Baroness Warsi - The benefit scrounger

[Undesired Walrus]

More than likely a Conservative leak, given their hatred for her.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18223324

Lady Warsi claimed accommodation expenses from the taxpayer while she was staying with a friend, at a house he rented in Acton, west London.

But according to reports in the Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph, the owner of the property denies that he received any income from her.

It is reported that Lady Warsi was claiming £165.50 a night subsistence allowance.

What is it going to take for Cameron get rid of this woman? Not one person in the country is a fan of her.

 

[JihadJane]

Cameron to his court: "Will none of the knaves eating my bread rid me of this turbid co-chair?"

 

[wollery]

Slight misrepresentation there, she paid the officially registered tenant, who we must assume has a legally binding rental agreement with the landlord. The landlord was apparently aware that she was staying at the property and didn't raise the question of her paying rent at the time.

Payment of rent is an issue between the registered tenant and the landlord, and if the tenant wants to let a friend stay for a while that's up to him , unless the terms of the lease prohibit it. If it's short term, temporary and occasional (as appears to be the case) then Council Tax doesn't enter the equation, and utility bills are all the responsibility of the tenant. In other words, Baroness Warsi did exactly the right thing, paying the registered tenant to cover his extra expenses, such as utility bills.

So, what did she do wrong exactly?

 

[mediocrity511]

Slight misrepresentation there, she paid the officially registered tenant, who we must assume has a legally binding rental agreement with the landlord. The landlord was apparently aware that she was staying at the property and didn't raise the question of her paying rent at the time.

Payment of rent is an issue between the registered tenant and the landlord, and if the tenant wants to let a friend stay for a while that's up to him , unless the terms of the lease prohibit it. If it's short term, temporary and occasional (as appears to be the case) then Council Tax doesn't enter the equation, and utility bills are all the responsibility of the tenant. In other words, Baroness Warsi did exactly the right thing, paying the registered tenant to cover his extra expenses, such as utility bills.

So, what did she do wrong exactly?

It costs £165.50 for someone to put a friend up overnight?

 

[wollery]

It costs £165.50 for someone to put a friend up overnight?

Read the article, she was allowed to claim up to the same amount as she was paying for a hotel. I didn't make the rules, neither did she, she just worked them.

I'm not saying that I approve of what she did, but she was perfectly within her rights under the rules as they stood at the time to claim that money. MPs' expenses have long been a source of anger for the British public, and rightly so, they get far too many perks. There have also been many MPs who have cheated, claiming for things they didn't get or use, claiming more than they were entitled to or not declaring income or outside interests. That isn't the case here - she claimed what she was entitled to claim, no more, no less.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Read the article, she was allowed to claim up to the same amount as she was paying for a hotel. I didn't make the rules, neither did she, she just worked them.

I'm not saying that I approve of what she did, but she was perfectly within her rights under the rules as they stood at the time to claim that money. MPs' expenses have long been a source of anger for the British public, and rightly so, they get far too many perks. There have also been many MPs who have cheated, claiming for things they didn't get or use, claiming more than they were entitled to or not declaring income or outside interests. That isn't the case here - she claimed what she was entitled to claim, no more, no less.

Wollery you are technically right, of course, but the "Only obeying the rules" defence has distinct similarities to "Only obeying orders." Because you are allowed to claim something does not require that you do so.
Legitimate out-of-pocket expenses vary from job to job, as we all know, but when someone works the system to excess*, especially with taxpayers' money, it's bound to generate ill feeling.

*I don't know if that was the case here.

 

[mediocrity511]

Read the article, she was allowed to claim up to the same amount as she was paying for a hotel. I didn't make the rules, neither did she, she just worked them.

I'm not saying that I approve of what she did, but she was perfectly within her rights under the rules as they stood at the time to claim that money. MPs' expenses have long been a source of anger for the British public, and rightly so, they get far too many perks. There have also been many MPs who have cheated, claiming for things they didn't get or use, claiming more than they were entitled to or not declaring income or outside interests. That isn't the case here - she claimed what she was entitled to claim, no more, no less.

However, when the Tories are demonising benefit claimants, in many cases just for claiming what they are entitled to, then it is gross hypocrisy for Warsi to behave as she did. What would she say about someone claiming housing benefit to stay in a friend's spare room I wonder...

 

[wollery]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending her. I think she shouldn't have been allowed to claim the money in the first place, and as a supposedly decent honest person she shouldn't have claimed it despite being able to. I'm just pointing out that she hasn't broken any rule in claiming it, and that's the implication, particularly the quote from one MP demanding an inquiry and saying it was all "a bit shady". It wasn't shady. Immoral maybe, but not shady.

