[Archived] Jaqui Smith

[JAL]

So if a person is guilty of anything less than a "major" offence then it isn't an offence at all !

Stealing £10 from the public purse is fair enough then .

What about a hundred ? A thousand ? A hundred thousand ?

Even a million is chickenfeed compared to the billions lost in the city ...so let's forget about it eh ?

As I said before Smith has form for dipping into the taxpayer's pocket . This illustrates the contempt people like her have for the public ; they'll even take a few quid off us to watch a bit of porn !

Tell you what , Jal - you send her hubby a tenner and I'll forget about the whole matter .

(Oh ...and don't forget the tens of thousands they conned out of us for their "second" home expenses ....)

Stealing watching a video, is this type of accounting written as inapropriate procedure to claiming expenses, I doubt it otherwise they wouldnt have declared it would they ? or is she that stupid, doubt it again.

Shes being set up..... come blue Phil, see the picture, your feeding whoever is behind this with your outrage.

I dont think its Tory linked but more from one of her own party, there were rumours that Brown was going to remove her, maybe hes planted this as ammunition to dump her, if so, I find it rather pathetic.

[Drummer Boy]

It may be a bit rose-tinted, but politicians used to be respected people of principle and conviction that you could agree or disagree with but always know their position (Tony Benn, Keith Joseph for example?). Often they would have experience outside of politics that would contribute to their political insight (Heseltine a successful publisher, Skinner a miner). Where it seems to have gone pear-shaped is the "career MPs" with limited life experience beyond the politics bazaar and student union debating club; accordingly they treat their customers (the electorate) with something approaching contempt as witnessed by recent revelations from all sides of the political fence as they have little or no understanding or empathy for them. In fact the level of political debate is so low in this country nowadays, thanks to this breed of politicians that will say whatever they think gets them votes rather than what they believe, that it has been reduced to scanning each others respective expenses claims and running to teacher, sorry, the press. The sooner they get out of the playground, grow up and engage in trying to persuade us they have a set of values and convictions that makes them fit for us to let them run the country the better.

I'll get my coat ...............

[colin]

The crux of the matter is not that Jaquie Smith's husband claimed a couple of "bongo" films on expenses. It was only a few quid after all.

It's just that he was found out by a mole in the House Of Commons and that the items were a bit newsworthy.

The real problem is that the rules for MPs expenses are so loose that they can claim for almost anything. It's not restricted to just one party. It's all 650 of them who have licence to claim for everythng they get from the John Lewis store and far, far beyond.

They have all just got greedy & lazy about claiming expenses for everything, that they don't check that they have a moral or financial right to do so.

Mind you, every employee who claims from his or her employer probably slaps it on a bit.

[Paul]

Why? Did your missus keep her name? Mine didn't. How many people do you know personally that did that?

It's just weird imo that a larger %age in public life seem to think fit to do that. Even worse are the ones that hyphonate both names and keep them as a double barrelled jobby. Sorry for bringing out your maternal instincts for your beloved political party Paul. It's taking you a long time to learn that there is hardly one politician fit to mend another.

Of course this sordid sex scandal is not really an important issue given the theft from the state that she's guilty of but how does this keep happening? Every 3-4 months one of em is tripped up by the press /media / whistle blowing civil servants / parliamentary checks etc so how effin THICK are they to continue stealing as if they themselves are personally immune from discovery? How stupid is the party in not requesting all expense forms to be approved internally by the labour party themselves? (did I say 'internally'? oops! err no pun intended Jackie )

She has to go of course but it hardly matters cos as I've said before the fact that somebody with so little depth, intelligence and bearing as Jackie Timney-Smith was ever put in that office is a bit of a joke and a sad indictment of our ruling party.

Oh do calm down a bit Gordon. You'll have a coronary or something.

