Perhaps if MPs (no names, no pack drill) actually told the expensses committee where they really actually lived at the first time of asking, there wouldn’t be so many queries, would there now, Ms Dorries?

Not the kind of complaint that will elicit much in the way of sympathy from anyone who’s ever submitted a claim for welfare benefits or wrestled with a tax return.

The self-entitlement is glorious. Is this their first experience of this “bureaucracy” thing the rest of us have to endure?

‘Nadine Dorries has warned that another expenses scandal is coming at MPs “like a train” due to the inadequacies of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA).’

Dont play on the track then.

Why people earning* £1,200 a week of taxpayers’ cash** require expenses is beyond me. What’s that they say about living within ones means***?

*Loose definition
**(c)The Daily Mail
*** see: D. Cameron, G. Osborne, N. Clegg, V. Cable, 2010.

Perhaps if MPs (no names, no pack drill) actually told the expensses committee where they really actually lived at the first time of asking, there wouldn’t be so many queries, would there now, Ms Dorries?

She had the cheek to write to the Commissioner a few times asking when his inquiry would be finished (latterly because it was approaching election time). His responses were along the lines of, “if you give me the estimate about the number of nights you spend at each property like I asked you weeks ago*, my investigation would be a bit quicker.”

* I think it ended up being 14 weeks before she finally bothered.

Dorries claimed that MPs were ‘frustrated, angry and despairing’ at the current system because…

“IPSA have been refusing a large number of claims which MPs have been putting forward, not because they are inappropriate claims, but because they have missed out a field on the form or incorrectly completed a form,”

Does this fall under the 30% of the self-confessed liar’s output that is fiction or the 70% that is fact?*

* and is her claim about 70% fact and 30% fiction fact or fiction?

Why do MPs require expenses? Because they have to travel between their constituency and Westminster to do their jobs, and it’s unreasonable to require work journeys to be spend out of their salaries – other employers would reimburse such travel costs. But also because the cost of employing their staff (secretaries, caseworkers, researchers) and the cost of equipping their constituency office with IT equipment and stationery is unusually reckoned to be expenses in a way no other employer does.

@7

Re:travel. Well next time I’m working a minimum wage job 14 miles away and having to fork out £25 a week (out of a £180p/w wage packet) on bus fares I’ll be sure to put a claim in for expenses. And see how long I last in that job. Office staff, paperclips etc should be redefined as civil goods and paid for out of the public purse not subject to the arbitrary claims of MPs.
Again, we’re always told to live within our means. If MPs can’t live off £64K a year then hell, give them a pay rise if necessary. I don’t know how our MPs salary compares with other democratic nations, for example. But MPs like Dorries constantly moaning and whinging – especially in light of her dubious claims and revelations – does her and her cause no favours whatsoever. Most people – millions on the minimum wage or just above – have to cope day-to-day with the realities of scrimping and saving, not going on holiday or not buying a new pair of shoes or whatever, MPs have such a cushioned lifestyle and no idea what the real world is like.
Means-testing for MPs would be nice – why the hell should multi-millionaires like Cameron and Osborne be allowed to claim on the public purse when they own multiple properties across the world? Why should I, when claiming JSA, have to declare any savings above £3K (in my dreams!) when MPs have to make no such disclosure? It’s a mess.

It might make a striking comparison but being a Member of Parliament is not really comparable with the sort of job which pays the minimum wage. And no other employment pays less to people who have savings.

Travel between home and main workplace is not reimbursed by employers, but if the job requires travel between the main workplace and some other place, it is. MPs can’t claim for the cost of getting from their home to their constituency office, but they can and ought legitimately to be reimbursed for legitimate travel costs in travelling between Westminster and constituency.

Yes, it would be good if MPs’ office equipment was bought centrally but that’s just not practical – the same supplier in St Ives as in Aberdeen?

I am surprised by the audacity of Nadine Dorries having just been hauled in front of the Parliamentary Commissioner for standards to continue to complain about the expenses system

I have no problem with legitimate expenses claims, but I do object to expense claims for travel and accommodation in the members Constituency because her main residence is in the Cotswolds, even though the Constituency is only 45 minutes commute by train from London.
Perhaps if Ms Dorries actually lived in the community that she is so committed to according to her website, and that she represents in Parliament, then perhaps she wouldnt need to claim half as much in expenses as she does ?

On a wider note should the role of an MP be seen as career ? Is it about the financial reward and celebrity status or is it a vocation and something undertaken after a sucessful career, with the purpose of sharing experience and giving something back to the community ?

“Yes, it would be good if MPs’ office equipment was bought centrally but that’s just not practical – the same supplier in St Ives as in Aberdeen?”

Just on this point, I work for the largest supplier of stationery and office supplies online to the business sector in the uk, with a range of over 27,000 products across office supplies, paper, ink and toner supplies, facilities,office furniture, office machines and computing
We offer delivery across the UK including Scotland, Northern Ireland and the West Country with the majority of products available on a next day service
So in summary yes it is abolsutely possible to support all MP’s with one supplier and I would be more than happy to personally set up an Account with us for each MP

On a more serious note what it does highlight is the fact that despite some of the biggest budgets in the country (admitedly reduced) product sourcing is not handled in a cohesive manner by Purchasing Profesionals and is one of the biggest areas of government inefficiency as identified by Philip Green in his recent report

The rationale behind the second homes allowance is that MPs work both in London and in their constituencies and may require homes in both. What is the rationale behind an allowance which allows an MP ( let’s call this hypothetical member Dadine Norries) to maintain a home which is nowhere near either?

