SexyMP - The thoughts of Mrs NotaSheep

I showed Mrs NotaSheep the site and she has some thoughts on some of the top 20.

	#1 Mark Harper Conservative Forest of Dean Score: 1805 Won: 122 Lost: 29		#2 James Wharton Conservative Stockton South Score: 1760 Won: 125 Lost: 31		#3 Edward Vaisey Conservative Wantage Score: 1796 Won: 124 Lost: 38
	#4 Joseph Johnson Conservative Orpington Score: 1744 Won: 139 Lost: 38		#5 Steve Brine Conservative Winchester Score: 1725 Won: 122 Lost: 32		#6 Douglas Alexander Labour Paisley and Renfrewshire South Score: 1741 Won: 112 Lost: 31
	#7 Dominic Raab Conservative Esher and Walton Score: 1757 Won: 142 Lost: 42		#8 David Miliband Labour South Shields Score: 1722 Won: 133 Lost: 37		#9 David Laws Liberal Democrat Yeovil Score: 1698 Won: 130 Lost: 35
	#10 Andy Burnham Labour Leigh Score: 1749 Won: 118 Lost: 37		#11 Duncan Hames Liberal Democrat Chippenham Score: 1720 Won: 123 Lost: 37		#12 Zac Goldsmith Conservative Richmond Park Score: 1698 Won: 124 Lost: 38
	#13 Edward Timson Conservative Crewe and Nantwich Score: 1752 Won: 120 Lost: 42		#14 James Morris Conservative Halesowen and Rowley Regis Score: 1787 Won: 106 Lost: 40		#15 David Ruffley Conservative Bury St Edmunds Score: 1706 Won: 109 Lost: 35
	#16 Aiden Burley Conservative Cannock Chase Score: 1697 Won: 128 Lost: 41		#17 Chuka Umunna Labour Streatham Score: 1704 Won: 119 Lost: 40		#18 Jake Berry Conservative Rossendale and Darwen Score: 1695 Won: 108 Lost: 38
	#19 Tristram Hunt Labour Stoke-on-Trent Central Score: 1701 Won: 128 Lost: 47		#20 Chris Kelly Conservative Dudley South Score: 1714 Won: 118 Lost: 45

Sexiest - Zac Goldsmith
Edward Vaisey - "Nice boy"
David Laws - "Definitely not, just as well as he's gay"
Joseph Johnson - "bit too ginger (sorry strawberry blonde)"
David Miliband - "No, no, no"
Mark Harper - "too dull"
James Morris - "bit smooooth"
Chris Kelly - "looks like a nice guy, I mean look at that lovely hair!"

And further down the list:
42: Charles Kennedy - "Things have got desperate"
47: David Cameron - "He should be higher than that, doesn't power give you sex appeal?"
115: Michael Gove - Me "I can't beleive there are many MPs less sexy than Michael Gove" Mrs NotaSheep pointing at screen "Dennis Skinner?!"
129: Ed Miliband - "Ed should be higher than his brother" Me: "Yes but only after the Union vote is counted"
208: Jack Straw - "If I was anyone below him I'd be very, very cheesed off"
374: Nia Griffith - "Oh there's a woman" - Database failure?
394: John Thurso "What's Jim Royle doing there?"
402: Margaret Ritchie - Another database failure
Bottom 10 - "Very fair comment"

Women: Mrs NotaSheep is an equal opportunities commentator
Top 8 are "all fine, lovely looking ladies"
"Apart from Liz Kendall and Sarah Teather, it's pretty good down to 24 Susan Jones."
"#126: Th?�r?�se Coffey" - Another database malfunction?

Something I noticed:
Top 10 of "Mixed" are all women, in fact Mark Harper is only man in top 20, well done sir; I salute you - but not in that way. Mrs NotaSheep: "clean and quite handsome"

There is something deeply odd about this website

Sexy MP  states its purpose thus:

'In addition to my wanting to create a fun and memorable tool to help the British public get to know their Members of Parliament, I thought it would be an interesting opportunity to hold the first ever parliamentary beauty contest and find out once and for all which MPs and Parties have the most sex-appeal. Although I fully expect this to offend some people, this was never my intention and I hope you will see the funny side.'