I have four personal friends who chose to keep their maiden names after marriage, it's quite common and usually done by women who have already / are establishing themselves in a profession and want to maintain their identity in the profession. Three of the women I know work in media or media-related industries, the other in finance. It is a rather "modern" concept though, like women in in politics. I'm not sure jim mk2 is right about the tax advantage today though it may well have been true in the past when women were effectively taxed as part of the marriage.

As for the expenses issue. It's very poorly organised, both parties have suffered from the lack of control and the system should be changed to prevent what the public perceive as fiddling. It may be within the rules but there can be little doubt those rules are being bent and stretched by people who should know better. I'd give every MP a flat rate allowance paid seperatley from their salary (to resolve tax issues) and leave it at that.

It's a serious matter, no doubt of that but I bet every married couple in the land are having a giggle about the atmosphere in the Smith / Timney house last weekend!

[gillibrand]

It is quite unbelievable that the same groupies that defend the usual indefensible goings on in the UK are at it again, do you really believe the tosh you spout or is it just for the sake of a argument?

[broadsword]

As for the expenses issue. It's very poorly organised, both parties have suffered from the lack of control and the system should be changed to prevent what the public perceive as fiddling. It may be within the rules but there can be little doubt those rules are being bent and stretched by people who should know better. I'd give every MP a flat rate allowance paid seperatley from their salary (to resolve tax issues) and leave it at that.

Why should MPs get a flat-rate allowance? Why can't they meet their own expenses out of tehir own pocket rather than go cap in hand to the taxpayer?

Gordon Brown claims for Sky Sports, John Prescott claimed £4000 for groceries in one year.

It's just so bloody annoying. Aside from the money claimed for, these people are elected to represent us, they're meant to be models of probity.

I might sound a bit naive in that last statement, but I really have had enough. i'm not legitimising these people by voting for them again.

[gillibrand]

Why should MPs get a flat-rate allowance? Why can't they meet their own expenses out of tehir own pocket rather than go cap in hand to the taxpayer?

Gordon Brown claims for Sky Sports, John Prescott claimed £4000 for groceries in one year.

It's just so bloody annoying. Aside from the money claimed for, these people are elected to represent us, they're meant to be models of probity.

I might sound a bit naive in that last statement, but I really have had enough. i'm not legitimising these people by voting for them again.

It is crazy not to use the privilege to vote, there is always the best of a bad lot, and with the vote fraud that goes on someone else may be voting for you!

[thenodrog]

I know that it was the husband (her parliamentary aide paid a not-inconsiderable 40k per annum) that watched it, and that she wasn't aware at the time,

How do you know that? Only cos you believe what they've said. Even with her rhino skin any admission that our Home Sec sits at home watching blueys dressed in whiplash gear wouild necessitate instant dismissal / resignation from her post.

Tell you what Bry you should pay attention to this.....

How can you tell when a politician is telling lies?............

...................

.................

.....................

............ their lips are moving.

[thenodrog]

I'm not sure jim mk2 is right about the tax advantage today though it may well have been true in the past when women were effectively taxed as part of the marriage.

Unfortunately the past is where Jim is usually to be found. His 'take' on the benefit of company cars is so outdated that his continual outbursts would be bloody embarrassing for him if he had full control of his faculties.

[broadsword]

It wasn't Jackboots Jacqui that claimed that, it was in the papers, it must've been on the bill what date they were viewed.

[thenodrog]

As for the expenses issue. It's very poorly organised, both parties have suffered from the lack of control and the system should be changed to prevent what the public perceive as fiddling. It may be within the rules but there can be little doubt those rules are being bent and stretched by people who should know better. I'd give every MP a flat rate allowance paid seperatley from their salary (to resolve tax issues) and leave it at that.

As I've already said in the post you quoted Paul............" How stupid is the party in not requesting all expense forms to be approved internally by the labour party themselves? "

Surely given the fact that even the former PM was 'interviewed' by the Yard, a system to vet expense claims BEFORE the claim goes into the publiuc office should be put in place by every political party shouldn't it? Yet they pull the covers over misdemeanours and move on as though those issues never existed! Is it conceit? Deception? Greed? or what? Whatever it is it shows that they hold the electorate in total contempt.

