Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Ohelemapit

Tory MP's claim for electricity to his stable

22 posts in this topic

  • Nadhim Zahawi, 46, claimed money for electricity used to run a horse riding stables at his home in Upper Tyfoe, Warwickshire
  • Today MP for Stratford-Upon-Avon apologised, saying he made a 'mistake'
  • Follows calls for police and IPSA to investigate his £6,000-a-year claims
  • Last week it was revealed that 340 MPs claim for electricity bills in their second homes, including Labour leader Ed Miliband

arrow3.gifView: Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Nadhim Zahawi, 46, claimed money for electricity used to run a horse riding stables at his home in Upper Tyfoe, Warwickshire
  • Today MP for Stratford-Upon-Avon apologised, saying he made a 'mistake'
  • Follows calls for police and IPSA to investigate his £6,000-a-year claims
  • Last week it was revealed that 340 MPs claim for electricity bills in their second homes, including Labour leader Ed Miliband

arrow3.gifView: Read more

MPs should be paid a decent wage because its a full time career with a lot of expenses. If they live away from London then yes they should have their own stop off otherwise traveling up and down the country becomes impractical for them. I say up the wage from £66k to £100k a year. That would be a yearly wage bill of about £75 million for Parliment which is a drop in the ocean compared to our GDP. It will stop the majority of the so called 'corruption' from MPs struggling to cover their costs and live at the same time.

I think the problem is people dont see where the money goes. Train tickets, plane tickets, hotel rooms, taxis, rent or mortgage for two properties, utility bills, supervison for the kids when away, it all soon mounts up. If they cant claim for these things then they should get the £100k a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPs should be paid a decent wage because its a full time career with a lot of expenses. If they live away from London then yes they should have their own stop off otherwise traveling up and down the country becomes impractical for them. I say up the wage from £66k to £100k a year. That would be a yearly wage bill of about £75 million for Parliment which is a drop in the ocean compared to our GDP. It will stop the majority of the so called 'corruption' from MPs struggling to cover their costs and live at the same time.

I think the problem is people dont see where the money goes. Train tickets, plane tickets, hotel rooms, taxis, rent or mortgage for two properties, utility bills, supervison for the kids when away, it all soon mounts up. If they cant claim for these things then they should get the £100k a year.

so um how you going to raise wages? the expenses will increase because they buy expensive items or houses or cars etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so um how you going to raise wages? the expenses will increase because they buy expensive items or houses or cars etc

By giving them a better wage but stopping the expenses. Their wage should cover all their needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least this highlights why M.Ps are so laid back about energy companies putting up their prices every couple of months,

we're the mugs that pay their heating bills, so why the hell should they care?

p.s. Can somebody explain to me what OFGEM are for. ????

Because apparently they (& I quote) "Regulate the electricity and gas markets in Great Britain" but i've not seen them doing much 'regulating' lately.

Or could they possible be just another quango invented to line some more M.P.s pockets with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic slightly but......

If the british public really wanted to stop the profiteering by the energy companies they could, all it would take is a bit of solidarity.

If everybody & i mean everybody that was with a particular supplier (say British Gas) switched to another supplier, i guarantee that within a month British Gas would drop their prices lower than anyone else. Then if everybody with say EDF switched to British Gas then within a month or two EDF would undercut British Gas, then after that just the threat of everyone switching would be enough to make any supplier sweat.

The only trouble with this plan is that the people would not show such solidarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for the government (US not UK) and whenever I have to travel for work my travel, lodging and meals is paid for, but I have to file a travel expense report, and account for every penny (well... anything over $25)...

Also prices are limited to the fair market value of expenses in the area I am traveling to...

I don't see why politicians can't be required to do the same thing... That way, it limits the excesses (and/or fraud if any), controls the costs by setting limits based on fair market value, and cuts back on some of the

special treatment pols get...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for the government (US not UK) and whenever I have to travel for work my travel, lodging and meals is paid for, but I have to file a travel expense report, and account for every penny (well... anything over $25)...

Also prices are limited to the fair market value of expenses in the area I am traveling to...

I don't see why politicians can't be required to do the same thing... That way, it limits the excesses (and/or fraud if any), controls the costs by setting limits based on fair market value, and cuts back on some of the

special treatment pols get...

Because they make the rules. simples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for the government (US not UK) and whenever I have to travel for work my travel, lodging and meals is paid for, but I have to file a travel expense report, and account for every penny (well... anything over $25)...

Also prices are limited to the fair market value of expenses in the area I am traveling to...

I don't see why politicians can't be required to do the same thing... That way, it limits the excesses (and/or fraud if any), controls the costs by setting limits based on fair market value, and cuts back on some of the

special treatment pols get...

