Is It A 'Flipping' Fraud?

One of the most frustrating aspects of the whole MP Expenses Scandal is knowing that no one will be brought to book for obvious abuses of taxpayers' money. Under the rules of the now infamous Green Book, the bible of rules which frankly are pretty explicit in their wordings yet still allow latitude for those with less morals less than the normally morally inept MPs, does not stipulate punishments for abuse.

It is such an alien concept for us - no company would allow such abuses of the system and, more importantly, the HMRC would not either. You would be in very hot water if you chose to take the HMRC on, as you would if you were a Benefits fraudster, so why are these goons above the law?

The Scams

We are rightly outraged by the petty-mindedness of claims for tampons, sink plugs and horse manure, but they are cheap. Some of the bigger things are arguably allowable too. Barbara Follett is an interesting case. Her £25,000 spent on private security outside her home was justified because she was scared after being mugged. However, as no one knows who she is beyond her being her rich novelist husband's wife, she was not mugged because she was an MP - and given they are so rich, surely this was her choice not to use the police?

Anyway, the real scams which, in my view, are beyond the the lines drawn by the law, are 'Flipping' and London second homes for those who live close by.

Flipping

The basic idea of the second allowance is that you have a home in London or near enough to commute, so that you can work each day while your main, family home is wherever you live, usually within your constituency. Tony Blair was a famous example of a 'nomad' MP who had a home in London but a constituency in Sedgefield, and he 'flipped' his second home to be Sedgefield. That seems fair, given he was PM, but not really as 10 Downing Street is clearly a 'grace and favour' home, so he should not have a second home at all. It's a moot point.

The real crime of flipping is when an MP deliberately exploits the expense system by temporarily changing the address of their designated second home. By doing so they can 'legitimately' fully kit it out, use up all their allowance and then flip it back. In theory, in any given year, they can flip as many times as they like. A serial 'flipper' is Hazel Blears, allegedly, who used 3 different addresses in a single year. Margaret Moran (who?) designated her second home to be a coastal cottage (there is no coast in London unless I missed something) and had it treated for dry rot.

Keith Vaz, that perennial abuser of power, has a perfectly good family home in Stanmore but another property in London, even though Stanmore is an easy commute, and a home in his Leicester constituency. He used 'flipping' to maximise his allowances.

It's a disgusting practice but it was widespread and because the rules are not scrutinised by HMRC then they are independent of the tax system allowing MPs to profit from lack of Capitals Gains Tax on selling a designated second home by calling it their main residence to the tax man.

Again, this all appears to be within the rules but I can assure you that it does not say anywhere that you can systematically drain the expense system for massive personal gain. This is as bad as 'Tax Avoidance' or VAT carousels. It is the abuse of taxpayers' money.

London Homes

Having second homes while having a main residence already in London is both absurd and abhorrent. It should also be illegal. The cost and ease of commuting is there for all to see - even if it is taxis in the early hours because of late sittings. This is sheer abuse of the system and surely not in the spirit of the Green Book. Tony McNulty is under investigation by the police now, and this is right. His second home in London was not even his own. Jaqui Smith claimed her Main Home was her sister's house in London so that she could kit out her Second Home in Birmingham and pay for porn films for her husband.

Walking Tall

The two above scams are amongst the worst and most costly to us and the ones I believe ought to be subject to a police enquiry in every case. They are beyond the rules and it disgusts us all.

But what kind of people do these things? They are certainly not people who represent our best interests, who decision make, law make and send us to war. You would not ask con men to do those things yet that's what we have done. The whole system of democracy has suffered a massive blow, public confidence is lost and still these people walk tall. They see the crime as being the Telegraph paying for leaked information - they see the crime as 'defamation' of their characters because just one of the claims may be wrongly communicated.

They are trying to portray themselves as the victims while others hide behind the rule book. Some even justify what they have done by saying they think the rules should be changed - those are the worst offenders as they 'knowingly' abused the system when they knew the system was morally wrong. Gordon Brown is included in that category - not just because of his own abuse but he allowed himself to be surrounded by people he knew were effectively fraudsters.

It makes Parliament look like some sort of pathetic version of the mafia. They do get people killed and not dirty their own hands but the they rob and cheat and then prey to the Green Book for forgiveness.

Every last cheating one should have the moral fortitude to resign at minimum, pay back what they stole and get a taste of the real world and the law. As for the Green Book - burn it and get someone with an ounce of decency to write it and have it administered by HMRC.

The need for Expenses Reform is obvious - now let's get members of the public to write the new Green Book rather than non-executive director stooges like Lord Turner or similar who have their snouts too far in too many troughs. Get real people to do it and I would gladly help.

What it has shown is that if MPs haven't get their heads deep in the troughs then they are too too far up their own backsides to ever know how to govern us properly or see what is really going on. It's time we had a true democracy in this country.

What Is Dignity?

You have to laugh. Max Mosley has some front. Having organised an orgy in which his dignity was put at risk and possibly lost, he now claims that publishing the story about the orgy is the thing that lost him his dignity.

You have to really think about this and put yourself into the man's mind. He can look into the faces of all the people he loves, works with and represents with full dignity despite knowing he indulges in such activities, yet has lost his dignity now that they know.

I would argue, if there was ever a risk of any of them knowing then you should not have been having such orgies - if you were ever bothered about them knowing.

People in high places and in the media are a funny lot. They love the power and the fame but hate it when there are 'invasions of their privacy'. I do think that certain things should be private but when such a powerful, highly paid man represents the sport loved by millions then, like Politicians who represent us, they should be of good moral character - enough to know that whatever skeletons they hide in their cupboards are not going to make us think less of them.

Contradictions

Mosley was not at all ashamed to attend the orgies and get to do his 'thing' - that was never an issue. But he has a problem knowing 'that they know'. It's absurd and the legal system, having already supported him once, should not be allowed to support this load of codswallop again.

You play with fire, you get burnt, it's that simple. Just like stealing a car, you may not want to get caught but you should accept the consequences if you do.

But wealth goes a long way. It can buy you a new conscience that is suddenly very hurt that the world can share your dirty little secret whereas for the rest of us in this world it is something we have to be prepared to risk should we want to indulge. That he should have such a screen up to his own family is the mark of the man. Just like having an affair, after all this is not dissimilar, you risk your partner, family and friends finding out and associated shame.

But Mosley feels he should not be subjected to such shame - how bizarre.

In such circumstances, it is pretty important to have weighed up the risks beforehand. Are you prepared to let anyone know should, by some happenstance, they find out? Could you live with that shame and loss of dignity?

If you can't, you should not have done it. It could have been the postman finding out or a spouse, it just happened to be a newspaper. Mosley is just an idiot for believing his secret was impregnable - he should pay the price, like anyone else, for his own lack of judgement, arrogance and lack of morals.