Thought I might share this Dear All, Remember when we paid £2,115 to clean an MP’s moat? In 2009, many MPs were found to have abused taxpayers’ money by claiming outrageous expenses. [1] Trust in our politicians crumbled…further. But despite this, you’ll never guess what’s on the cards now. An idea is being floated to hide the names of MPs whose expenses are being looked into. [2] But our MPs work for us, so if their expenses are being questioned we have a right to know about it. IPSA, the watchdog which sets the rules for MPs expenses, is asking for the public's opinion before anything is set in stone. [3] A huge people-powered petition demanding that politicians expenses and investigations are kept public could force the plans to be dropped. Can you sign it now? Click the button to add your name: SIGN THE PETITION https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/keep-mps-expenses-public#petition secret politicians IPSA says that this new level of secrecy aims to protect MPs from the "reputational damage" they would suffer because of "public scrutiny". [4] But reputation is built on trust, which comes with honesty and transparency, so this argument doesn’t add up. And critics say that the lack of transparency is what led to the 2009 expenses scandal. [5] New secrecy rules would be a backwards step. 38 Degrees is a movement of people fighting to make democracy work. We hold our politicians to account and influence decision makers to make choices that benefit us all. If we’re serious about improving transparency in politics, this means keeping all parts of the MP expenses process in the public eye. Will you sign the petition now to keep the names of MPs whose expenses are being looked into public? Please click the link to sign the petition: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/mps-expenses Thanks for being involved, Amy, Nat, David and the 38 Degrees team PS: Before the IPSA consultation closes, this petition and your signature will be carried straight into the office of the officials in charge of making this decision. Please sign it now: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/mps-expenses NOTES: [1] The Telegraph: MPs’ expenses: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/ The Telegraph: MPs' expenses: clearing the moat at Douglas Hogg’s manor: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...Clearing-the-moat-at-Douglas-Hoggs-manor.html [2] The Daily Mail: MPs’ expenses: A new cover-up as watchdog wants names of suspected cheats kept secret to save them reputational damage: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nses-held-SECRET-controversial-new-plans.html [3] IPSA: Consultation on the Procedures and Guidance for the Compliance Officer for IPSA: http://parliamentarystandards.org.u...dance for the Compliance Officer for IPSA.pdf [4] The Telegraph: MPs investigated over expenses should not be named, watchdog says: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...penses-should-not-be-named-watchdog-says.html [5] The Daily Mail: MPs’ expenses: A new cover-up as watchdog wants names of suspected cheats kept secret to save them reputational damage: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nses-held-SECRET-controversial-new-plans.html
Well I think it reasonable for them to have the amount of their expenses published and a standardised breakdown e.g. Office - Staff - Premesis - Other Personal - Travel - Accomodation - Other But I don't need to know what they ate or where they stayed or the price of a pot plant for their office. IF it was all published in one place the press would do comparisions and the ones with suspiciously high figures would get asked a lot of questions. What is far more shocking is that when the expenses policies were change IPSA was first set up, there were MPs demanding that if they had a staffing budget of 80k they could employ two people on 40k, ignoring that you haev to pay employers NICs and Pensions. I meant seriously these guys vote on the budget and don't actually realise what it cost to employ someone. Useless Fools.
Not signed. Because i hope MP's keep destroying their reputation until such a point that the public has had enough of them and forces a real change, instead of this constant patching up of broken system. IMHO it's why parties like UKIP have garnered support with the public. To me it seems the main parties are acting like a deer in the headlights, maybe when the car hits them they will stop staring at the cars headlights and think about what they need to do, instead of blaming the car. /rant.
Devils advocate: Inocent until proven guilty? It could be seen as unfair to publish names until proof of wrongdoings.
The nothing to hide argument doesn't hold water. You, them, they, or anyone else have to justify why an intrusion is necessary. Just to make it clear, I'm not saying MP's expenses shouldn't be made public as there are many justifications as why they should.
In private industry or when dealing with private finances then I would agree with you, however this is public money spent by public servants, paid for by you, me and every other tax paying individual in the country, it should be accountable to the last penny.
Not only should they be accountable because it's public money, but i would say they should also be accountable because they don't exactly have the best history when it comes to being trustworthy.
What is the point? The previous expenses scandal clearly showed it doesn't matter when they get caught stealing. Also since they officially declared themselves above the law when drip was introduced, who says they won't do the same with theft expenses fiddling in the future? Unless the transparency is backed up by a mandatory custodial sentence for every single penny taken for anything other than proven unavoidable work expenses then I don't really see the point in having the transparency in the first place. Signed anyway though (even if the only result is to annoy some politicians instead of introducing actual accountability).
MP's expenses are an important issue. But I think the attention this issue has been given is disproportionate. There are other, worse problems with our public sector. I wish people would take more interest in what happened at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, and consider the report by Robert Francis QC. http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/sites/default/files/report/Executive summary.pdf Yes the MPs moats, duck houses and (by far the worst part) abuse of the 2nd homes definition (we still want our £90k plus back from that corrupt former home secretary and porn-queen Jacqui Smith) was outrageous and demanded prosecutions. Smith got off with it largely. However I feel it's too easy to beat up MPs, and kind of semi-excuse failings in the NHS. If you read the Francis report you will be completely shocked. Has anyone been disciplined, demoted or prosecuted? Not that I've heard. Hundreds of people have needlessly died, and no one is apparently responsible. But the NHS does like to spend on gagging people. Something is definitely wrong here.
The government has been reorganising the NHS with the express purpose of introducing more layers of accountability between it and the government. Makes it easier to disavow responsibility. Mid Staffordshire was the result of lack of resources and excessive demands on staff, combined with a denial/avoidance-led management haunted by abstract political targets and rigidly sticking to bureaucratic rule, against a cultural backdrop of medical training which is a bit brutal and denies the fact that it's an emotionally taxing job. Whistle blowers were ignored. Hence staff entrenched on the battlefield, and turned a blind eye to brutality. If they didn't become brutal themselves. What else are you going to do? Whistle blowers generally have their careers ruined, and the mortgage needs paying and the kids need feeding. Of course there is stuff that the public can do to help. Smoke less, drink less, lose some a lot of weight. Not clog up A&E with its drunken, violent demands every ****ing weekend. Stop drink-driving into walls or ride motorcycles it can't control. Show up for appointments, now there's a thing. Stop badgering their GP for antibiotics that it damn well knows won't work. And stop voting for the ****ing Tories who it damn well knows wants to end the NHS. We the public have a lot more influence over what goes on in the NHS than what goes on in an MP's expense account.
I know this is the "line to take" from Labour for the election, but it isn't backed up by any facts. 18 years of Conservative governent from 1979 NHS still there wil increased budget and gets reorganised a bit towards he end. 13 years of Labour government NHS still gets reorganised and more budget (largely on staffing). 5 years of coalition and the NHS avoids the spending cuts and gets reorganised again. For the next election the Conservatives want to increase spending and Labour want a special block of funds to pay for more staff. Personally, from my experience as a patient and for my family, it needs better management in some places but not more of it. And as far as I could see there is a shortage of doctors rather than nurses - most of our time spend in hospital has been waiting to see a doctor or for a doctor to sign off on something. But more money for nurses is better politics than more highly paid doctors so you just have more of then to tell you that you need to wait for the consultant while your stuck with you kid taking up a bed and achieving nothing more than catching whatever seasonal flu is going round.
What we really need (IMHO) are long term plans for things like the NHS, transport, and energy. Instead we get massive U turns and reorganisation every time different parties take power, not that the main parties could ever come to an agreement on how things should be done for the next 25 years.
