Ethics and expenses

It's morally wrong to use public funds to purchase a private asset that could be sold on for personal gain.

Most 12 year olds can grasp that. So why did so few of our elected law makers? Being "within the rules" is no defence for people whose job is to make our country's rules. Supposedly.

Why should it take Kelly, who is reported to want to ban MPs publicly-funded mortgage payments, to impose a standard of ethics that ought to be blindingly obvious? And if this rotten, venal House of Commons is not capable of getting those questions right, how can it be trusted to get the big political questions right?

Thus do we begin to see why it is we are governed the way we are.

Posted on 3 November 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

The conservatives must have a clear manifesto committment and legislation written and ready to run to clear up corruption in the House of Commons and bring justice to all the crooked MPs.
Without that the fringe parties will take away Cameron's majority.

Posted on 3 November 2009 09:35 by NickW

Up to a point Mr C. I would agree if the 'public' were underwriting any losses but as far as I am aware they aren't.

Let's say an MP bought a property at the top of the market in 2007 and claimed mortage interest. He might now be sitting on a capital loss.

It seems to me that if he has to fund the loss out of his own pocket then he should be allowed to keep any gain.

As they say in the ads. 'Investments can go up or down'.
My daughter bought a flat a couple of miles from the HOC in Nov 2007 for £285k. She would probably be about £75k out of pocket were she now to sell.

Posted on 3 November 2009 09:58 by wonderfulforhisage

Since Cameron's word is now shown to be utterly worthless, we must reconcile ourselves to be governed by the crooks in Brussels. We may as well disband our parliament; they have nothing to do. No longer British subjects but vassal ciphers of the European Empire. All very sad.

Posted on 3 November 2009 10:15 by Gerald-Odeston McManus

Douglas

Entirely agree that "It's morally wrong to use public funds to purchase a private asset that could be sold on for personal gain." But Governments do this all the time. It's just that now your colleagues have been enriching themselves, not their political friends.

For example the Major government did exactly this for Fundholding GPs - using public funds to pay for new surgeries and other facilities which then became the property of the fundholder.

Plus ca change...

Posted on 3 November 2009 10:24 by John K

Rotten, venal and totally irrelevant. Just a big waste of money.

Now that Dave has reneged on his EU treaty vote pledge, I have no longer any intention of voting "conservative". Not that it will make the slightest difference as we are fast giving up even the pretence of being a democracy.

Posted on 3 November 2009 11:11 by Mark Forster

You are quite right. But we need a return to some of Cromwell's principles, and especially a return to logical lawmaking, rather than hurriedly making new laws as a substitute for considered thoughts before demonising a raft of citizens.
I really think that your party should be leaping to the support of Professor Nutkin or whatever his name is. The man has a valid point: if the evidence is clear, government should not disregard it purely to follow a set political agenda. That ought to be illegal. Nut should be lauded as a hero for his battle with the cretin in the Home Office.

Posted on 3 November 2009 11:15 by Michael Jecks

Douglas, you must be the most hated man amongst your peers. Why cannot they see that we see the shallowness of their defence?

Until prosecutions happen to most of the cheats the general public will not let it rest.

Posted on 3 November 2009 11:18 by Brian

Totally agree Douglas.

Two simple rules for MPs (or all public servants for that matter) to live by:

1) One should not profit (over and above one's salary) by being a public servant

2) One should not be put to extraordinary expense in carrying out their duties as a public servant

It really is THAT simple.

As for the private assets (primarily second homes); I find it incredibly naive of MPs to think that by paying (reluctantly)the tax due on the gain that everything will be OK.

Err, hello? What about the rest of the growth (net of tax)? Why should they get to keep that?

As you rightly say, if they can't be trusted in a sweet shop.....

Keep up the good work Douglas. People like yourself and Dan H (The Democratic Duo) restore my faith in politicians (which is high accolade indeed in the current political climate!)

Posted on 3 November 2009 11:34 by Don

This is so self-evidently obviously I am only sorry that it takes a Tory to point it out.

Posted on 3 November 2009 11:35 by Herbert

DC: "It's morally wrong to use public funds to purchase a private asset that could be sold on for personal gain."

Yes, and there is a law on the statute passed under the auspisis of this government that makes provision for seizing assets that have been obtained through criminal activities. Let's see it put to good use.

DC: "Thus do we begin to see why it is we are governed the way we are."

1. Excessive control of party structure by the party leadership. Applies to all parties.

2. Use of an expences system that was wide open to corruption by the party leadership to bribe blackmail and cajole members to behave in the desired manner.

I have no doubt that members of Parliament have been told, 'Yes that expense is outrageous, but if you do xyz in next weeks debate, we can turn a blind eye'.

This leads to the outrage we hear from individual members exposed by the media, they know and the party leaders know that the whole system was condoned and encouraged by the leadership. No wonder they are outraged.

Still, I have no sympathy.

Posted on 3 November 2009 11:46 by APL

Come back, Oliver Cromwell - please.

