had my expenses paid (which I think is fair enough) but I think my 3 trips cost the company £300 in total (6 nights, Full board plus travel costs). I couldn't have seen the entire years expenses being more than £2000 at most - so why do we just give MPs a lump sum for whatever they deem is neccessary?
The hotel/accomodation idea would be brilliant - as it is all in house, rooms would be cheaper - food expenses/toiletries bought through the place they are staying, no weird and wonderful receipts to scrutinise and it could be local to where they need to go (which is the whole point - unlike some MPs whose second home is actually further away from parliament than their current home).
Anyone else planning to watch question time tonight? I predict fireworks...
Machie wrote:
> And the guy who quit today, along with his MP wife claimed 2
> second homes. Instead of 1 second home and one primary home. They
> knew what they were doing, it wasn't a mistake at all. It's
> trying to claim as much free money as possible.
And one of them claimed his allowance for his London flat, while renting out said flat - to another MP who was claiming back the rent in expenses!
[EDIT] - by 'one of them' I mean an MP, not one of the MPs mentioned by Machie...
Again I'll stress this isn't the biggest issue in the world and although the sums involved are pretty big when we think of our own personal finances, in terms of the money spent elsewhere it's pretty small beans - doesn't make it any less unethical though.
> And the guy who quit today, along with his MP wife claimed 2
> second homes. Instead of 1 second home and one primary home. They
> knew what they were doing, it wasn't a mistake at all. It's
> trying to claim as much free money as possible.
And one of them claimed his allowance for his London flat, while renting out said flat - to another MP who was claiming back the rent in expenses!
[EDIT] - by 'one of them' I mean an MP, not one of the MPs mentioned by Machie...
Again I'll stress this isn't the biggest issue in the world and although the sums involved are pretty big when we think of our own personal finances, in terms of the money spent elsewhere it's pretty small beans - doesn't make it any less unethical though.
A few points:
1) One of the reasons people are (rightly) angry about all this is because these are elected officials who are constantly lecturing us on what is decent, what is right, what is moral, and here they are effectively stealing public money. Just after the politicians bemoaned the banking sector for its grossly inflated wages and bonuses, here they are claiming at best expenses which bear no relation to their jobs, at worst expenses that are completely false and constitute fraud.
2) The fact that many MPs have been involved in 'flipping' their 'second-home' clearly indicates 'expenses' aren't seen by many MPs as true expenses but just a perk they can bill the public at large for. Want to redecorate your family home? No problem, just claim you spend most of your time in London and that the house where your wife and kids live is a temporary retreat...
3) MPs do need to go to parliament, and therefore are likely to require a place to stay in London. So why not have purpose built accomodation, like halls of residence, for MPs. The building can have high security, good public transport links, etc. Why don't we have this rather than allowing MPs to bill us to help pay for their expensive London pads?
4) Some MPs seem to think just paying back the money is enough. It's a start. The real question in my mind is not only how they can claim this money as expenses in the first place, but how they then seem to find it so easy to pay tens of thousands of pounds (one of them paid back over 40k I think) back...? This indicates to me they had absolutely no need to claim the money in the first place (whether or not it was 'within' the obviously completely inadequte rules).
5) All the 'mistakes'. These are people who we are supposed to trust with all our tax money. With the running of our schools, the NHS, the police. And yet not only do all these MPs manage to 'mistakenly' claim money, but someone also 'mistakenly' approved them.
6) Is this the biggest issue we're facing? No. Does it further shake confidence in our politicians? Of course. It's been blown up by the media. Big deal. Everything is, from Swine Flu to 'Katie & Peter' splitting. Fact is, this is something which should change, and it never will without serious public outcry and voters punishing all these career politicians in elections (hopefully that won't result in the BNP & UKIP getting more votes).
Hope that wasn't too boring...
1) One of the reasons people are (rightly) angry about all this is because these are elected officials who are constantly lecturing us on what is decent, what is right, what is moral, and here they are effectively stealing public money. Just after the politicians bemoaned the banking sector for its grossly inflated wages and bonuses, here they are claiming at best expenses which bear no relation to their jobs, at worst expenses that are completely false and constitute fraud.
2) The fact that many MPs have been involved in 'flipping' their 'second-home' clearly indicates 'expenses' aren't seen by many MPs as true expenses but just a perk they can bill the public at large for. Want to redecorate your family home? No problem, just claim you spend most of your time in London and that the house where your wife and kids live is a temporary retreat...
3) MPs do need to go to parliament, and therefore are likely to require a place to stay in London. So why not have purpose built accomodation, like halls of residence, for MPs. The building can have high security, good public transport links, etc. Why don't we have this rather than allowing MPs to bill us to help pay for their expensive London pads?
