6 thoughts on “Standards watchdog orders MPs to repay ‘profits’ on second homes – why isn’t Osborne on the list?

  1. guy fawkes

    Have those that have had to pay back profits made from expenses been discriminated against, I don’t think so. George Osborne has been undiscriminated against if there is such a word for the years before he stopped claiming – all claims against these money grabbing mp’s/ministers should be backdated to infinity.

  2. guy fawkes

    MIke

    These top civil servants will not bring those in prominent positions to boot. The civil service and ombudsmen are absolutely useless and why I call for their reduction or competent replacements not quango’s – real accountability.

  3. sparaszczukster

    “While he keeps the money, those MPs who have paid back huge amounts – including prominent cabinet members like Kenneth Clarke and Philip Hammond – have a right to feel that the system has discriminated against them.
    I bet they don’t do anything about it.”

    Well, Mike, in an attempt to prod them into action I sent them both the following email.

    Right Honourable Gentlemen,

    I learned today that you have recently had to pay back expenses claimed against mortgage interest payments along with around 70 other MPs, In all it seems around £390,000 has been recovered. I wonder if you’re aware that your colleague, Mr George Osborne, has by some miracle escaped such sanction?

    Between 2003 and 2009 Mr Osborne claimed up to £100,000 for mortgage interest on his Tatton farmhouse, a neighbouring paddock and other land in his constituency, as allowable expenses. The paddock and other land went unmentioned in his claim and were registered separately from the farmhouse on the Land Registry. His mortgage was interest-only and a re-mortgage arrangement in 2005 allowed him to raise the value of his property considerably, eventually selling these assets in 2011, reputedly for a cool million.

    In 2010 the Standards Commissioner ordered him to pay back just under £2,000. A paltry sum when set against the profit he’s made from the tax payer…and especially when one considers that some MPs have had to pay much more back (David Jones for instance stumped up £81,446 despite claiming only £18,061). because the value of their property had risen

    This state of affairs seems patently unfair.

    So, given that the Chancellor is so fervent in his mission to cut the deficit and recover avoided tax I would urge you both, with equal fervour, to encourage him to cough up his fair share of misappropriated government money.

    sincerely… and in (vain?) hope of a right, honourable Chancellor,

    Sue Paraszczuk

Comments are closed.