Posted on 3 November 2009 11:47 by Ian E

This is where it all goes wrong, Douglas:

http://tinyurl.com/yjvvyt4

Institutionalised inadequacy leads to incompetence.

Posted on 3 November 2009 12:01 by Elliot Kane

Alas too true. They may hide behind the rules. They may be partially cleared by Parliamentary Standards. They cannot however claim to be ethical.

Posted on 3 November 2009 12:08 by Augustyn

You could say the same about the billions used to prop up the banks. I wonder how many of the 3 new banks will include ex-Labour ministers on their boards?

Posted on 3 November 2009 12:16 by Susanna Smith

Exactly Douglas, so why oh why oh why ( as they used to say on "Points of View") don't you and Dan and some of the others form a new Direct Democracy Party and lets sweep away all this old rubbish. Please

Posted on 3 November 2009 12:24 by libertarian

The rules apparently stated that the expenses must be incurred solely and inclusively in connection with their parliamentary duties, the same sort of rule that governs expenses in the Civil Service and elsewhere.
The more detailed rules that you have, the easier it is to break them by finding some loophole which isn't specifically mentioned, just as in tax law if you have a good enough accountant!
What we need is greater honesty, not mre rules.

Posted on 3 November 2009 13:20 by Brian E.

Great Post Douglas. Here is a real cast iron promise no referendum vote on Lisbon no conservative vote from me ever.

Posted on 3 November 2009 14:26 by Peter Whale

It's about buying obedience Douglas, Parliment has no power and to keep the supposed peoples representatives quite they need to be bought. Then the sorry mess is brought to light as our sovereignty is given away (the ones who sold us out have been sold out, quite ironic realy isn't it.)

The wage that MPs get is ridiculous especialy when the untaxed privaledges are added to it.
Look at what most skilled workers earn, £18-£30. Any more than that and you have to either own the business or be indespensible, if you aren't either of those then your loyalty is being bought.

Many wages have fallen over the years taking skilled peoples earnings down (hence the £18-£30k) whilst those that needed their loyalty bought within the public sector were increased.
The majority on minimumpay or near enough earn £12-£15k for a 40hour week and politicians seem to think they are worth 64k+expenses (expenses that are actualy breaking their own rules thus becoming fraud yet not punishable by the laws of the land!) is honestly shocking seeing as the real decisions are made by Brussles (and not even the elected in Brussels!)

Greed, arogance and stupidity is what it down to Douglas combined with no responsibility. Maybe it is time to hand the keys to the eu and sack every one no longer needed within the UK public sector (doesn't sound too appealing does it.)

Posted on 3 November 2009 14:29 by chris southern

All MPs need a London base, and should be paid accordingly. Those with constituencies further away need a constituency base as well. That should be provided for with an allowance based on local rental costs, fixed for a parliament, so that there is an incentive to keep inflation down, especially for house prices.

Posted on 3 November 2009 15:04 by It doesn't add up...

Klaus has now signed Lisbon and the treaty will come into force.

Sorry Douglas, you, the House of Commons and expenses are now all irrelevant. We will now be ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.


Direct Democracy indeed.

Posted on 3 November 2009 16:10 by libertarian

Agree with this totally.

Could you also explain how a "love seat" is connected with you being an MP then ?

Posted on 3 November 2009 16:16 by Morph

Why is the photo of the Houses of Parliament in the top left corner upside down?

Posted on 3 November 2009 16:25 by John Johnson

Having just heard that we will not have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, as far as I am concerned the Conservatives are now irrelevant. I will support UKIP; if this means Labour gets in, so be it, they will then have to sort out their own mess.

Posted on 3 November 2009 16:57 by Brian E.

David Cameron CAST IRON LIAR.

Posted on 3 November 2009 17:46 by Peter Whale

asset is an anagram of seats, is it not?

Like the love seat?

Posted on 4 November 2009 03:15 by RGA

Spot on, Douglas.

I think it's very revealing that a lot of the expenses 'angels' - including yourself - are MPs in the 2005 intake.

This points to there being such an ingrained culture of corruption in the House of Commons that it breaks down MPs over time, and only the sturdiest souls consistently resist the temptations of power without responsibility or scrutiny.

This is no reflection on you personally, Douglas, but I do wonder how many of the 'angels' from the 2005 intake might have eventually succumbed to the taemptations of expenses over time if we hadn't had this scandal?

Posted on 4 November 2009 10:50 by Seth

Can I make the counter-point that in fact letting MPs claim the interest portion of their mortgage back actually SAVES taxpayers' money?

After all, the alternative is that the MPs rent a place instead, and most of the time (and especially right now) the rent on a property is considerably more than the interest portion of a mortgage payment.

I agree that the taxpayer should never go near the capital repayments on an MP's mortgage, but I can't see what's unreasonable about letting them claim the interest portion back.

Posted on 4 November 2009 16:26 by Neil

Make A Comment