4) Some MPs seem to think just paying back the money is enough. It's a start. The real question in my mind is not only how they can claim this money as expenses in the first place, but how they then seem to find it so easy to pay tens of thousands of pounds (one of them paid back over 40k I think) back...? This indicates to me they had absolutely no need to claim the money in the first place (whether or not it was 'within' the obviously completely inadequte rules).
5) All the 'mistakes'. These are people who we are supposed to trust with all our tax money. With the running of our schools, the NHS, the police. And yet not only do all these MPs manage to 'mistakenly' claim money, but someone also 'mistakenly' approved them.
6) Is this the biggest issue we're facing? No. Does it further shake confidence in our politicians? Of course. It's been blown up by the media. Big deal. Everything is, from Swine Flu to 'Katie & Peter' splitting. Fact is, this is something which should change, and it never will without serious public outcry and voters punishing all these career politicians in elections (hopefully that won't result in the BNP & UKIP getting more votes).
Hope that wasn't too boring...
I'd expect better from you YH, that's a ridiculous comparison.
While I don't condone my tax money paying for someone elses house/mortgage/private yacht, one has to ask the question what is a sensible and more importantly - balanced reaction, to this? Several thousand pounds, or for arguements sake, several hundred thousand pounds is not worth bringing an already ailing government to its knees.
Yes, these matters should be addressed, but the reaction to these findings are completely over the top and extremely poorly timed. It really is not the huge issue the media wishes to portray. It's a tiny spot on the face of the economic problem in this country, and I see the reaction to it as a cheap "Kick them while they're down" shot, which draws attention away from more important issues, and makes the media look oh so very clever to those who cannot see the big picture.
If you wish to play the trust card, there are bigger issues already - I bet you could find a hundred unfulfilled promises the government has made to us. If your reaction is to yell for a vote of no confidence every time a government takes liberties, there'd never be anyone to run the country. Face it - governments have always been taking from us in ways we may not approve of, but if the country was being run more smoothly, you'd probably not object nearly as much.
While I don't condone my tax money paying for someone elses house/mortgage/private yacht, one has to ask the question what is a sensible and more importantly - balanced reaction, to this? Several thousand pounds, or for arguements sake, several hundred thousand pounds is not worth bringing an already ailing government to its knees.
Yes, these matters should be addressed, but the reaction to these findings are completely over the top and extremely poorly timed. It really is not the huge issue the media wishes to portray. It's a tiny spot on the face of the economic problem in this country, and I see the reaction to it as a cheap "Kick them while they're down" shot, which draws attention away from more important issues, and makes the media look oh so very clever to those who cannot see the big picture.
If you wish to play the trust card, there are bigger issues already - I bet you could find a hundred unfulfilled promises the government has made to us. If your reaction is to yell for a vote of no confidence every time a government takes liberties, there'd never be anyone to run the country. Face it - governments have always been taking from us in ways we may not approve of, but if the country was being run more smoothly, you'd probably not object nearly as much.
Sex and Violence wrote:
> I think the point is that this sort of thing HAS always gone on,
So has paedophilia - should we let that carry on too :-)
> I think the point is that this sort of thing HAS always gone on,
So has paedophilia - should we let that carry on too :-)
And the guy who quit today, along with his MP wife claimed 2 second homes. Instead of 1 second home and one primary home. They knew what they were doing, it wasn't a mistake at all. It's trying to claim as much free money as possible.
Thing is, it's not just lighbulbs and bath plugs. It's £16,000 claimed by someone for a mortgage that had been paid off 18 months earlier!
It's just plain theft. If anyone was caught doing that in a private company they'd be fired at the very least, and possibly even be prosecuted.
MPs are only sorry that they've been found out. They wouldn't be paying it back if it hadn't come out in the papers, they would have carried on claiming.
You can argue that it's not much money when compared with the billions given to the banks etc, but it's the principle of it. People have to have confidence and trust in their government, if they don't have that the system breaks down.
How can you have faith and trust in a group of people who are clearly ripping off the very people who put them in that position in the first place?
It's just plain theft. If anyone was caught doing that in a private company they'd be fired at the very least, and possibly even be prosecuted.
MPs are only sorry that they've been found out. They wouldn't be paying it back if it hadn't come out in the papers, they would have carried on claiming.
You can argue that it's not much money when compared with the billions given to the banks etc, but it's the principle of it. People have to have confidence and trust in their government, if they don't have that the system breaks down.
How can you have faith and trust in a group of people who are clearly ripping off the very people who put them in that position in the first place?
The problem is, this is all adding up - the government are using your money to pay for their luxuries whilst raising taxes to cover the bills for bailing out banks, etc.
Whilst I don't see the point in investigating those that have already been claimed, a complete rule change should be assessed.
Whilst I don't see the point in investigating those that have already been claimed, a complete rule change should be assessed.
Page: