Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Has Maria Miller Resigned Yet ?
Apparently even Tebbit has suggested that she resign. I realise that the whiff of brimstone doesn't have quite the effect it used to have, but I'm sure his opinion still has some weight attached to it. Never thought I would agree with the Chingford Skinhead but I can't quite see how dave is being helped in his task to get ahead of Labour in time for next years Election, until he lances this boil once and for all. I also understand, from what somebody was saying in the barbers this morning, that the DM have called for her to go.
Surely this can't go on ?
Surely this can't go on ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://
This lists them by party
This lists them by party
Lets not let partisanship entirely cloud our memory, shall we? The "expenses scandal" involved 389 MPs - over half of all MPs. Members from all parties were guilty of some quite astoundingly egregious abuse of the expenses system.
You can make a very strong case that, were these people accused of benefits fraud, they would not be simply asked to "pay back" the expenses "claimed in error".
And much of the reason for the abuse was because MPs of all parties had essentially been told to exploit the expenses system to their advantage as a way of reimbursing them without having to award themselves a pay rise -seen by all parties as a political no-no.
All MPs, whatever their political allegiance, need to work very hard to regain the right to describe themselves as "honourable", in my opinion.
You can make a very strong case that, were these people accused of benefits fraud, they would not be simply asked to "pay back" the expenses "claimed in error".
And much of the reason for the abuse was because MPs of all parties had essentially been told to exploit the expenses system to their advantage as a way of reimbursing them without having to award themselves a pay rise -seen by all parties as a political no-no.
All MPs, whatever their political allegiance, need to work very hard to regain the right to describe themselves as "honourable", in my opinion.
It's been a fairly commonly expressed view over quite some time, Naomi, across successive governments. Not sure that you would ever find a paper trail or documentary instructions; just a "word to the wise"
A report here, supported by Douglas Carswell MP on MP expenses together with a brief history;
http://
Dan Hodges, commentator from The Telegraph;
http://
And then several MPs have variously expressed the sentiment, across a variety of different news sources in defence of their expenses claims, that they were encouraged to do so by other colleagues, or "the Fees office" "in lieu of a pay rise". This practice of turning a blind eye to expenses claims is thought to be related to the withdrawal of the link between MPs salary and civil servants pay rises, although tracking down such individual reports would take more time than I care to invest at the moment.
Once upon a time, they were linked to "top civil servants", and got a pay rise every time they did.
http://
http://
This link was broken ,and the problem of MPs pay/expenses and who decides it has been a problem ever since.
A report here, supported by Douglas Carswell MP on MP expenses together with a brief history;
http://
Dan Hodges, commentator from The Telegraph;
http://
And then several MPs have variously expressed the sentiment, across a variety of different news sources in defence of their expenses claims, that they were encouraged to do so by other colleagues, or "the Fees office" "in lieu of a pay rise". This practice of turning a blind eye to expenses claims is thought to be related to the withdrawal of the link between MPs salary and civil servants pay rises, although tracking down such individual reports would take more time than I care to invest at the moment.
Once upon a time, they were linked to "top civil servants", and got a pay rise every time they did.
http://
http://
This link was broken ,and the problem of MPs pay/expenses and who decides it has been a problem ever since.
She is hoist by her own petard.
As soon as she started the threaten the press because she has the job of implementing Leveson's recommendations, she had had it. Urging the newspapers to play down her wrongdoing or she might damage their businesses was a stupid error and shows her contempt and arrogance.
She set herself up as the villain of the peice and newspaper editors have rpunded on her with great delight. She brought this sotuation on herself and has only herself to blame when Cameron caves in to pressure and sacks her.
The career of a corrupt MP is ended, but at what cost? The media barrens will have removed a minister which re-asserts the power the temporarily lost over the hacking scandal.
As soon as she started the threaten the press because she has the job of implementing Leveson's recommendations, she had had it. Urging the newspapers to play down her wrongdoing or she might damage their businesses was a stupid error and shows her contempt and arrogance.
She set herself up as the villain of the peice and newspaper editors have rpunded on her with great delight. She brought this sotuation on herself and has only herself to blame when Cameron caves in to pressure and sacks her.
The career of a corrupt MP is ended, but at what cost? The media barrens will have removed a minister which re-asserts the power the temporarily lost over the hacking scandal.
Hi Farriercm. Yes, they have had a total pay rise of 1.3% (given in June 2013) under this government.
