Flipping (United Kingdom) - Revision history

Editor2018 at 14:20, 29 June 2020

2020-06-29T14:20:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:20, 29 June 2020
Line 41:		Line 41:
	In spite of the complex systemic origin of flipping, the British media has overwhelmingly portrayed the practice as unethical and even immoral, with little attention given to the institutional mechanisms that have allowed MPs to take advantage of the system. Although the practice is technically legal and within Parliamentary rules, it is commonly presented as a form of corruption. The issue of flipping has further been problematised in the context of a perceived decline in the integrity of British politics (see also entry on ''[[Cash-for-access]]'' in this volume). In 2015 public trust in politicians stood at just 22 per cent and at the height of the expenses scandal it reached an all-time low of 13 per cent (IPSOS Mori 2015a)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015a. ‘Politicians Trusted Less than Estate Agents, Bankers and Journalists’, 5 January, https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3504/Politicians-trusted-less-than-estate-agents-bankers-and-journalists.aspx</ref>.		In spite of the complex systemic origin of flipping, the British media has overwhelmingly portrayed the practice as unethical and even immoral, with little attention given to the institutional mechanisms that have allowed MPs to take advantage of the system. Although the practice is technically legal and within Parliamentary rules, it is commonly presented as a form of corruption. The issue of flipping has further been problematised in the context of a perceived decline in the integrity of British politics (see also entry on ''[[Cash-for-access]]'' in this volume). In 2015 public trust in politicians stood at just 22 per cent and at the height of the expenses scandal it reached an all-time low of 13 per cent (IPSOS Mori 2015a)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015a. ‘Politicians Trusted Less than Estate Agents, Bankers and Journalists’, 5 January, https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3504/Politicians-trusted-less-than-estate-agents-bankers-and-journalists.aspx</ref>.

	Few solutions to eliminate the practice of flipping have been presented, despite an extensive review of the Parliamentary expenses system being promised. To reduce the occurrence of flipping, one solution may lie in recognising the [[resources]] needed by MPs to serve in a modern democracy, as well as the salaries typically available to such individuals in other professions. By failing to significantly provide these resources on a personal level through a competitive salary and attempting to supplement pay through a poorly regulated expenses scheme, flipping became a parliamentary norm (Kelso 2009: 335)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>. As a consequence, a review has recommended that the salaries of MPs increase whilst the existing expenses system is much more tightly regulated (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 2015)<ref>Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. 2015. ‘MPs' pay in the 2015 Parliament. Final report’. http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Pages/default.aspx.</ref>. However, increasing MPs’ salaries is also unpopular with the public. In 2015, 72 per cent of people thought that MPs should refuse the 10 per cent pay increase that had been recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSOS Mori 2015b)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015b. 'Most believe MPs should refuse 10% pay rise recommended by IPSA', 22 June, https://www.ipsosmori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3590/Most-believe-MPs-should-refuse-10-pay-rise-recommended-by-IPSA.aspx</ref>.		Few solutions to eliminate the practice of flipping have been presented, despite an extensive review of the Parliamentary expenses system being promised. To reduce the occurrence of flipping, one solution may lie in recognising the resources needed by MPs to serve in a modern democracy, as well as the salaries typically available to such individuals in other professions. By failing to significantly provide these resources on a personal level through a competitive salary and attempting to supplement pay through a poorly regulated expenses scheme, flipping became a parliamentary norm (Kelso 2009: 335)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>. As a consequence, a review has recommended that the salaries of MPs increase whilst the existing expenses system is much more tightly regulated (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 2015)<ref>Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. 2015. ‘MPs' pay in the 2015 Parliament. Final report’. http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Pages/default.aspx.</ref>. However, increasing MPs’ salaries is also unpopular with the public. In 2015, 72 per cent of people thought that MPs should refuse the 10 per cent pay increase that had been recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSOS Mori 2015b)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015b. 'Most believe MPs should refuse 10% pay rise recommended by IPSA', 22 June, https://www.ipsosmori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3590/Most-believe-MPs-should-refuse-10-pay-rise-recommended-by-IPSA.aspx</ref>.

