How widespread is the MP scamming?20%,50% - more?

[johnfm]

There are just over 630 MPs in the commons.

We have only really had the juicy detials of about 50 or so. Lets, say 120 just to be pessimistic.

That's just 20% of sitting MPs.

How widespread do you think this goes? Are there 'only' 120 fraudsters? or 300? or 500?

I feel sorry for the few honest ones.

Edited by johnfm on Friday 15th May 12:29

[Jasandjules]

I'd say it will be 75%.

I am sure there will aways be some who are actually in it for the greater good. But they will be in the minority.

[HundredthIdiot]

I think they just see expenses as a perk, some sort of compensation for their upstanding decision to enter public service and thus deny themselves the money they'd be getting as CEOs/MDs in the private sector.

Once you've entered the twilight world of an MPs mind it all makes sense.

Edited by HundredthIdiot on Friday 15th May 13:01

[thinfourth2]

HundredthIdiot said:

I think they just see expenses as a perk, some sort of compensation for their upstanding decision to enter public service and thus deny themselves the money they'd be getting as CEOs/MDs in the private sector.

Once you've entered the twilight world of an MPs mind it all makes sense.

Edited by HundredthIdiot on Friday 15th May 13:01

CEOs

Fecking floor cleaners would stretch most of those fking low life fking pieces of fking st useless bds

[ShadownINja]

If they are at all thinking about perks or monetary gain then they should do the honourable thing and quit (or commit harakiri).

[unrepentant]

thinfourth2 said:

HundredthIdiot said:

I think they just see expenses as a perk, some sort of compensation for their upstanding decision to enter public service and thus deny themselves the money they'd be getting as CEOs/MDs in the private sector.

Once you've entered the twilight world of an MPs mind it all makes sense.

CEOs

Fecking floor cleaners would stretch most of those fking low life fking pieces of fking st useless bds

I'm inclined to agree. This is an argument that has been used before to justify increases in MP's pay but in reality very few of them would secure senior executive positions in the private sector. In the past most of the ones with genuine ability (David Young, Geoffrey Robinson, John Nott, Hesltine etc..)would have a lucrative career first and then come into politics. Those days are sadly gone and we are left with a lot of career politicians who would struggle to earn even a junior ministers salary in the real world.

Can you imagine anyone employing Brown in anything other than some analytical position where he was hidden away and not required to interract with others?

[Odie]

Does anyone know what the total year expenses cost is for MP's?

And then a comparison with yearly NHS, School and Military costs whould be nice too if anyone has the info.

Edited by Odie on Friday 15th May 15:03

[elster]

Odie said:

Does anyone know what the total year expenses cost is for MP's?

And then a comparison with yearly NHS, School and Military costs whould be nice too if anyone has the info.

Edited by Odie on Friday 15th May 15:03

How do you mean? Are you wanting to compare the cost of the 630 MP's over the cost of the NHS, School and Military. Surely that is an impossibility.

[ewenm]

Do you know anyone who doesn't push their employment expense rules? I'm not saying it's right but it's certainly not confined to MPs.

The problem here is the expense rules. They are far too lax and unsurprisingly MPs are taking advantage of that. So to answer the OP, I'd go for just about 100% of MPs will have claimed expenses that some people will consider wrong but are still within the lax rules. The worst offenders will have arranged their lives to take maximum advantage of the rules - it's this behaviour that the rules should eliminate.

I have no objection to MPs claiming legitimate expenses to do their jobs. Precisely what falls into "legitimate" needs to be tightened up but everyone will have a different opinion of where to draw the line.

[Northern Munkee]

Odie said:

Does anyone know what the total year expenses cost is for MP's?

And then a comparison with yearly NHS, School and Military costs whould be nice too if anyone has the info.

Edited by Odie on Friday 15th May 15:03

Here you go

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm

07-08, 600+ & about £150K (although half of that is staff)= around £90milion, or say £45m on 600 peoples. Seems alot...

[herewego]

At the moment I think the information released only relates to the second home allowance, which is I think a max of 23,000 per year. I suppose details of the other expenses such as travel and office admin. will be released eventually. Or maybe I've misunderstood.

[ShadownINja]

I hear something like 10 MPs are innocent. There was an article in the Independent today... anyone see it?

[Lil' Joe]

Northern Munkee said:

say £45m on 600 peoples. Seems alot...

That is an astonishing amount for £600 people! Or am I missing something?

Compare that to 600 people on benefits who get £84 every two weeks on Jobseekers Allowance
So £83 x 2 = £166 a month x 12 = £1992 x 600 people = £1,195,200.
So £1.2 million.

Now, I know that MP's are working and need flats vast houses near Westminister and travel expenses but FFS. Add on another £10 mil say for stuff I haven't thought of (don't say furniture, cleaners or bloody iPods either) and it's around 12 million.

I just can't see any justification for the extra £33 million pounds.

Non?

[Baby Huey]

Chap from the Telegraph has just stated on BBC news that of the claims they have worked through so far, only about 5% of MPs have nothing to worry about.

This could go on forever.

[All Jagged Up]

I fear we will not bother voting for any of them. I think the "Independents" might end up in power. Can we have Martin Bell in his white suit again please?

[remedy]

Have they released any information/graphs that shows which is the most bent party?

[anonymous-user]

remedy said:

Have they released any information/graphs that shows which is the most bent party?

Not yet. But in the Sunday Times the top 20 scammers consisted of about 17 Labour MPs

[Jasandjules]

remedy said:

Have they released any information/graphs that shows which is the most bent party?

I think it's going to be fairly evenly split. All snouts in the trough in the main.

But to my mind it's worse that those who claim to be fighting for the man in the street.

The other question is which claims (well, the MPs of which party) will be the most corrupt... I am thinking that so far Labour with claiming interest on a paid off mortgage is in the lead.

[Pesty]

Northern Munkee said:

Here you go

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm

07-08, 600+ & about £150K (although half of that is staff)= around £90milion, or say £45m on 600 peoples. Seems alot...

Don't forget that by staff they mean husbands/wife son/daughter in a lot of cases.

I'm sure they advertised the possitions and picked the best most qualified people for the jobs. They were lucky their family where so experienced.

[PJ S]

Lil' Joe said:

Northern Munkee said:

say £45m on 600 peoples. Seems alot...

That is an astonishing amount for £600 people! Or am I missing something?

Compare that to 600 people on benefits who get £84 every two weeks on Jobseekers Allowance
So £83 x 2 = £166 a month x 12 = £1992 x 600 people = £1,195,200.
So £1.2 million.

Now, I know that MP's are working and need flats vast houses near Westminister and travel expenses but FFS. Add on another £10 mil say for stuff I haven't thought of (don't say furniture, cleaners or bloody iPods either) and it's around 12 million.

I just can't see any justification for the extra £33 million pounds.

Non?

£120 odd for over 25's
Also wining and dining will add on some more, so not quite £33M unaccounted for, but not exactly a kick in the arse off it.