The rankings seem to be based upon winning head-to-head contests. Here's the current top 10:

Results

	#1 Sarah Teather Liberal Democrat Brent Central Score: 2708 Won: 760 Lost: 242		#2 Caroline Flint Labour Don Valley Score: 2307 Won: 1740 Lost: 293		#3 Louise Bagshawe Conservative Corby Score: 2282 Won: 2454 Lost: 437
	#4 Charlotte Leslie Conservative Bristol North West Score: 1933 Won: 595 Lost: 129		#5 Zac Goldsmith Conservative Richmond Park Score: 1787 Won: 116 Lost: 17		#6 Tristram Hunt Labour Stoke-on-Trent Central Score: 1782 Won: 122 Lost: 18
	#7 Priti Patel Conservative Witham Score: 1877 Won: 454 Lost: 111		#8 Liz Kendall Labour Leicester West Score: 1856 Won: 434 Lost: 106		#9 Mary Macleod Conservative Brentford and Isleworth Score: 1779 Won: 540 Lost: 110
	#10 Chris Skidmore Conservative Kingswood Score: 1757 Won: 111 Lost: 23

Sarah Teather number 1, how can that be correct?Of those 10 Priti Patel would get my vote though, even her name is right.

Welcome to the real world 'luv'

The Guardian reports on the new regime at Westminster and includes this whinge from an unnamed Labour MP complaining that she will be able to claim for a taxi home from work after 11pm:

'What happens on a January night in London? I suppose I will have to take the tube, then a bus and then a long walk home. That is not safe.'

Welcome to the real world 'luv'. Mrs NotaSheep often works late and unless it is a particularly late finish she has to walk to the station near her office, take a 40 minute tube train journey and then a mile or so walk home (unless I go to pick her up). It's called the real world, it's where we all have worked for years and where MPs are now being forced to work. Maybe MPs will now realise that the Country is a dangerous place to live in and so actually do something to make it a safer place, rather than just living off the taxpayer and not experiencing the (often dangerous) lives that the electorate live.

The MPs second home scandal

I read in The Telegraph that:

"MPs could face bills for thousands of pounds after the new parliamentary watchdog, Sir Ian Kennedy, said they should give up some of the profits on taxpayer-funded second homes. "

Good, this was the biggest scandal of the expenses row and one that I am sure many MPs thought had gone away. If MPs are given money by the taxpayer to fund a second home then any profits from the sale of such a home should revert to the taxpayer not the MP. Of course the line at present is just that:

"Sir Christopher said that MPs should forfeit any rise in the value of second homes between the publication of his report last November and the implementation of the new allowances system. "

But hopefully this will be extended backwards to catch all MPs who have made such profits over the last 10 years or maybe more. I do not see why MPs should be able to enrich themselves off of the backs of taxpayers. And I will not be satisfied with them paying tax on the profits, I want all the profits returned to the taxpayer.

They've got a little list, they've got a little list

politics.co.uk have a list of the 135 MPs retiring at the next general election.

Quite a few little piggies included.

Wife-swapping at the House of Commons

Not as interesting/disgusting as it sounds but the story that MPs who are determined to get round the new rules banning family members from working for them are considering "swapping wives" with other MPs. Imagine indulging in such "swapping" and finding Pauline Prescott in your office...

Fraud - Differentiating by degree?

The Telegraph carry the news that:

"MPs who have used taxpayers’ money to pay for “phantom” mortgages on their expenses should be investigated by the police and prosecuted, David Cameron says in an interview with The Daily Telegraph. "

For a while now I have thought that The Telegraph's coverage of the expenses story has been indiscriminate. We need to differentiate between:
1. MPs who have committed fraud - for example by claiming mortgage repayments on a mortgage that had already been repaid
2. MPs who have pushed the boundaries of House of Commons expenses versus tax law to the limits - for example those who have built property portfolios on the back of flipping so as to avoid Capital Gains Tax
3. MPs who have submitted expense claims that seem to have been based on falsehoods - for example every month claiming up to the no receipts required limit
4. MPs who have claimed or tried to claim for ridiculous items that should not be claimed for - for example moat cleaning, £2,000+ televisions etc.
5. MPs who have worked the system and so are guilty of no more than greed
6. MPs who have made only reasonable claims

The MPs who fall into category 1 need to be investigated and charged by the police, prosecuted and tried. All should be made to resign immediately if found guilty and receive no severance pay.
The MPs who fall into category 2 need to named, shamed and if not able to be prosecuted then to have the party whip withdrawn from them.
The MPs who fall into categories 3 and 4 should be made to face reselection by their constituency party ahead of the general election.
The MPs who fall into category 5 should consider themselves fortunate to have no action taken against them.
The MPs who fall into category 6 deserve no praise, they just did what they should have done.