	Although a reform process of the expenses system is taking place that may curb the continued occurrence of flipping, the damage done to Parliament’s reputation by the practice may be difficult to repair. Understanding the institutional dynamics that caused flipping to emerge is necessary to explain its occurrence and provide solutions for preventing further abuse of the Parliamentary allowance system.		Although a reform process of the expenses system is taking place that may curb the continued occurrence of flipping, the damage done to Parliament’s reputation by the practice may be difficult to repair. Understanding the institutional dynamics that caused flipping to emerge is necessary to explain its occurrence and provide solutions for preventing further abuse of the Parliamentary allowance system.

	==References==		==References==

Editor2018 at 11:10, 12 May 2020

2020-05-12T11:10:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:10, 12 May 2020
Line 10:		Line 10:
	[[:Category:UK\|UK]] – [[:Category: Europe\| Europe]] – [[:Category: EU\| EU]] – [[:Category: MP\| MP]] – [[:Category: Parliament\| Parliament]] – [[:Category: Fee-avoidance\| Fee-avoidance]]		[[:Category:UK\|UK]] – [[:Category: Europe\| Europe]] – [[:Category: EU\| EU]] – [[:Category: MP\| MP]] – [[:Category: Parliament\| Parliament]] – [[:Category: Fee-avoidance\| Fee-avoidance]]
	\| authorofpiece =Jonathan Webb		\| authorofpiece =Jonathan Webb
	\| authorinstitution =~~Department of Politics~~, ~~University of Sheffield, UK~~		\| authorinstitution =Research Fellow at IPPR, UK
	\| authorwebsite =[https://www.~~sheffield~~.~~ac.uk~~/~~politics~~/people/~~phd~~/jonathan-webb Profile page at US]}}		\| authorwebsite =[https://www.ippr.org/about/people/staff/jonathan-webb Profile page at IPPR]}}
	<big>'''By Jonathan Webb, ~~Department of Politics, University of Sheffield~~, UK'''</big>		<big>'''By Jonathan Webb, Research Fellow at IPPR, UK'''</big>
	[[Category:Market]]		[[Category:Market]]
	[[Category: Functional ambivalence]]		[[Category: Functional ambivalence]]
Line 41:		Line 41:
	In spite of the complex systemic origin of flipping, the British media has overwhelmingly portrayed the practice as unethical and even immoral, with little attention given to the institutional mechanisms that have allowed MPs to take advantage of the system. Although the practice is technically legal and within Parliamentary rules, it is commonly presented as a form of corruption. The issue of flipping has further been problematised in the context of a perceived decline in the integrity of British politics (see also entry on ''[[Cash-for-access]]'' in this volume). In 2015 public trust in politicians stood at just 22 per cent and at the height of the expenses scandal it reached an all-time low of 13 per cent (IPSOS Mori 2015a)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015a. ‘Politicians Trusted Less than Estate Agents, Bankers and Journalists’, 5 January, https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3504/Politicians-trusted-less-than-estate-agents-bankers-and-journalists.aspx</ref>.		In spite of the complex systemic origin of flipping, the British media has overwhelmingly portrayed the practice as unethical and even immoral, with little attention given to the institutional mechanisms that have allowed MPs to take advantage of the system. Although the practice is technically legal and within Parliamentary rules, it is commonly presented as a form of corruption. The issue of flipping has further been problematised in the context of a perceived decline in the integrity of British politics (see also entry on ''[[Cash-for-access]]'' in this volume). In 2015 public trust in politicians stood at just 22 per cent and at the height of the expenses scandal it reached an all-time low of 13 per cent (IPSOS Mori 2015a)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015a. ‘Politicians Trusted Less than Estate Agents, Bankers and Journalists’, 5 January, https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3504/Politicians-trusted-less-than-estate-agents-bankers-and-journalists.aspx</ref>.

