Expenses - Where MP's went wrong

Okay, there's the obvious "don't claim for porn" etc, but what why are the public so outraged by it all?

1) It appears that there is one rule for "us" and a different rule for "them"

Most people who are given expenses as part of their job either claim by a receipt process, or where allowances are given, maybe taxed as a "benefit in kind".
For the self employed, tax deductible expenses have to be incurred "wholly for business purposes" or the expense is pro-rata'd with personal use.

Some of the claims that have been submitted by the MP's (although receipted) would be very difficult to justify as "wholly pertinent to undertake their duty as an MP".

A patio heater? A barbecue? Do you really need those to undertake your duty as an MP?

The flipping of homes and avoidance of CGT is the real money spinner here.
How can an MP profit from the rise in value of a property (where the mortgage interest is either partially or wholly funded by the taxpayer) full stop never mind avoiding CGT on the profit.


2) Why try to cover it up? It immediately implies guilt

The battle to get these expense claims in the public domain has cost a considerable amount of money. MP's have fought to prevent their publication using significant sums of taxpayer's money employing legal experts to try and prevent publication.

In the words of the government on the DNA database, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"

Thus going to such extremes to prevent publication already implies guilt from the above mantra.

Interesting that the redacted (censored) receipts which are to be published by the government do not have address details on them. That would have kept the tax evasion on property under wraps.


3) The attempts at defending the claims has been badly thought out at best, at worst, pathetic.

Why did GB give his disastrous YouTube debut on this subject?

The government were desperate to get some actions in place which they could tout around to show they were the part of action and deflect attention from the claims themselves with "We're dealing with it, let's look forward yada yada"

The "It's within the rules" line just doesn't wash. They have totally missed the point on the public's outrage. There is a question of morality here which they have missed completely.

That said, there appears to be masses of claims which I would describe as "outside the rules".

A £3,100 TV? What's wrong with a £300 TV? And then to have the audacity to challenge the fees office suggesting they were unjust? It beggars belief.

What is it with Woolas? Five receipts that match the sum recompensed to the penny and he says "it proves nothing".
Sounds like something out of a Sweeney programme.
And on those receipts? Women's clothes (presumably for his partner - quick disclaimer!). How can they be relevant to him doing his job?
His other defence?
"I could have claimed more, but chose not to. I am too honest for my own good"
Is the man unable to judge right from wrong?

The "S" word. Whilst I'm sure it was purely political motivation which led Dave to issue the first "Sorry", at least he did it.

GB has made a complete fool of himself again by initially backing the "It's within the rules" line, only to switch to a "sorry" as appeared to be more acceptable by the public.


4) Ultimately it is taxpayers money

There is no such thing as victimless crime as I'm sure Madoff's investors would testify (including the charities).

MP's are paid out of tax revenue from the public and they should take public money very seriously. They should realise that they are accountable (yes, accountable) for every penny spent.

It's no good bleating on about what a difficult job they have because of the accountability and then not even display that quality with their own financial conduct.

It will be very very difficult for MP's to restore the public's faith. All we have heard on the subject of expenses has been spin and arguments over semantics.

They have a large hill to climb.