Increase date Basic salary
Jan 1996 £34,085
Apr 1997 £43,860
Apr 1998 £45,066
Apr 1999 £47,008
Apr 2000 £48,371
Apr 2001 £49,822
Jun 2001 £51,822
Apr 2002 £55,118
Apr 2003 £56,358
Apr 2004 £57,485
Apr 2005 £59,095
Apr 2006 £59,686
Nov 2006 £60,277
Apr 2007 £61,181
Nov 2007 £61,820
Apr 2009 £64,766
Apr 2010 £65,738
Apr 2013 £66,300
The next increase, set by IPSA, is scheduled for 2015. It's around 115 but it's coupled with reductions in pensions
Increase date Basic salary
Jan 1996 £34,085
Apr 1997 £43,860
Apr 1998 £45,066
Apr 1999 £47,008
Apr 2000 £48,371
Apr 2001 £49,822
Jun 2001 £51,822
Apr 2002 £55,118
Apr 2003 £56,358
Apr 2004 £57,485
Apr 2005 £59,095
Apr 2006 £59,686
Nov 2006 £60,277
Apr 2007 £61,181
Nov 2007 £61,820
Apr 2009 £64,766
Apr 2010 £65,738
Apr 2013 £66,300
The next increase, set by IPSA, is scheduled for 2015. It's around 115 but it's coupled with reductions in pensions
Latest from BBC site:
Culture Secretary Maria Miller has said she is "devastated" that she has let her constituents down, amid growing pressure on her to resign.
She hasn't let anybody down, she's upset at being caught with her hand in the cookie jar, has actively blocked and discouraged the subsequent investigation and her position is frankly untenable, I'm surprised she's lasted this long.
Culture Secretary Maria Miller has said she is "devastated" that she has let her constituents down, amid growing pressure on her to resign.
She hasn't let anybody down, she's upset at being caught with her hand in the cookie jar, has actively blocked and discouraged the subsequent investigation and her position is frankly untenable, I'm surprised she's lasted this long.
Well some people are calling for the committee to relinquish its role in sitting in judgement on reports from IPSA regarding the conduct of MPs; others are calling for a reform and allowing the lay members a vote. Personally, I think they need to remove any vestige of MPs sitting in judgement on themselves ; Leave it to the independent commissioner but give them a right to appeal. And one other ingredient is badly overdue - the right of recall, so that constituents who feel their MP has let them down badly or not represented them properly can remove a sitting MP.
And once again, the committee chair and the IPSA commissioner responsible for the investigation and the report made a joint statement explaining why the Committee for Standards elected to reduce the repayment amount; It was apparently based upon new- and late- information from Ms.Miller regarding the size of her mortgage repayments, which meant the amount to be repaid needed to be recalculated.
Not being privy to the details, I cannot comment beyond noting that she was doing what a lot of MPs were doing at that time - taking advantage of the expenses system to her own benefit, allegedly benefiting her own pocket and that of her parents, as well it would seem as making a sizeable profit (£1M plus) on the sale of a home in Feb 2014 whose mortgage was subsidised/underwritten by the taxpayer.
There is supposed to be an agreement in place that any capital gains from sales of houses by MPs should be taxed, and I think I have seen somewhere that HMRC are on the case, but speaking as a taxpayer I would quite like to see evidence of that.
What made this worse in my view were the allegations that Ms.Miller actively obstructed or refused to co-operate with the investigation; the inference of attempting to use undue influence on investigating reporters, and that 32 second "non-apology" she offered in the HoC.
From a politician and more importantly a serving cabinet minister to be so blind to the toxic legacy of the expenses scandal seems extraordinary to me. Perhaps she should resign on the basis of political blindness alone!
And once again, the committee chair and the IPSA commissioner responsible for the investigation and the report made a joint statement explaining why the Committee for Standards elected to reduce the repayment amount; It was apparently based upon new- and late- information from Ms.Miller regarding the size of her mortgage repayments, which meant the amount to be repaid needed to be recalculated.
Not being privy to the details, I cannot comment beyond noting that she was doing what a lot of MPs were doing at that time - taking advantage of the expenses system to her own benefit, allegedly benefiting her own pocket and that of her parents, as well it would seem as making a sizeable profit (£1M plus) on the sale of a home in Feb 2014 whose mortgage was subsidised/underwritten by the taxpayer.
There is supposed to be an agreement in place that any capital gains from sales of houses by MPs should be taxed, and I think I have seen somewhere that HMRC are on the case, but speaking as a taxpayer I would quite like to see evidence of that.
What made this worse in my view were the allegations that Ms.Miller actively obstructed or refused to co-operate with the investigation; the inference of attempting to use undue influence on investigating reporters, and that 32 second "non-apology" she offered in the HoC.
From a politician and more importantly a serving cabinet minister to be so blind to the toxic legacy of the expenses scandal seems extraordinary to me. Perhaps she should resign on the basis of political blindness alone!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.