Now to the future for MPs who have to resign or lose their seats. If they fall into categories 1-4 then they should not be considered for elevation to the House of Lords or for paid positions on Quangos or any position in Public "Service". They should find work in the private sector and learn what the real world id all about.

No further comment is necessary

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left the shop.
When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door..

Later, a policeman comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The policeman is happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The professor is very happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen different books, such as 'How to Improve Your Business' and 'Becoming More Successful.'

Then, a Member of Parliament comes in for a haircut , and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The Member of Parliament is very happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Members of Parliament lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the Members of Parliament.




Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

"THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT"

The Code of Conduct for members of Parliament is available online for the perusal of us mere taxpaying voters so I thought I'd take a look and see what guidance is given to our esteemed Lords and Masters.

Here's an interesting section (my emphasis and my comments)

"IV. General Principles of Conduct

7. In carrying out their parliamentary and public duties, Members will be expected to observe the following general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its First Report as applying to holders of public office.[1] These principles will be taken into consideration when any complaint is received of breaches of the provisions in other sections of the Code.

"Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

Surely all those MPs who have gained financially by the over-use of expense claims fall foul of this principle.


Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Surely all Peers who are due an EU pension so long as they "uphold the interests of the European Communities" are in breach of this principle (you may want to read this article, this article and this article for more information about Lord Brittan of Spennithorne and "Lords" Kinnock and Mandelson


Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
I see some interesting questions that could be asked here of contracts being awarded to companies with family members in high positions or to companies where the Minister goes to work after retiring (forceably or otherwise)


Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Unless they can use the FOI restrictions to prevent such disclosure.


Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Unless they operate under a system of sofa cabinet and off-system emails.


Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Too many examples, just too many examples; see my website over the last two years for examples.


Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example."
No comment necessary.

And now "V. Rules of Conduct" (my emphasis and my comments)

"9. Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.
Does anyone believe this is followed?


10. No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House.
EU pensions again?


11. The acceptance by a Member of a bribe to influence his or her conduct as a Member, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or intended to be submitted to the House, or to any Committee of the House, is contrary to the law of Parliament.
No comment.


12. In any activities with, or on behalf of, an organisation with which a Member has a financial relationship, including activities which may not be a matter of public record such as informal meetings and functions, he or she must always bear in mind the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members and officials.
No comment.


13. Members must bear in mind that information which they receive in confidence in the course of their parliamentary duties should be used only in connection with those duties, and that such information must never be used for the purpose of financial gain.
No comment.


14. Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services.

strictly in accordance!

15. Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute."
No comment.

Interestingly, "The Categories of Registrable Interest" do not seem to include future pensions which I have mentioned above. However the following seems to cover the point more than adequately:

"Category 10

Miscellaneous: Any relevant interest, not falling within one of the above categories, which nevertheless falls within the definition of the main purpose of the Register which is "to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches, or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament," or which the Member considers might be thought by others to influence his or her actions in a similar manner, even though the Member receives no financial benefit. "

There even seems to be a clause to deal with future employment:

"PAST AND POTENTIAL INTERESTS

56. The rule relating to declaration of interest is broader in scope than the rules relating to the registration of interests in two important respects. As well as current interests, Members are required to declare both relevant past interests and relevant interests which they may be expecting to have. In practice only interests held in the recent past, i.e. those contained in the current printed edition of the Register, need normally be considered for declaration. Expected future interests, on the other hand, may be more significant. Where, for example, a Member is debating legislation or making representations to a Minister on a matter from which he has a reasonable expectation of personal financial advantage, candour is essential. In deciding when a possible future benefit is sufficiently tangible to necessitate declaration, the key word in the rule which the Member must bear in mind is "expecting". Where a Member's plans or degree of involvement in a project have passed beyond vague hopes and aspirations and reached the stage where there is a reasonable expectation that a financial benefit will accrue, then a declaration explaining the situation should be made. "

In fact the Code of Conduct seems to cover most of the bases, or rather it would if MPs and Peers were honourable people; unfortunately many seem to be anything other than honourable and so more stringent legislation is needed. I would like to see an end to the convention of calling MPs honourable, I for one would find that word sticking in my craw.