	Few solutions to eliminate the practice of flipping have been presented, despite an extensive review of the Parliamentary expenses system being promised. To reduce the occurrence of flipping, one solution may lie in recognising the resources needed by MPs to serve in a modern democracy, as well as the salaries typically available to such individuals in other professions. By failing to significantly provide these resources on a personal level through a competitive salary and attempting to supplement pay through a poorly regulated expenses scheme, flipping became a parliamentary norm (Kelso 2009: 335)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>. As a consequence, a review has recommended that the salaries of MPs increase whilst the existing expenses system is much more tightly regulated (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 2015)<ref>Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. 2015. ‘MPs' pay in the 2015 Parliament. Final report’. http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Pages/default.aspx.</ref>. However, increasing MPs’ salaries is also unpopular with the public. In 2015, 72 per cent of people thought that MPs should refuse the 10 per cent pay increase that had been recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSOS Mori 2015b)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015b. 'Most believe MPs should refuse 10% pay rise recommended by IPSA', 22 June, https://www.ipsosmori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3590/Most-believe-MPs-should-refuse-10-pay-rise-recommended-by-IPSA.aspx</ref>.		Few solutions to eliminate the practice of flipping have been presented, despite an extensive review of the Parliamentary expenses system being promised. To reduce the occurrence of flipping, one solution may lie in recognising the [[resources]] needed by MPs to serve in a modern democracy, as well as the salaries typically available to such individuals in other professions. By failing to significantly provide these resources on a personal level through a competitive salary and attempting to supplement pay through a poorly regulated expenses scheme, flipping became a parliamentary norm (Kelso 2009: 335)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>. As a consequence, a review has recommended that the salaries of MPs increase whilst the existing expenses system is much more tightly regulated (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 2015)<ref>Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. 2015. ‘MPs' pay in the 2015 Parliament. Final report’. http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Pages/default.aspx.</ref>. However, increasing MPs’ salaries is also unpopular with the public. In 2015, 72 per cent of people thought that MPs should refuse the 10 per cent pay increase that had been recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSOS Mori 2015b)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015b. 'Most believe MPs should refuse 10% pay rise recommended by IPSA', 22 June, https://www.ipsosmori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3590/Most-believe-MPs-should-refuse-10-pay-rise-recommended-by-IPSA.aspx</ref>.

	Although a reform process of the expenses system is taking place that may curb the continued occurrence of flipping, the damage done to Parliament’s reputation by the practice may be difficult to repair. Understanding the institutional dynamics that caused flipping to emerge is necessary to explain its occurrence and provide solutions for preventing further abuse of the Parliamentary allowance system.		Although a reform process of the expenses system is taking place that may curb the continued occurrence of flipping, the damage done to Parliament’s reputation by the practice may be difficult to repair. Understanding the institutional dynamics that caused flipping to emerge is necessary to explain its occurrence and provide solutions for preventing further abuse of the Parliamentary allowance system.

	==References==		==References==

Admin at 11:54, 26 July 2019

2019-07-26T11:54:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:54, 26 July 2019
Line 8:		Line 8:
	[[:Category:Market\|Market]] – [[:Category: Functional ambivalence\| Functional ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Gaming the system\| Gaming the system]] – [[:Category: Camouflage\| Camouflage]] – [[:Category: Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit\| Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit]]		[[:Category:Market\|Market]] – [[:Category: Functional ambivalence\| Functional ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Gaming the system\| Gaming the system]] – [[:Category: Camouflage\| Camouflage]] – [[:Category: Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit\| Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit]]
	\| categories =		\| categories =
	[[:Category:UK\|UK]] – [[:Category: Europe\| Europe]] – [[:Category: EU\| EU]] – [[:Category: MP\| MP]] – [[:Category: Parliament\| Parliament]] – [[:Category: Fee avoidance\| Fee avoidance]]		[[:Category:UK\|UK]] – [[:Category: Europe\| Europe]] – [[:Category: EU\| EU]] – [[:Category: MP\| MP]] – [[:Category: Parliament\| Parliament]] – [[:Category: Fee-avoidance\| Fee-avoidance]]
	\| authorofpiece =Jonathan Webb		\| authorofpiece =Jonathan Webb
	\| authorinstitution =Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, UK		\| authorinstitution =Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, UK
Line 23:		Line 23:
	[[Category: MP]]		[[Category: MP]]
	[[Category: Parliament]]		[[Category: Parliament]]
	[[Category: Fee avoidance]]		[[Category: Fee-avoidance]]
	[[Category:Entry]]		[[Category:Entry]]
	[[Category: Volume 2]]		[[Category: Volume 2]]

