Expenses pile-up

You are just missing the point Mr Field. The electorate don’t see why they should be paying your cleaning and gardening bills. Just as they are amazed to discover they are paying you £400 a month for food! Far too many of them are trying to run a household on £400 a month. If I was you I would take the hit and keep your head down.
Report this post – Anonymous

Frank two points the first you say “I never made an ACA claim which I thought was unfair to the taxpayer.” Do you honestly think that the ordinary person in the street, your public, your electorate will understand your privileged position in being able to claim back ANY expenses? You are living in a dream world if you do.Secondly, you are arguing that Legg hasn’t ‘changed the rules’ in the other headings. Don’t you think the public don’t realise that! That putting arbitary numbers on cleaning and gardening is a smoke screen to protect the worst of the corruption. Yes corruption that you are all complicit in. If Legg had done a proper job he would have banned all cleaning and gardening expenses as well as much of the rest. The public don’t get such leeway if they have second homes. Lastly, I suggest you get onside in the argument. The public are rightly furious and your reputation survived up until now. Start being a reformer, you could start and see that the Lords does actually need reforming to stop it being a reward for corrupt MP’s and PM’s shoring up a corrupt government.
Report this post – Anonymous

I once got a speeding fine because the limit on the particular stretch of Road had been reduced for 40MPH to 30MPH, no warning of this were in place on the road in question. When I complained to the Police, they simply passed the buck to the Council, when I asked the Council why no sign were evident to inform motorists of the change of limit, there answer was that they posted the new limit in the local newspaper, of course there idea of local is local to them, and not ME. So to summarise, in the end I had to pay up take the points and SHUT up. same as you lot who have creamed the life out of the Country should do.Every penny of expenses should be accountable, Taxpayers money is not in a piggy bank for MPs to raid at will. My God benefit claimants are punished heavily if they claim something they may not be entitled to.Frank, the UK is completely screwed by the EU, we are the most monitoreded society on Earth with more to come. I want my Country back, it doesnt belong to MPs, or the EU or the USA, it belongs to us the BRITISH the people, and we will take it back.
Report this post – Anonymous

I still don’t feel the analogy was right. To use a speeding analogy – there was a law in place. The law effectively said that you should drive with due care and attention and at a relevant speed in a built up area. Most people’s opinion is that that should be 20mph whilst MPs reckoned that they can drive at whatever speed they felt was appropriate. The law has now been clarified to say that you should drive at 20mph. Is it wrong to fine those MPs who were driving at 30mph+ retrospectively? Yes. Have MPs created general laws to be applied retrospectively? Yes. You can’t create retrospective laws for normal people and then whinge when the same happens to you. At the end of the day, your job is to reflect public opinion and you maintain your job by either sticking with public opinion or gently influencing it in a desired direction. Your atitude is well outside that of public opinion and unless you change it, you’ll be out of a job next April
Report this post – Anonymous

You are to be commended on continuing this dialogue, but, disappointingly, you are still, I think, failing to understand what is so very obvious to the public. Certainly no one in the private sector or, say, the police force would argue as you are doing. The first rule of the rule-book was absolutely clear. Expenses not incurred in discharging parliamentary duties – expenses such as cleaning and gardening – were not allowable and should never have been claimed – let alone paid out by the Fees Office – in the first place. Legg has retrospectively allowed these claims, up to certain limits; but that’s scarcely something MPs can complain about. They are the beneficiaries of indulgent treatment. I very much hope that you will see the logic of this, withdraw your opposition to Legg’s rulings – which are, I repeat, favourable to MPs – and pay what he demands. You are a much admired Member of Parliament, and if you do this you’ll be making a significant contribution to the rehabilitation of the Commons. With best wishes Rodney Clark
Report this post – Anonymous