Snouts in the trough update

Guido has the latest round-up, and there's a lot to keep up to date with.

Here's an honest MP

Douglas Carswell MP for Harwich and Clacton has made a promise

"This week the Westminster establishment will try to pass a law that would exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act and allow MP expenses to remain secret.

I've had enough of this farce. I decided over the weekend that at the end of this financial year (April 2009), I'll be publishing a detailed breakdown of all the things I've claimed for as an MP over the year. Want to see what I spend on travel or rent? I'm going to put it on-line for all to see.

My colleague, Ben Wallace MP, had the courage to show the way, and I now intend to follow his lead.

This nonsense once again underlines that there is something profoundly wrong with the way Westminster is run. Speaker Michael Martin is not up to the job, and his good old boy gatherings Speaker Committee system simply isn't delivering credible or effective leadership. They might hate me for saying so, but they don't live in Clacton.

Mr Martin ought to unilaterally declare that Commons officials will place a breakdown of each MPs expenses on-line at the end of every financial year - and tell MPs who complained that if you spend public money, you must be accountable to the public for how you spend that money.

Incidentally, if some MPs don't have the moral nous to see that, how can they possibly have the moral nous to make judgements over vastly more complex subjects, like Gaza, or education, or today's Policing Bill? "

So that's Douglas Carswell and Ben Wallace who will publish their expenses in full (and I believe Michael Gove as well); any more transparent MPS? It's our money so be accountable to us and publish in full.

MPs expenses

In an example of "good day to bury bad news" news management, Harriet Harman chsoe the same day of the the Heathrow third runway announcement to slip out the news that the House of Commons is preparing to block the publication of all receipts for MPs expenses, which had previously been ordered by an Information Tribunal.

I did try and get the exact wording of the announcement but Hansard seems to be down at the present, maybe it is suffering from shame.

I could bang on and on about how disgusting this decision ids, but instead here are the comments of some others:

1) The Times' RedBox -

"We had been expecting the results of this massive FOI exercise, involving the release of 1 million pieces of paper, by the Summer. It will now be canned in favour of the release of a spreadsheet with 26 headings, which gives a fraction of the information otherwise available. Under the new expenses rules published today, MPs will be also allowed:

** To buy "White goods": electrical equipment, sofas, chairs, tables, decoration, cleaning, insurance and security to be bought on expenses. This is limited to 10 per cent of the allowance (probably around £20,000) excet during the first year a Member is newly elected.

** Public money will be allowed on spent on MPs' mortgage costs for "refurbishment"

** A flat-rate £25 per day may be claimed when a "Member spends a night away from his or her main home on Parliamentary business". Which will be most of the time.

** No receipts to be submitted for items costing under £25. "It has been argued that it would be excessively burdensome for Members to have provided receipts for all transactions and that additional costs incurred.. would be likely disproportionate."

** There will be no minimum number of MPs whose expenses will face audit. Instead there will be checks on "an appropriate, risk-base sampling regime".

A victory for those who wanted minimal change, but there will be questions from those who have maintained that MPs cannot regulate themselves.

Update: And who is responsible? The Speaker and the Members' Estimates Committee are responsible for diluting the changes to what MPs can claim.

But Harriet Harman and the government are behind the move to prevent receipts being published. The move requires the Freedom of Information Act to be amended, and Jack Straw has apparently laid an Statutory Instrument which does so for the House to approve."

2) Guido Fawkes -

"Elsewhere the parliamentary authorities are suppressing full disclosure of MPs expenses. Jacqui Smith has (without reference to parliament) given herself the right to read Guido's email without a warrant, yet MPs in contrast are changing the Freedom of Information laws to allow them to obscure our view of their petty fiddles. There is no other credible explanation. They claim that it would be too expensive to account for all expenditure - try putting that on your tax return. Some MPs are taking it upon themselves to voluntarily publish ALL their expenses, some will not, draw your own conclusions. If they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide..."

3) Mr Eugenides -

"And in order to prevent us from seeing receipts for what they buy, the Freedom of Information Act must be altered - for precisely which purpose the egregious Jack Straw has today laid a Statutory Instrument before the Commons.

...