Editor2018 at 15:39, 16 May 2019

2019-05-16T15:39:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, 16 May 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{infobox		{{infobox
	\| nameofpractice = Flipping		\| nameofpractice =Flipping
	\| location = United Kingdom		\| flagemoji =🇬🇧
	\| imagemap = ~~UnitedKingdom~~ map.png		\| definition =British MPs manipulating the classification of their 'second home' to maximise expenses claims
	\| ~~imageflag~~ = ~~UnitedKingdom flag.png~~		\| location =United Kingdom
	\| authorofpiece = Jonathan Webb		\| imagemap =United Kingdom map.png
	\| authorinstitution = University of Sheffield		\| clusters =
	}}		[[:Category:Market\|Market]] – [[:Category: Functional ambivalence\| Functional ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Gaming the system\| Gaming the system]] – [[:Category: Camouflage\| Camouflage]] – [[:Category: Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit\| Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit]]
			\| categories =
	'''~~''Original Text:~~ Jonathan Webb, University of Sheffield'''''		[[:Category:UK\|UK]] – [[:Category: Europe\| Europe]] – [[:Category: EU\| EU]] – [[:Category: MP\| MP]] – [[:Category: Parliament\| Parliament]] – [[:Category: Fee avoidance\| Fee avoidance]]
			\| authorofpiece =Jonathan Webb
	~~<div~~ class="~~toccolours mw~~-~~collapsible mw~~-~~collapsed~~">		\| authorinstitution =Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, UK
	In the context of UK politics, ‘flipping’ refers to the practice of MPs manipulating the classification of their second home to maximise their parliamentary allowance. By designating a property as a second home, money can be claimed for it through Parliament’s Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) system, which allows second homes to be financed and renovated through the expenses system. The system also exempts second home sales from capital gains tax. In cases of ‘flipping’, an MP changes which of their homes is registered as their official ‘second home’ with the apparent aim of maximising financial gain.		\| authorwebsite =[https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/politics/people/phd/jonathan-webb Profile page at US]}}
			<big>'''By Jonathan Webb, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, UK'''</big>
			[[Category:Market]]
			[[Category: Functional ambivalence]]
			[[Category: Gaming the system]]
			[[Category: Camouflage]]
			[[Category: Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit]]
			[[Category:UK]]
			[[Category: Europe]]
			[[Category: EU]]
			[[Category: MP]]
			[[Category: Parliament]]
			[[Category: Fee avoidance]]
			[[Category:Entry]]
			[[Category: Volume 2]]
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|-
			\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| In the context of UK politics, ‘flipping’ refers to the practice of MPs manipulating the classification of their second home to maximise their parliamentary allowance. By designating a property as a second home, money can be claimed for it through Parliament’s Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) system, which allows second homes to be financed and renovated through the expenses system. The system also exempts second home sales from capital gains tax. In cases of ‘flipping’, an MP changes which of their homes is registered as their official ‘second home’ with the apparent aim of maximising financial gain.