We have a hate the politicians culture in my country which poor people, unemployed people and anybody who doesnt feel represented buys into. A lot of my people like to believe all their politicians are greedy and corrupt. When newpaper stories appear, not convictions based on evidence, the people love to have a whinge at what appears to be reinforcement of their beliefs about politicians.

Yet they can count how many politicians have been convicted for corruption over the last decade on one hand.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't that politicians are all corrupt, it's that the corrupt ones get away with it time and time again. Tell me ONE job us plebians have where we can be caught stealing out of the till or misappropriating company funds and still remain employed. Why is it robbing someone at knife point for $200 bucks lands you in jail, but taking thousands out of the public treasury only gets you a little bad press? The Rule of Law is only that if it applies to everyone.

I don't know what the British Labor Party is like, but I know the Australian one is an absolute haven for crooks.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a hate the politicians culture in my country which poor people, unemployed people and anybody who doesnt feel represented buys into. A lot of my people like to believe all their politicians are greedy and corrupt. When newpaper stories appear, not convictions based on evidence, the people love to have a whinge at what appears to be reinforcement of their beliefs about politicians.

Yet they can count how many politicians have been convicted for corruption over the last decade on one hand.

http://en.wikipedia....icted_of_crimes

And a hundred others that haven't been convicted because when found out they said 'my accountant made a mistake'

Edited by itsnotoutthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't that politicians are all corrupt, it's that the corrupt ones get away with it time and time again. Tell me ONE job us plebians have where we can be caught stealing out of the till or misappropriating company funds and still remain employed. Why is it robbing someone at knife point for $200 bucks lands you in jail, but taking thousands out of the public treasury only gets you a little bad press? The Rule of Law is only that if it applies to everyone.

I don't know what the British Labor Party is like, but I know the Australian one is an absolute haven for crooks.

Yep, same here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why many UK politicians are desperate to control what the Press reports!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a hate the politicians culture in my country which poor people, unemployed people and anybody who doesnt feel represented buys into. A lot of my people like to believe all their politicians are greedy and corrupt. When newpaper stories appear, not convictions based on evidence, the people love to have a whinge at what appears to be reinforcement of their beliefs about politicians.

Yet they can count how many politicians have been convicted for corruption over the last decade on one hand.

Todays news :-

The Conservative MP Nadine Dorries has apologised to the Commons after an investigation found she breached the rules of the House by failing to declare her earnings from ITV's 'I'm a Celebrity Get me Out of Here' and other media work.

Ms Dorries told MPs that her mistake was a "genuinely inadvertent breach of the rules".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....icted_of_crimes

And a hundred others that haven't been convicted because when found out they said 'my accountant made a mistake'

First of all do you release that's a list of 44 politicians going back decades not 100's? Second of all didn't you notice it says all crimes not those specifically related to financial corruption?

In every Parliament there's 700-800 MP's and some extra on top from bi-elections. Even if we say all those 44 were convicted in the last decade (they weren't by the way) that would still be a conviction rate of 0.2% - 0.4%. Those kind of figures don't signal a corruption problem. For those pointing out cases where the accountant got it wrong that isn't corruption either.

I think the problem is people making assumptions from media sensationalism. A corrupt politician appears and the next thing you know they must all be corrupt. Maybe its also people secretly finding joy in hating and being negative about others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all do you release that's a list of 44 politicians going back decades not 100's? Second of all didn't you notice it says all crimes not those specifically related to financial corruption?

In every Parliament there's 700-800 MP's and some extra on top from bi-elections. Even if we say all those 44 were convicted in the last decade (they weren't by the way) that would still be a conviction rate of 0.2% - 0.4%. Those kind of figures don't signal a corruption problem. For those pointing out cases where the accountant got it wrong that isn't corruption either.

I think the problem is people making assumptions from media sensationalism. A corrupt politician appears and the next thing you know they must all be corrupt. Maybe its also people secretly finding joy in hating and being negative about others.

You're William Hague & I claim my 5 pounds.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another example which no doubt you'll find perfectly reasonable :-

While M.Ps were blocking any attempt to protect workers wages, they were wining and dining themselves, and their cronies, in that Old Boys Club, Westminster, to the tune of £7 million. That's right, during the year 2011/12, while they chatted away their hours in the bars and restaurants, we the tax payers picked up the tab to the tune of £7 million to help satiate their limitless appetite for fine dining. What's their salary for?

The Commons wine cellar was filled with 44,000 bottles for MPs and their staff to enjoy in the Palace of Westminster’s unlicensed bars and restaurants.

It includes £28,000 on 1,838 bottles of champagne and £11,100 on 1,470 bottles of sparkling wine.

The wine was bought by the House of Commons catering and retail service, which has received a state subsidy of £11.5m over the past two years.

It amounts to a top-up of 42 per cent - meaning the taxpayer contribution to the wine bill was the equivalent of £115,000, or £176 per MP

link :- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9014098/MPs-275000-wine-and-champagne-bill.html

Edited by itsnotoutthere
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all do you release that's a list of 44 politicians going back decades not 100's? Second of all didn't you notice it says all crimes not those specifically related to financial corruption?