Let's make this clear; if you are furnishing your home with my money, then I demand to know how much is being spent on what. This is not a burdensome requirement; it is the basic fucking minimum I am entitled to expect. No agent of the gigantic state apparatus that these people have constructed to empty my pockets would accept my airy assurances in place of a receipt, so why should we accept it of them?"

4) A Tangled Web -

"Honestly, my contempt for the political class grows by the day when I read this sort of thing..

"Details of MPs’ claims for plasma televisions, furniture and cleaning bills will be kept secret after Harriet Harman bowed to backbenchers’ pressure to stop expenses claims being published. MPs are preparing to pass a new law next week that will exempt them from parts of the Freedom of Information Act, meaning that they will never again be forced to publish receipts for their claims, in defiance of an order by the High Court. This would make MPs the only public sector employees with special privileges to protect them from disclosing their expenses.""

5) The Mail -

"MPs were accused of a 'new level of arrogance' last night as they launched a bid to keep secret full details of how they spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

And they will further mock voters with a new rulebook allowing them to carry on squandering cash on furniture and home improvements.

With households and businesses cutting costs, the moves will be seen as more evidence that elected representatives are hopelessly out of touch.

The announcement that Ministers want to defy the High Court and block publication of receipts for MPs' expenses was buried on the day news was dominated by Government statements on Heathrow and Equitable Life.

The extraordinary move is in direct response to a High Court judgment upholding an Information Tribunal ruling that receipt-by-receipt breakdowns for how public money is spent by MPs must be published.

Speaker Michael Martin spent around £150,000 of public money unsuccessfully fighting the case.

A Parliamentary order has now been drafted to exclude MPs and peers from parts of the Freedom of Information Act. If both Houses of Parliament back it next week it could become law within 24 hours, and no receipts need be published. "

MPs see themselves as above the law and the results of such actions are likely to be less than pretty.

The country is going to the dogs, whilst the Conservatives own the dogs

A most contrived title to report that according to the BBC:

"Bob Spink has won the Westminster dog of the year contest with his two greyhounds, Fozzy Bear and Jessie.

Mr Spink, who defected to UKIP from the Conservatives earlier this year, beat off competition from 11 other entries

...

Roger Gale and Andrew Rosindell, both Conservatives, filled the runner-up spots."

Why all Conservatives or ex-Conservatives? Don't Labour and LibDem MPs like dogs?

What is interesting is that I read and then re-read this article to see where the anti-Conservative BBC bias was... and I couldn't find any; which is not to say that it isn't there!

"The MPs we need to target on 42 days"

griffindo has an interesting piece listing the MPs

"in seats that are likely to be lost, or have made votes that are the most likely to waver. Pressure on these MPs surrounding acknowledgment of campaigns being run against them at the next election because of a aye-vote when the legislation comes back to the House of Commons is suggested."

Take a look at the MPs and if one of them is you MP, "have a word".

"MPs use expenses to avoid petrol pinch"

The Times reports that (my emphasis):

"Members of parliament are demanding extra allowances to pay for record petrol prices and rising road taxes, while voters struggle to meet the rising costs of motoring.

The parliamentary panel reviewing MPs’ expenses has received a barrage of complaints that the allowance for using their cars on constituency duty is “ridiculous”.

Travel allowances are being examined in a review of the discredited parliamentary expenses system by a cross-party committee headed by Michael Martin, the Speaker.

MPs receive 40p per mile for the first 10,000 miles by car and 25p per mile thereafter. The rate used to be 72p, but they can claim 350 miles a month — £1,680 a year — without receipts. "

Wherever I have worked there has been a very simple expenses system; present a receipt and if authorised you will be reimbursed, no receipt then no reimbursement. If this works in the real world then why not for our pampered MPs, they should realise that we don't just trust them to be "honourable members", in fact many of us wouldn't trust them to give us the right time.

Snouts in the trough

The First Post reports that:

"...our MPs seem to forget that they already receive more than £60,000 a year for just 34 weeks’ work and enjoy the most generous pension scheme in Britain. An ordinary person would have to put an incredible £50,000 each year into their pension savings to receive the same pension benefits as an MP.

...

In the last five years alone, the amount of money our MPs have taken in salaries and expenses has gone up by a satisfying (for them) 64 per cent, from less than £100m in 2001–02 to over £155m in 2006–07, while the number of expense claims submitted by MPs has almost doubled from just over 30,000 a year to close to 60,000. At the same time, the number of staff employed to help our MPs do less and less work has gone up from around 1,800 to over 2,500."