MPs still have it quite easy with expenses.

They are provided with a far more generous homes allowance by taxpayers than they have just voted to inflict on the working poor. Why don’t the same
caps apply in each constituency as the LHA caps – I’m sure MPs will just be able to negotiate a lower rent after all.

I also don’t understand why the second home allowance a) buys more
than a studio flat; b) facilitates home ownership (and profit) rather than private rental.

The rationale behind the second homes allowance is that MPs work both in London and in their constituencies and may require homes in both. What is the rationale behind an allowance which allows an MP ( let’s call this hypothetical member Dadine Norries) to maintain a home which is nowhere near either?

Quite! Or two homes near Westminster?

You might think that Ms Dorries is beginning to fancy herself as the British Sarah Palin. On the face of it they seem to share many traits, not least agressive self pity.

If your job involves working regularly in two places both for more than two years, then they will both be permanant workplaces for tax. No tax relief on travel between the two. But that’s the rules for us workers!

@ 11 Martin
I assume you work for the company I used to use until a guy who worked for a local firm pointed out that they were invariably cheaper (except for your own-brand recycled cartridges) and offered the choice of my collecting stuff from their depot or same-day delivery service.
I agree with your last paragraph, but for reasons of cost and convenience – not to mention “supporting local businesses and employment” – I expect many MPs to use a local supplier.

Sir,

Not being a Member of Parliament (honourable or otherwise) I am unable to submit a claim to IPSA for one (1) new keyboard. The aforementioned article of computer equipment suffered a devastating spray of unswallowed coffee subsequent to your correspondent reading the epithet assigned to Ms Dorries: “the Honourable Member for Mid-Narnia”.

I assert that this is irresponsible journalism, unworthy of such an estimable blog. You shall be receiving my invoice forthwith.

Sincerely

Ian McNee

p.s. I shall not be charging you for the loss of coffee, though I understand that this *WOULD* be covered by IPSA’s regulations

Unity
Presumably you reject any complaints about IPSA from Tom Harris because as a Labour MP he is too right-wing for you. He had a beauty on Tuesday where IPSA repeatedly sent forms to an MP’s non-existent proxy instead of the MP and then, when he queried what had gone wrong told the unfortunate MP to wait for them to send him details of the proxy login and password (which they had created for the non-existent proxy but had never sent out so they knew the proxy account was inaccessible to anyone), then submit the forms to him/herself!
You hate Nadine – yeah, we know that.You think that she should tell Tim Ireland when and where she is going to a constituency event so that he can harrass not only herself but everyone who dares to turn up to talk to her. Well NO – you may think Nadine is a legitimate target for TI (I beg to differ) but since when was every one of her constituents with a problem?
Most of your comments relate not to Nadine’s complaint but to the expenses system introduced by New Labour after 1997 and some naive readers may think that they relate to Ms Dorries, who has not made “The argument, one presumes, is that it would, therefore, be preferable for IPSA to go back to the old system of rubber stamping MPs expenses claims without asking too many awkward questions and take it on trust that MPs have now learned their lesson, in order avoid feeding more ammunition to the Daily Telegraph.” Ms Dorries was cleared of every single allegation dreamed up by Tim Ireland – all her expense claims were declared legitimate.
Ms Dorries is not my favourite MP, but your scurrilous attack is both wrong and despicable. IPSA is a mess that needs sorting out and fast.

With regards to the issues surrounding the IPSA mentioned above, shouldn’t more energy be spent on addressing the root cause of why MP’s need an independent body to manage their expenses in the first place ?

It’s the sad state of our society that Members of Parliament as role models for standards and pillars of the community they represent (and sometimes even live in the community they represent) cannot keep their own house in order when they should in fact as Public Servants be setting the example

My personal experience is that they are far too concerned with financial reward, celebrity status, and personal agenda’s to be worried about the needs and requirements of their own constituency

It is correct to say that Ms Dorries was cleared of any wrong doing with regards to her expense claims but only after taking months to respond to the questions from the Commissioner and finally admitting that she doesn’t actually live in her constituency, and had been misleading her constituents for years through her website about how much time she spent there – hardly exonerating or exemplary behaviour.

With regards to where MP’s buy their stationery products I really don’t mind (my day job doesn’t define who I am) as long as I get visibility, clarity and value for money for where my hard earned taxes are being spent and this seems far from the case at the moment.

John77,

Ms Dorries was cleared of every single allegation dreamed up by Tim Ireland – all her expense claims were declared legitimate.

Um, why bring Tim Ireland into this?

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards investigated Dorries because of a complaint made by a Mr Michael Barnbrook.

When a system is relatively relaxed, as the ACA seemed to be, MPs will find it easier to remain “within the rules”.

@ 21 ukliberty
i) because you were going on about Nadine hiding details of her movements from Tim Ireland on her blog
ii) Michael Barnbrook of the BNP is not the usual choice of Liberal Conspiracy when you want to quote an authority backing your case and I doubt that he would be even on the odd occasion (Conway) when he is right.

John77,

@ 21 ukliberty
i) because you were going on about Nadine hiding details of her movements from Tim Ireland on her blog

I don’t recall “going on about Nadine”, can you provide evidence I did?

ii) Michael Barnbrook of the BNP is not the usual choice of Liberal Conspiracy when you want to quote an authority backing your case and I doubt that he would be even on the odd occasion (Conway) when he is right.

I don’t speak for Liberal Conspiracy, nor do I quote Barnbrook as an authority. It was Barnbrook who made the complaint of which Dorries was eventually cleared, not Ireland.