In every Parliament there's 700-800 MP's and some extra on top from bi-elections. Even if we say all those 44 were convicted in the last decade (they weren't by the way) that would still be a conviction rate of 0.2% - 0.4%. Those kind of figures don't signal a corruption problem. For those pointing out cases where the accountant got it wrong that isn't corruption either.

I think the problem is people making assumptions from media sensationalism. A corrupt politician appears and the next thing you know they must all be corrupt. Maybe its also people secretly finding joy in hating and being negative about others.

Nothing to do with hate. It is our job as the electorate in our respective countries to be as hard on our elected officials as we can. A lot of the things they do wouldn't be classed as illegal because they're the ones who make the law. Why should the people be made to pay for the electricity in the second homes of MPs? Just because they got together and decided we should? Especially when people are struggling to pay their own electricity bills in homes they don't even own.

An MP is not a king, or a duke, or a lord, they are civil servants and should be treated and viewed as such.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wants to live in a stable amongst all the horse S***, who are we to query this.Maybe he rents out his house to his 1000 relatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with hate. It is our job as the electorate in our respective countries to be as hard on our elected officials as we can. A lot of the things they do wouldn't be classed as illegal because they're the ones who make the law. Why should the people be made to pay for the electricity in the second homes of MPs? Just because they got together and decided we should? Especially when people are struggling to pay their own electricity bills in homes they don't even own.

An MP is not a king, or a duke, or a lord, they are civil servants and should be treated and viewed as such.

And likewise, why should we fund their drinking habits, their lunches, their travel expenses & everything else they would like us to pay for.

In private companies expenses are remunerations for costs incurred during working hours, not the cost incurred in running a houshold, that is what your wages are supposed to pay for, or rather what our wages are for. it seems an MPs wage is just a bonus on top of everything else they get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with hate. It is our job as the electorate in our respective countries to be as hard on our elected officials as we can. A lot of the things they do wouldn't be classed as illegal because they're the ones who make the law. Why should the people be made to pay for the electricity in the second homes of MPs? Just because they got together and decided we should? Especially when people are struggling to pay their own electricity bills in homes they don't even own.

An MP is not a king, or a duke, or a lord, they are civil servants and should be treated and viewed as such.

You have no evidence to back up - 'a lot of the things that they do wouldn't be classed as illegal as they're the ones who make the law'

In the UK we both know that laws have to go through the House of Lords where Judges sitting as Lords (and others) rule on proposed laws and request changes before they can get signed off by the Queen. Maybe you think everybody including her majesty is in on this elaborate corruption scheme? Its funny because if they were you'd have thought they'd have made themselves all billionaires not milked off just a few tens of thousand each like you seem to think that they do.

Second homes in London are granted to MP's with expenses because its difficult for them to travel up to 400 miles to get home after a Parliament session. Do you think its acceptable that if a MP gets out a midnight they should have to travel? You do realise putting them up in hotels would be more expensive?

It is about hate. You hate them because you're struggling or see people struggling with their electricity bills when politicians get their utilities on second properties paid for. You're probably disillusioned with politics which makes you open to wild claims of corruption instead of seeing the very real need for MP allowances.

Edited by SilentHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPs’ expenses surpass pre-scandal levels as 150 give jobs to family

The total bill for MPs’ expenses, including staffing costs, rose to £98.1  million in 2012, compared with £95.4 million in 2009, when the expenses scandal was exposed by The Telegraph.

Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP, employed both her daughters during the course of the last financial year, with the recent graduates each receiving salaries of between £30,000 and £45,000

The figures will add to concern that wide-reaching reforms of the system have not managed to curtail costs.

Two Conservative MPs, Christopher Chope and Peter Bone, paid their wives the highest amount – between £45,000 and £49,999 a year.

A further eight MPs, including Ms Dorries, paid family members between £40,000 and £44,999.

Stephen Hammond, the transport minister, paid his wife up to £45,000, while Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, and Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, paid their wives between £35,000 and £39,999.

Andrew Miller, the Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, employed both his wife, Fran, and his cousin, Julie Spencer. Meg Munn, the Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, employed her husband and her sister-in-law.

Laurence Robertson, the Conservative MP for Tewkesbury, employed both his estranged wife, Susan Robertson, and his current partner, Anne Marie Adams. Mrs Robertson is his senior secretary and is paid between £25,000 and £29,999, while Ms Adams received between £40,000 and £44,999 last year.

link:- http://www.telegraph...-to-family.html

So not only are you paying for MPs wages, pensions, food, heating, second mortgages, travel etc. you are also paying for their wives, sons, daughters & lovers too. Cushy little number if you can join the club.

Edited by itsnotoutthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.