The problem is that there is no retrospective implementation of the rules. All Legg has done is audit your expenses in line with the rules at the time. Green Book and Code of Conduct. In any commercial organisation and local authority audits are a fact of life. If an audit shows that I had overclaimed expenses, there is a good chance I could be sacked. I certainly would have to pay the over claim back. If I had underclaimed, then the company would apologise and pay the difference. Why should MPs be exempt from audit? Why are there no reports of underpayments?When you say there were no retrospective imposition of tax changes, that is simply not true. Section 28 Finance act, 2009 is retrospective.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/133/13304.htmYou voted for it.In order not to benefit you should pay the money back plus interest on the sums. If you don’t want to be seen to benefit, can I suggest the same rate of interest that the DWP say people earn on savings – 10%. Or should MPs get a special rate?They are the factual issues, now to the Corporal Jones arguments. People are angry with MPs. MPs have introduced guilty until proven innocent for the issues where most people are involved with the state on legal issues. Speeding, parking, rubbish collection, council tax etc. You try appealing a council tax issue. Ditto with a parking issue. It is guilty unless you can prove your innocence.Now the tables are turned and MPs are being treated as guilty until you can prove your innocence, you’re not going to win any argument by complaining on those grounds. It’s just deserts and when you speak to people they think it is highly deserved. The more you complain, the more schaedenfreude and pleasure you give the rest of us.Now I have heard reasonable statements from you on the Government debt position. 7-8 trillion if you include all the liabilities and not the usual conman speech that government debt is govenment bond borrowing. ie. Ignore pensions etc. People have realised that they have to pay the debt, not the people that caused it. They also realise the size of the debts. They are frightened and angry.Angry because they were not asked to agree to being put into debt. Angry because they have been lied to about the size of the debts. They look to who caused it, and its Labour. Now clearly part of Brown strategy is that when Labour losses next year, that the Tories have to make the cuts. Then its the nasty Tories who get the blame, and nice Cuddly Labour get back in 5 years. Welll there are enough Tories who think a Doomsday book of debt and a labour tax on all receipts and payslip to show the level of debt repayment is the stategy. In that case you shouldn’t be worried about expenses, you will be in hiding.Nick
Report this post – Anonymous

You’re certainly building a compelling case for the “new rules” to be applied further. Time for the MPs to get the chequebook out. Again, the general public wants to see the flpping and capital gains tax avoidance to be addressed. Good to see an MP with some credibility taking a balance view on this and debating the points.
Report this post – Anonymous

I agree the rules should apply across all categories if no previous limits existed – what is significant about gardening or cleaning? However, the analogy of the speed limit is still false.The ‘speed limit’ has not changed. To use your analogy, imagine a road that has no limit. The instruction is – you can drive on this road as long as you do so at a reasonablesafe speed. Later because of accidents caused by reckless drivers (false claims in our real world situation) it is decided to see if people did, in fact, drive safely (perhaps we had video evidence). It is not wrong to decide that someone broke the rule of reasonableness. That is, in fact, what much of English Common Law is based on, that an action was such that the nominal ‘reasonable person’ would have recognised as being well, reasonable.The rules haven’t changed in either the analogy or the real expenses situation. You and colleagues may, forgive the overuse of the word, reasonably challenge the absolute value of the limits on what is reasonable but the process itself is quite legitimate. MPs were allowed, upon their honour, to state that an expense was reasonable in the execution of their duties. It is only proper that – since so many have been found to have misbehaved – the word of those making claims is checked.I have no idea if your claims were valid or not. That isn’t the point. My view and that of many of the general public is that it is quite right that unreasonable expenses be reclaimed from MPs and so the process is supported. By all means challenge the amounts. I’m sure, in your case, that that claims were made in good faith and that the level of recompense should be reassessed. But the process itself is quite fair.
Report this post – Anonymous

Dear Mr FieldYour say charges arising from closing of tax loopholes are never retrospectivly imposed.I think you will find you are mistaken, and I refer you to Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 passed by this parliament in which they DID implement retrospctive legislation.It was done in a most underhand and deceitful way and your colleague Jane Kennedy misled the House when she claimed it was in accordance with the Rees rules as being “fair proportionate and in the public interest”.It is now the subject of severe criticsm from the JCHR and also subject to legal challange from a Judicial Review in the UK and also in the European Court of Human Rights.I listen to the furore MP’s are making about a few thousand pounds they might have to pay back. I am faced with a claim circa £175,000.I believe your Labour colleagues would not have passed this legislation had they know the full facts and consequences of their actions but the parliamentry process kept this well hiddeen from them and they voted to order when pressed by the whips.Is it too late to get this reopened?
Report this post – Anonymous

This elegant splitting of hairs by Robert Verkaiis a nice little exercise in intelectual discussion and debate. The fact is that fairness to Frank Field,if only because of his past and honest record,has not been sufficiently thought through. Baby thrown out with the bathwater really
Report this post – Anonymous

Frank, I have written an open letter to you at http://the-red-rag.blogspot.com/2009/10/frank-field-s-expenses-pile-up.html
Report this post – Anonymous