	The etymology of the term ‘flipping’ is the English language verb ‘flip’, which can mean to put something into motion, and also to turn something over (Oxford English Dictionary 2015)<ref>Oxford English Dictionary. 2015. ‘Flip, v.’ OED Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed December 30. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/71654#eid4108895.</ref>. This second meaning is implied in the practice of flipping because MPs changed, or ‘flipped’, the status of a particular home for the purpose of claiming expenses. Flipping also has a specific business definition and refers to the practice of purchasing an asset with the intent of quickly reselling the asset at a higher price (Ii, Hollans, and Swidler 2009: 249)<ref>Ii, Craig A. Depken, Harris Hollans, and Steve Swidler. 2009. ‘An Empirical Analysis of Residential Property Flipping’. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 39 (3): 248–63. doi:10.1007/s11146-009-9181-3.</ref>. This definition is relevant to the accusations levelled at some MPs, who were alleged to have made substantial profit by selling taxpayer-funded second homes at the market rate and exempting any profit from capital gains tax.		The etymology of the term ‘flipping’ is the English language verb ‘flip’, which can mean to put something into motion, and also to turn something over (Oxford English Dictionary 2015)<ref>Oxford English Dictionary. 2015. ‘Flip, v.’ OED Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed December 30. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/71654#eid4108895.</ref>. This second meaning is implied in the practice of flipping because MPs changed, or ‘flipped’, the status of a particular home for the purpose of claiming expenses. Flipping also has a specific business definition and refers to the practice of purchasing an asset with the intent of quickly reselling the asset at a higher price (Ii, Hollans, and Swidler 2009: 249)<ref>Ii, Craig A. Depken, Harris Hollans, and Steve Swidler. 2009. ‘An Empirical Analysis of Residential Property Flipping’. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 39 (3): 248–63. doi:10.1007/s11146-009-9181-3.</ref>. This definition is relevant to the accusations levelled at some MPs, who were alleged to have made substantial profit by selling taxpayer-funded second homes at the market rate and exempting any profit from capital gains tax.
			\|}
	~~<div class="mw-collapsible-content">~~
	[[File:Satirical effigy representing the expenses scandal.jpg\|300px\|thumb\|left\|Photograph showing a satirical effigy representing the expenses scandal being paraded at Lewes Guy Fawkes night. Artist: Peter Trimming]]		[[File:Satirical effigy representing the expenses scandal.jpg\|300px\|thumb\|left\|Photograph showing a satirical effigy representing the expenses scandal being paraded at Lewes Guy Fawkes night. Artist: Peter Trimming]]

	The practice of flipping came to prominence with the so-called ‘expenses scandal’ that broke in 2009. The Daily Telegraph first brought the expenses scandal into the public eye and in doing so, focussed heavily on flipping as one of the most financially significant and unethical abuses of the parliamentary expenses system (Daily Telegraph 2009)<ref>The Daily Telepgraph. 2009. ‘MPs’ Expenses: Six Figure Profits from Sale of Taxpayer-Subsidised Homes’. December 13. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6797620/MPs-expenses-six-figure-profits-from-sale-of-taxpayer-subsidised-homes.html.</ref>. As the expenses scandal gained public notoriety by mid-2009, particular attention was placed on flipping as one of the most deviant abuses of the expenses system. Many high-profile MPs including cabinet ministers were accused of flipping. Perhaps the most high-profile resignation to result from the scandal was that of the Secretary for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears. Blears brought a property in Kensington, London that was sold after four months at a profit of £45,000 (BBC 2009)<ref>BBC. 2009. ‘Blears Will Pay Tax on Flat Sale’, May 12, sec. Politics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8047005.stm.</ref>. Because the property was designated as a second home, it was exempt from capital gains tax and mortgage repayments, leading to widespread criticism that the property had been bought with the intention of making a profit by ‘flipping’ it under the second home allowances system.		The practice of flipping came to prominence with the so-called ‘expenses scandal’ that broke in 2009. The Daily Telegraph first brought the expenses scandal into the public eye and in doing so, focussed heavily on flipping as one of the most financially significant and unethical abuses of the parliamentary expenses system (Daily Telegraph 2009)<ref>The Daily Telepgraph. 2009. ‘MPs’ Expenses: Six Figure Profits from Sale of Taxpayer-Subsidised Homes’. December 13. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6797620/MPs-expenses-six-figure-profits-from-sale-of-taxpayer-subsidised-homes.html.</ref>. As the expenses scandal gained public notoriety by mid-2009, particular attention was placed on flipping as one of the most deviant abuses of the expenses system. Many high-profile MPs including cabinet ministers were accused of flipping. Perhaps the most high-profile resignation to result from the scandal was that of the Secretary for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears. Blears brought a property in Kensington, London that was sold after four months at a profit of £45,000 (BBC 2009)<ref>BBC. 2009. ‘Blears Will Pay Tax on Flat Sale’, May 12, sec. Politics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8047005.stm.</ref>. Because the property was designated as a second home, it was exempt from capital gains tax and mortgage repayments, leading to widespread criticism that the property had been bought with the intention of making a profit by ‘flipping’ it under the second home allowances system.

