Talk:United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

John Wick (whistleblower) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 July 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. defunct .British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

I have it that Hazel Blears stepping down was not related to the expenses scandal. The Wiki page for her placement of the cabinet ended On 3 June 2009 [sky news] makes no mention that she resigned over expenses. Surely it is misinformation to place her resignation in a light that suggests it was due to expenses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.146.63 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section Resignation of the Speaker, the first sentence read "The resignation of the Speaker, an almost unprecedented event, was due to a perception by many[108][109] that he had contributed to the scandal by poor leadership and judgement. This included lax handling of the fees office, and defence of the status quo of vested interests rather than recognition of the more significant issues,[110][111] and that he therefore lacked the requisite authority to repair the harm done by the controversy." This information appears to be referenced with articles that would support this "view" or perspective of the late Speaker's style of leadership-or lack there of. The referenced articles DO NOT support this opening sentence, and in fact, one of the referenced articles is from an opinion, from a specialised news publication (The Whig) from Ontario, Canada. The other 3 articles referenced from the NY Times, Reuters, and BBC News, all seemed to basically report that it was the way Martin responded to the leak to the publication of the expenses,for one, attempting to enlist the services of Scotland Yard to investigate where the leak came from. An obvious extreme messure. He also personally attacked those MPs who criticized him than responding to public anger. In addition, it is referenced that the opposition party MUST have confidence in the Speaker as Cameron was quoted “a very important constitutional principle that the Opposition supports the Speaker's office and the role of the Speaker". Apparently, the opposition lost all confidence, even by Prime Minister Brown's own admission. Brown also did say that Martin had done a good job as Speaker but many things happen in the heat of the moment. He was referring to HOW Martin reacted to the inquiry of his expense reports, and the media's publication of the questionable expense reports by various MPs. It is not our place to opine as to the events, which may or may not have led up to this catastrophic event of the expense scandal of the MPs. It is also no secret that the Conservative Party, and their leader has opposed many calls and decisions made by the late Speaker. Dislike and opposition by the MINORITY party in the House of Commons, is not indicative of Martin's LEADSHIP skills. In addition to the manner in which he responded to the investigation of the expense reports, for example: calling on Scotland Yard's services, and noting so , publically to the entire House of Commons, is not only extreme but shows a clear misunderstanding of system protocol, and well, the law. Martin also made a horribly gross error in allowing the police to enter Westminster and search an MP's office without obtaining a search warrant. Whether it was in the moment, and being caught off guard, or a lack of understanding of the law, Martin got it wrong, and committed a gross error by allowing police to enter the MP's office, without a search warrant. Again, these are key events or conditions which COULD HAVE marked the end of Martin's career but to conclude as much by deeming his performance as Speaker as a poor leader, is an opinion, and an opinion not referenced by any article. I have made changes to the opening paragraph on "The Resignation of the Speaker" to reflect the information conveyed in the 3 articles referenced, on a factual basis.

The group that unleashed this was WP:COI, as the shadow leadership attended. Was it a coincidental leak, when the govt. was unpopular.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a reminder we cannot use sources like The Sun or The Daily Mail for anything remotely controversial on living people. I've taken some sub-standard sources out, and removed some material pending its verifiability with more reliable sources. --John (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article at the moment mentions the fact that the Commons authorities in 2014 had destroyed all official records of MPs’ expenses from before 2010.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/03/mps-expenses-official-records-scandal-era-destroyed

I'll add it to the article if nobody objects. 92.24.17.80 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is too long, and it provides a poor introduction to the subject of the article. I couldn't even make heads or tails of the first sentence.

Analyzed alone, the first sentence has an F-K reading ease score of -6.5 (yes, that's negative 6.5), and an F-K grade level of 28.8. Way too high to provide an accessible introduction even if this is a complex topic.

Analyzed as a whole, the lead is 8 paragraphs and over 800 words. It has an F-K grade level of 15.9 and an ARI score of 17.1, indicating that at least some college education, possibly even graduate-level, is required to fully understand the material in the lead. This is just way too high. Admittedly, I'm an American, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the contextual knowledge of the UK Government that a citizen would have, but I still think the lead needs to be drastically improved. —Darkwind (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090621212800/http://www.parliament.uk:80/parliamentary_committees/mec/repayments.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/mec/repayments.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090717071157/http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/hocallowances/hocallowances06.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/hocallowances/hocallowances06.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716071924/http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2242233/hmrc-probe-mps-expenses to http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2242233/hmrc-probe-mps-expenses

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616181807/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=99&navcode=92# to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=99&navcode=92#

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Heather Brooke May 12.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following from Flipping because it was off-topic there. It overlaps the current content of this article somewhat, and may be useful here:

In the

Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament after a public scandal.^[2]