I have tried to hold this in but cannot any longer...

Over the past three weeks, I (like most) have seen some of the most immoral and unjustifiable use of the MP's expenses system.

I am trying so hard to keep this blog from turning into a swear fest and focus on what I believe to be important.

However, today my blood has reached boiling point and I need to rant.

My simple rules:

1) MP's should not profit from their use of the expenses system
2) MP's should nto be put to personal financial cost by undertaking MP's duties

OK - nice and simple.

Thus, I have no objection to the ACA being used for a property if the MP is beyond a "reasonable" commuting distance from Westminster. What is reasonable? I'd say about an hour.
If they choose to buy a place and use ACA for mortgage payments - no problem....as long as any capital gain which has been funded by said mortgage is returned to the fees office at the time of sale. NOT just the CGT, ANY capital profit.

I don't mind them furnishing the property to a reasonable level - the limits on the "John Lewis" list sound quite high for some items - £750 for a TV? I just paid £300 for my nice 32" flat screen. I don't need any more so why should they?

One point on the furnishings - they should NOT be allowed to keep taxpayer funded furnishings once they cease to have a second home.
I'm not sure how this would be administered, maybe it would be better if they leased furnishings. Plenty of companies offer this service.
Failing that, they should be allowed to sell it furnished (and pay the capital gain) or they should be able to buy it off the taxpayer.

OK, onto other allowances.

Why do they get a payoff when standing down? I don't get one if I leave employment voluntarily. If they lose the election, then that suggests an assessment of poor performance from the electorate and thus sounds like a "reward for failure".
That should be stopped NOW.

As for the winding down allowance (intended to make their staff redundant, office leases etc); this should be claimed on a per receipt basis up to the maximum. Not just given a sum of money. What about that MP that has his office in his garage?

I don't mind MPs employing family members as long as employment contracts are in place with hours worked etc. If the MP is any good, they will put their staff to good use and therefore stay elected.

So they are my principles.

Now, who is pi$$ing me off beyond belief?

This may surprise some, but my "worst offenders" are the ones who have claimed in the most immoral way. Not based on a sum of money.

We are talking about principles here, the amount is insignificant in that argument.

Property Developers:
Anyone flipping or refurbishing a property for capital gain - included dry rot claims, phantom mortgages/properties,new windows, lavish bathrooms & kitchens - WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

Ridiculous furnishing claims:
£2,500 TV's, Duck Houses, iPods, iPhones all WRONG

Food claims:
£5,000 a year? £7,200 in the case of Ed Balls & Cooper. Why should I pay for your sodding food? WRONG

My personal bug bear with all of this is the sense of entitlement MPs seem to have.

"I haven't come into parliament not to get what is owed to me"
"So and so is doing it so I am too"

And it's not just the MPs.

How can Baroness Uddin moan about the lack of social housing when she is in one herself whilst the taxpayer funds an investment of a flat in maidstone.

They are not all bent of course, but it seems a high percentage (>20%) are.

It needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW.

F***ing W******s the lot of them.