Drummer boy above is echoing my old suspicion made many times on here that career politicians are loathsome and to be avoided at all costs..

Just as a general question...... Who on here claims more expenses than salary? Surely the Inland Revenue would be interested if anybody else were to show more expenses than salary?

The reason I ask is that the LT yeterday reported that our local lot claimed as follows (to the nearest £1000)

Straw (lab)£126000, Evans (con) £126000, Anderson (Lab) £174000 , Pope (Lab) £162000, Ussher (Lab) £155000, Prentice (Lab) £137000.

Basically thats an average of £600.00 expenses claimed for every day that parliament is sitting! Given that half the bugggers are rarely there I dread to think how much it works out per hour!

Worse still as Colin says there are 650 sitting MP's. Why? There has always been that number for as long as I can remember despite ....

1. Europe now adding a 3rd tier of govt and releiving our lot of much of their old duties.

2. Modern transport allowing high speed travel to and from Westminster.

3. Modern communications allowing work to be conducted on the hoof.

4. The labour saving of computer technology

BUT Are there the same number of car workers , miners, shipbuilders, etc etc etc No in fact just about every established industry has shed manpower in those years. Thhe only growth prob being in the Civil Service! We have been mugged and we need a new system of government. Modern day democracy is shot at.

[Paul]

Why should MPs get a flat-rate allowance? Why can't they meet their own expenses out of tehir own pocket rather than go cap in hand to the taxpayer?

I think a flat rate allowance would avoid the current situation we are discussing. MPs would know precisely what their entitlement is and could then spend as they wish. Surely it would be cheaper to control a flat rate than to examine every expense claim submitted by an MP.

I do agree they are entitled to claim expenses. If my employer required me to work away from home I'd expect to have all my out of pocket and living expenses met. I'd also expect that to be to the same standard as I enjoy when I go home at night. So I can understand the arguement for claiming for Sky Sports.

[gillibrand]

I think a flat rate allowance would avoid the current situation we are discussing. MPs would know precisely what their entitlement is and could then spend as they wish. Surely it would be cheaper to control a flat rate than to examine every expense claim submitted by an MP.

I do agree they are entitled to claim expenses. If my employer required me to work away from home I'd expect to have all my out of pocket and living expenses met. I'd also expect that to be to the same standard as I enjoy when I go home at night. So I can understand the arguement for claiming for Sky Sports.

And that is the crux of the problem you expect too much, and more you get and more you want and that is typical of todays society!

[broadsword]

I do agree they are entitled to claim expenses. If my employer required me to work away from home I'd expect to have all my out of pocket and living expenses met. I'd also expect that to be to the same standard as I enjoy when I go home at night. So I can understand the arguement for claiming for Sky Sports.

But these people are on 63k pa minimum, and know when they take the job that they'll have to travel.

I would accept flat-rate expenses as a halfway solution, as MP's are obviously not to be trusted. Or perhaps a proportional allowance based on number of miles from Westminster.

It is crazy not to use the privilege to vote, there is always the best of a bad lot, and with the vote fraud that goes on someone else may be voting for you!

Didn't say I wouldn't vote, just that i wouldn't vote Tory or Labour (or perhaps even Liberal as well).

[Ray-Von]

I can't believe she has the brass neck to claim 88 pence for a bloody plug-hole!

[gillibrand]

I can't believe she has the brass neck to claim 88 pence for a bloody plug-hole!

I think she just claimed for the plug, the hole was free.

[Billy Castell]

I'm surprised it wasn't a different kind of plug she claimed for. You know, the sort you get at Anne Summers.

I reckon that those porn channels were not just for the husband, but he felt the need to take that bullet.

[thenodrog]

So I can understand the arguement for claiming for Sky Sports.

Sky sports................ or Sky watersports?