 

[mediocrity511]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending her. I think she shouldn't have been allowed to claim the money in the first place, and as a supposedly decent honest person she shouldn't have claimed it despite being able to. I'm just pointing out that she hasn't broken any rule in claiming it, and that's the implication, particularly the quote from one MP demanding an inquiry and saying it was all "a bit shady". It wasn't shady. Immoral maybe, but not shady.

Not declaring it is shady though.

Anyhow this is all about the Tories eating their own again and dragging dirt to the surface to smear those party members they dislike, as opposed to any real commentary on expenses reform. Still this government haven't been in power so long and already people are talking about the same old Tory sleaze again.

 

[jhunter1163]

For that money, rooms are going to come available in my house.

 

[Mycroft]

This all seems pretty minor to me. As far as I can tell she played by the rules. If you don't like it then change the rules, but don't blame her.

 

[Craig B]

This all seems pretty minor to me. As far as I can tell she played by the rules. If you don't like it then change the rules, but don't blame her.

Just as Tory politicians don't blame lazy, feckless social security claimants who "work" the rules in order to live in indolence at the expense of the long-suffering UK taxpayer.

 

[The Don]

So what she did wasn't illegal but it is a little cheeky to claim expenses for staying in someone's house and then not giving them the money. If the expenses claimed exceeded the expenses incurred, I hope that she paid tax on the difference.

 

[wollery]

Not declaring it is shady though.

She did declare it. She claimed for the hotels, handing in receipts, and also claimed for the nights she stayed at the friend's, stating that that's what she did and claiming the allowance, exactly as she was entitled to do under the rules.
Cheeky? Maybe.
Shady? Not even close.

Anyhow this is all about the Tories eating their own again and dragging dirt to the surface to smear those party members they dislike, as opposed to any real commentary on expenses reform. Still this government haven't been in power so long and already people are talking about the same old Tory sleaze again.

This is hardly the same old sleaze. Jonathan Aitken and Lord Archer, now that was sleaze.

Not only is this not the same ballpark, it isn't even the same continent!

 

[JihadJane]

So what she did wasn't illegal but it is a little cheeky to claim expenses for staying in someone's house and then not giving them the money. If the expenses claimed exceeded the expenses incurred, I hope that she paid tax on the difference.

It hasn't yet been established that what she did wasn't illegal, as the details are yet to emerge.

***MPs compared the disclosures with the case of Lord Hanningfield, the Conservative peer who was jailed last year for claiming overnight expenses to stay in London when he was not in the capital.

Bob Russell, the Liberal Democrat MP for Colchester, said there was a case for investigating whether there had been “claiming for costs not incurred”.

“There are similarities [to the Lord Hanningfield case],” he said. “I think there’s a prima facie case for this to be looked at by the police.”***

Source: Telegraph Towers

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Just as Tory politicians don't blame lazy, feckless social security claimants who "work" the rules in order to live in indolence at the expense of the long-suffering UK taxpayer.

Not to mention the complete lack of evidence that many such people actually exist at all.

On balance I'd like to see Warsi gone, but must say it's always a bit sad when one of the very few high profile female politicians bites the dust.

 

[Mycroft]

Just as Tory politicians don't blame lazy, feckless social security claimants who "work" the rules in order to live in indolence at the expense of the long-suffering UK taxpayer.

So...you think two wrongs do make a right?

I don't know anything about UK politics, but if there is a fear that lazy, feckless social security claimants are working the rules, then it's legitimate to look at the rules for loopholes that could be closed. Either way you don't blame the person for playing by the rules, the politicians job is to look at the rules and determine if they're good rules and to try to make improvements if they are not.

 

[Soapy Sam]

She did declare it. She claimed for the hotels, handing in receipts, and also claimed for the nights she stayed at the friend's, stating that that's what she did and claiming the allowance, exactly as she was entitled to do under the rules.
Cheeky? Maybe.
Shady? Not even close.

This is hardly the same old sleaze. Jonathan Aitken and Lord Archer, now that was sleaze.

Not only is this not the same ballpark, it isn't even the same continent!

Things are getting pretty bad when Tory sleaze isn't what it used to be.
When I were a lad, we had REAL sleaze!

 

[jiggeryqua]

At that level of social class, is there not an assumption that if you spend the night at a friend's then you take them out for dinner, somewhere within or beyond a price range suggested by the generous allowance?

That people should live like that ought to be a crime, when children go hungry, but it isn't, so she's only distasteful as opposed to guilty.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Not to mention the complete lack of evidence that many such people actually exist at all.

Quite. That doesn't stop them though, much like people attempting to demonise every group. There's very little benefit fraud in this country, but if you read (some of) the papers you would think everyone on benefits was driving around in a bently and watching sky on their 60" plasma TV.

On balance I'd like to see Warsi gone, but must say it's always a bit sad when one of the very few high profile female politicians bites the dust.

I'd agree, except that it's Warsi and I have no sympathy for her in any way shape or form. The woman is an absolute joke.