THREAD

So, I've spent the afternoon researching the story that MPs are to receive £10,000 in expenses, and Jeremy Corbyn's "donation" to the NHS.

So what's the story?

There is one, but it's not the one you were told.

Let's go. https://twitter.com/Socialist_Chris/status/1249029082031042568

Over the past couple of days we've seen it reported about MPs getting an extra £10k expenses. And in particular, that Corbyn donated that £10k to the NHS.

There's some truth in the first part. None in the second. And a whole story inbetween. So what happened?

Let me explain.

MPs currently earn £81,932 a year, increased by 3% at the start of this month from last year.

Anyone who chairs a Select Committee receives an extra £16,422 on top of that.

Office costs are either £28,270 in London or £25,430 outside of it.

I could go into even more detail. But I'll focus on the figures we have.

Now, the 10K payment wasn't a payment. It is a grant that MPs can use to supplement their current office budget.

So basically, their office budget has now been increased to £38k or £35k respectively.

It is also important to note that MPs must declare office expenses, and these are released to the public every two months, three months in arrears.

Now, based on all that, some people might surmise that there's almost nothing to talk about.

Not so.

Now, I looked into the office costs of Corbyn and McDonnell. Without going into the minutiae of their claims, you're talking between 15-20k a year.

Based on that, you could argue a potential need for a greater budget.

But that, in my opinion, isn't where the problem lies.

The real story lies, as ever, in the detail.

How many of you were aware that IPSA are going to pay claims without evidence?

I don't know about you. But after the 2009 expenses scandal, I can't help but raise my eyebrow at this particular change.

It's one thing if every purchase is accompanied by evidence.

But when you take that qualifying standard away, you're into very dangerous territory.

This should have been the story in my opinion. But it wasn't.

And that brings me neatly onto how we got here, and how the press reacted.

It was reported by some on Friday that MPs had been "handed" £10,000. Language is important.

Instead of doing their jobs, much of the press framed this story in such a way to incite reaction.

Many reacted with fury. Understandably so! And don't get me wrong - there's STILL a question whether they need that grant, never mind accountability.

But frankly, much of the media misreported this. Intentionally? You be the judge. Remember - they're struggling after all.

Right now is the time to be particularly studious of our media.

Due to the conditions, we're more than likely going to see a lot of attention grabbing headlines as some publications creep closer to the edge.

We must keep alert, lest we're led in the wrong direction.

So, summing up that part, I would say that the 10K grant HAS to be looked at with suspicion due to the relaxation of the rules.

And I haven't even mentioned the perceived insensitivity of such a grant when so many front-line workers are left exposed and fighting against poverty.

But I want to move onto Corbyn, and what happened in regard to the rumour that he had donated £10,000 to the NHS.

For anyone who doesn't know, Jeremy confirmed this morning through Ben Sellers that he had not done this.

Here's the tweet. https://twitter.com/MrBenSellers/status/1248934948951785472

Now, it's hard to know who had the original thought to put those rumours out. I'm not going to point fingers. It could have been anyone, for a number of reasons.

Fake news serves no purpose for us. We're about truth, and socialism.

Fact is, it's a grant. Jeremy can't donate it.

Here's another fact.

I don't expect Jeremy to claim for a single thing that he doesn't need.

He has a demonstrable record there. We all know it.

I WOULD like to see him question the relaxation of rules around declarations, personally. Or any Labour MP.

So, to finish.

There is a wider debate to be had regarding MPs wages.

In the course of my research, I realised that they've gone up 20% since 2012. These are linked to public sector pay rises. Should they be?

As I say, a debate to be had.

The main takeaway for me is this.

Headlines can be misleading. In this case, they have been. But that's not to say there isn't a very important issue at play here - namely, the potential lack of oversight in regard to declarations made by MPs.

How are we going to know if a receipt has been provided?

They tell you a lot on IPSA's website, but not that from what I can see.

We're being asked to put a lot of trust in an independent body that is essentially used by MPs to palm off questions regarding expenses.