Do read the rest and wonder at the sheer brass necked cheek of the freeloading scum that for the most part inhabit the House of Commons. Must watch V for Vendetta again this weekend....





Thanks to Guido Fawkes for the spot of the First Post article.

A solution to MPs expenses

This solution was suggested by "rfs" on Guido Fawkes's blog this morning. I believe rfs's blog is this one and if so I recommend you have a read through it, there are some interesting articles there...

That said, here's rfs's solution:

"Simple solution:

All MP staff are centrally funded. Each MP has an office in Portcullis House and only the one office - a second one in the constituency simply serves to allow family to "work" for them while staying at home. Each office is capable of doing everything the MP requires and will be upgraded/downgraded as their governmental responsibilities are changed.

MPs are to be accommodated in a block of flats in Central London. Bedsit type and identical with only Downing Street residents getting separate accommodation. Each party has its own floors and wireless connection - each MP is issued a £300 Dell laptop from stock with Word and email. Each flat contains a TV that will only get Freeview and a telephone that will only do national calls. It will be en-suite and have a double bed, a cooker & hob combo, a small fridgefreezer and a safe. Laundry and housekeeping will be centrally provided.

The flats will have a communal eating facility and each MP will have messing charges deducted at source each month. Every morning that the commons sits there will be a shuttle bus to take the fatter ones to the chamber or to their office in PH. They will be expected to be in their offices for 9am Mon-Fri and not leave until 4pm with the exceptions being where they have booked time to go to constituency or official business, a diary manager would co-ordinate this and an officer of the Speaker would take attendance with figures being published quarterly.

At the beginning and end of each parliament the residents will be marched out and an audit taken with missing items being paid for. A march in at the start of the next parliament will also be carried out.

Why would this be so hard to implement? ;)"

I have blogged before about the proposal that MPs should live in blocks of flats and I was a little sceptical but I hadn't considered the transport to work wrinkle and the clocking in and out idea. I also was unaware of the lengths some MPs were going to in order to work the expenses system, I now think that this sort of scheme could work BUT the accommodation should be comfortable NOT luxurious.

Snouts in the trough time

That delightful Speaker, Michael Martin, has overseen plans to offer MPs tax-free childcare vouchers worth thousands of pounds a year. MPs just don't seem to care how they are perceived, do they. They get a good salary, incredibly good expenses that only now they need to produce receipts for and yet they want more, more, more. Greed is the word.

Words almost fail me

The Sunday Times has an article about the troubled Gordon Brown and whether there might be a race to replace him. I have discussed this before and probably will again but it was something else that caught my eye. The article also contains this nugget of information:

"“I know of many MPs in marginal seats who have quietly been in touch to find out how much their retirement income would be if they stepped down at the next election,” one backbencher said.

“Others are thinking about retraining to go back into the careers they left when they came into the Commons, such as teaching and social work.”

MPs who retire on grounds of sickness are given special dispensation to claim their full pension before they reach the age of 65. Several have made inquiries about whether it would be possible for them to quit the Commons on grounds of ill health — before voters eject them via the ballot box."

Yes, even as they face losing their seats on the gravy train, Labour scum are looking into the best ways of screwing the taxpayer for even more money as a goodbye present. Since most of these free loaders have simply "followed orders" and acted as lobby fodder for the last 11 years, I don't think that they deserve a state-funded pension before the age of 60. They should just fuck off and find a proper job and not one that is reliant upon them having done favours for their new employers whilst they were MPs.

MPs screwing the UK taxpayer

Letters From a Tory has done some analysis on the published MPs expenses for 2006/07 and his findings are of great interest.
Of the 50 MPs who claim the most expenses, 37 are Labour MPs, one is a Conservative. "Labour have 7 out of the top 10 most expensive MP offices in the whole country." "Labour have 9 out of the top 10 most profligate MP drivers."
"Labour have 9 out of the top 10 big spenders on the train."
Labour have all of the top 10 MPs in the category of Stationery and Postage. "Siobhain McDonagh of the Labour Party...spent (wait for it) £49,107 on stationery and postage. No, I’m not making this up. She somehow managed to rack up a bill of £13,900 on stationery, and then spent an extra £35,207 of taxpayers’ money on posting letters - which was £10,000 more than any other MP in the entire country in total."