I have rarely read such a load of twaddle when you tried to justify your avarice. If a child behaved like you, there would be an immediate condemnatory response. Why don’t you grow up and behave like a responsible adult?
Report this post – Anonymous

Frank,You seem determined to trash your reputation by continuing to try to defend the indefensible. I understood that Legg set limits for gardening and cleaning because none previously existed. This was not the case with other types of expenses. In any event, just how gardening and cleaning bills could be considered “wholly, exclusively and necessarily .. for the purpose of performing your parliamentary duties” is a mystery to me. Legg has been more than generous in allowing £3000 per annum for these costs. The rest of us have to pay such bills with taxed income or do the work ourselves! Nor do I see why televisions, sky TV subscriptions, food and. Many other things should have been paid out of expenses for the same reason. Far from feeling that Legg has treated you all harshly I feel he has been far too lenient. Not quite a whitewash but a very pale shade of grey. I suggest that you pay what has been asked and be grateful that other items have been ignored.
Report this post – Anonymous

You have missed the point, again. Why are we the tax payer paying for your gardening and cleaning? What is it about being an MP that makes you incapable of cleaning your own house? And why do we have to pay for your food?
Report this post – Anonymous

Sorry, Frank, But your still missing the point. Your quibling the small stuff while the Honor of Parliament trickles down the Members’ collective legs.
Report this post – Anonymous

Dear Mr Field, I look forward to you discussing with Mr Timms your learned colleague the implementation of Section 58 of the finance bill to implement retrospective taxation dating back to 1987 which has affected over 2000 freelance workers producing tax bills in six figures with backdated punitive interest.
Report this post – Anonymous

Thank you for your reply, but regarding this latest addition to the so-called blog I should say I couldn’t comment about any other comment if I wanted to.. nor could I get involved in any argument in todays Independent because at least in my view – “it’s not on and it’s not working properly”. (Nor is this particular comment box which is so thin I can’t read one end of my sentence from the other and so I have to go and practice my piece in some other place and then copy it here. Naturally this interferes with the spontaneous expression of what I wanted get across.The point is there are no rehearsals in the real world, Frank. Instead, Parliamentarians or indeed anybody else might do better with somewhere to bang heads together when concerns, frustration and despair appear to be spoiling all our jobs and lives..in the capacity of research eg RISC ( See DoH ie the department of health). Such speculative research might be useful to clarify the most efficient way forward for everyone concerned;First things first, and in my view it seems Parliament needs a good Matron to sort out the hospitalities including decent channels of communications re; health and work/life balance matters. Perhaps domestic cleaning arrangements and care of the gardens might be part of such a responsible persons remit for example if it becomes clear that M.P’s may work better if they could “live in”, so to speak. ( like the Speaker?). Parliamentarians ( elected or otherwise) have an exceptionally important and privileged role and this is why I think it may be reasonable and possibly more efficient to provide them with the most dedicated and best arrangements when sitting.I think Parliamentarians need their own research faculty and dedicated researchers who understand the importance of their position from the micro (in relation to the privilege members of Parliament may have upon the initiative of a diverse range of constituents concerned) eg regarding IT communications and individual web-site facilities – to the macro eg the kinds of global research which may in effect have some bearing on events. Eg. ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6367168/What-this-years-Nobel-Prize-winners-can-teach-the-Conservatives.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId;=6380100 )We may or may not be able to view the comment I sent in earlier to this article so I’ve copied it here for your perusal;“What a happy looking couple of prize winners!I agree that “Enormous courage is now needed.” but I think this article and indeed this chap’s mission is somewhat incomplete, if not generally missing the point.The last thing we need in view of the propensity of the world to blow bubbles which are far too big is a government which thinks it must “allow the non-market part of the free economy to flourish again – and to set the rules within which the market operates.” If a government was to do this it’d probably end up in deep trouble should citizens discover it had taken for granted gaps in provision, the occasional failure, or that some of the free non-market institutions will be “exclusive”, (and probably largely unaccountable eg bankers bonus arrangements ).The point of presenting the work of these two happy winners in the same vein so to speak, seems obvious; Elinor Ostrom Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA, got it;”for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons”and Oliver E. Williamson University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA;”for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm”.It seems to me this economics prize may in effect help put together a bigger so-called “paradigm” for analysis with a view to finding balanced ways of working which are on the level.”
Report this post – Anonymous

Pay back the money Mr Field! You do well enough from being an MP as it is. Don’t give us the sob story of how hard you work! Many people in own town are on the bread line! You should do what is right & PAY IT BACK!
Report this post – Anonymous