[blue phil]

It's a serious matter, no doubt of that but I bet every married couple in the land are having a giggle about the atmosphere in the Smith / Timney house last weekend!

I doubt it .

At least not if they consider that they've been subsidising that house for God knows how long . Or is it her sister's back room where the "atmosphere" wil be worth chuckling at ? I somehow doubt it .....

All this nonsense could be quickly settled by a sliding scale of expenses for MP's . Those who have constituencies in the outer Hebrides get the most allowance - those who live in London get nowt .

Any government with the will to clean up corruption could do this tomorrow . Brown , though , hasn't got the balls ; he's the man who employs people like Smith and Mandelson et al .

[Drummer Boy]

Any government with the will to clean up corruption could do this tomorrow . Brown , though , hasn't got the balls ; he's the man who employs people like Smith and Mandelson et al .

Agree totally - the difference I have is that it is not just Brown who hasn't the balls, it's all of them who claim to be in charge regardless of party. By and large they're all as bad as each other and actually rather enjoy the ambiguity around the rules that allows them to hoover up privileges the rest of us subsidise whilst dismally failing to perform their roles. What we need is more decent, relatively normal people in parliament - there are some people on this board with whom I would agree on very little but I would trust them to do a decent job in parliament, act on what they believe to be right and stand up for it at the ballot box rather than the spineless lily-livered lot we have to tolerate now.

[Billy Castell]

Indeed Drummer Boy. All of them seem to be happy to keep the gravy train rolling with only a few adjustments to placate us plebs. Even the booze in the bars at Parliament has been, and may still be tax free or something along those lines.

[American]

All this nonsense could be quickly settled by a sliding scale of expenses for MP's . Those who have constituencies in the outer Hebrides get the most allowance - those who live in London get nowt .

The Mrs and I were having that argument the other day.

I was espousing your idea and she was saying "Expenses?!?? Isn't that why we pay them a salary?"

[colin]

No quite American, the salary is what you get for doing your job. Expenses are what you claim back after you have paid out things for doing it. If you were a curtain pole salesman travelling the country selling curtain poles you'd hardly be expected to pay the cost of your car out of your salary.

You'd put a clain in for £40 worth of petrol with a receipt for £40 from the petrol station.

Which is where MPs' expenses go awry. They have pretty much carte blanche to claim for whatever they feel like they want to claim and they are getting sloppy & greedy.

The sloppy bit is where Smith claimed for her husband's £20 worth of bongo films. They just chucked all the receipts into a big box and handed them over for money. No checking for veracity there then.

The greedy bit is where she decided that kipping in her sister's place in London entitled her to claim her home in her constituancy on expenses.

It's partly the fault of the House Of Commons' expenses regime being so lax, but mostly the MPs themeselves who obviously do not have the moral backbone to restict themselves to claiming correct and accurate expenses.

Just to add.... Smith's husband is on something like £40k a year as her assistant.

There are so many things wrong with that arrangement that I'm not sure where to start. If I wanted to hire an assistant at work for £40k I'd have to jump through so many audit hoops.

Again, lax controls & Smith taking advantage of them.

[thenodrog]

Again, lax controls & Smith taking advantage of them.

And there's the rub. Not the best way for the Home Sec of the UK to carry on is it? More suited to the corrupt government of some tin pot underdeveloped african country.

Resignation time?

[jim mk2]

And there's the rub. Not the best way for the Home Sec of the UK to carry on is it? More suited to the corrupt government of some tin pot underdeveloped african country.

Resignation time?

You're missing the point: Smith hasn't actually broken any rules; it's the rules themselves that need mending.

I note that MPs' solution to the expenses fiasco is for them to be awarded a £40,000 pay rise ! The whole system of minsters salaries / expenses (and final salary pensions) should be the subject of an independent review.

The review might also consider why Britain apparently needs more than 600 MPs when more populous countries have much fewer.

Congratulations to the press for again blowing the whistle on corruption.