Line 29:		Line 44:

	Although a reform process of the expenses system is taking place that may curb the continued occurrence of flipping, the damage done to Parliament’s reputation by the practice may be difficult to repair. Understanding the institutional dynamics that caused flipping to emerge is necessary to explain its occurrence and provide solutions for preventing further abuse of the Parliamentary allowance system.		Although a reform process of the expenses system is taking place that may curb the continued occurrence of flipping, the damage done to Parliament’s reputation by the practice may be difficult to repair. Understanding the institutional dynamics that caused flipping to emerge is necessary to explain its occurrence and provide solutions for preventing further abuse of the Parliamentary allowance system.
	~~</div>~~
	~~</div>~~

	~~==Notes==~~
	~~<references />~~

	~~[[Category:Informal Practices]]~~		==References==
	~~[[Category:UK]]~~
	~~[[Category:EU]]~~
	~~[[Category:Functional]]~~
	~~[[Category:Gaming the system]]~~
	~~[[Category:Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit]]~~
	~~[[Category:Entry]]~~

Admin at 15:19, 29 June 2018

2018-06-29T15:19:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:19, 29 June 2018
Line 41:		Line 41:
	[[Category:Gaming the system]]		[[Category:Gaming the system]]
	[[Category:Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit]]		[[Category:Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit]]
			[[Category:Entry]]

Admin: Admin moved page Flipping to Flipping (United Kingdom) without leaving a redirect

2018-05-31T12:34:34Z

Admin moved page Flipping to Flipping (United Kingdom) without leaving a redirect

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:34, 31 May 2018
(No difference)

Admin at 12:20, 15 May 2018

2018-05-15T12:20:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:20, 15 May 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:
	[[Category:Functional]]		[[Category:Functional]]
	[[Category:Gaming the system]]		[[Category:Gaming the system]]
	[[Category:Playing the letter of ~~their~~ rules against their spirit]]		[[Category:Playing the letter of the rules against their spirit]]

Admin at 14:27, 13 January 2017

2017-01-13T14:27:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:27, 13 January 2017
Line 16:		Line 16:

	<div class="mw-collapsible-content">		<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
			[[File:Satirical effigy representing the expenses scandal.jpg\|300px\|thumb\|left\|Photograph showing a satirical effigy representing the expenses scandal being paraded at Lewes Guy Fawkes night. Artist: Peter Trimming]]

	The practice of flipping came to prominence with the so-called ‘expenses scandal’ that broke in 2009. The Daily Telegraph first brought the expenses scandal into the public eye and in doing so, focussed heavily on flipping as one of the most financially significant and unethical abuses of the parliamentary expenses system (Daily Telegraph 2009)<ref>The Daily Telepgraph. 2009. ‘MPs’ Expenses: Six Figure Profits from Sale of Taxpayer-Subsidised Homes’. December 13. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6797620/MPs-expenses-six-figure-profits-from-sale-of-taxpayer-subsidised-homes.html.</ref>. As the expenses scandal gained public notoriety by mid-2009, particular attention was placed on flipping as one of the most deviant abuses of the expenses system. Many high-profile MPs including cabinet ministers were accused of flipping. Perhaps the most high-profile resignation to result from the scandal was that of the Secretary for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears. Blears brought a property in Kensington, London that was sold after four months at a profit of £45,000 (BBC 2009)<ref>BBC. 2009. ‘Blears Will Pay Tax on Flat Sale’, May 12, sec. Politics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8047005.stm.</ref>. Because the property was designated as a second home, it was exempt from capital gains tax and mortgage repayments, leading to widespread criticism that the property had been bought with the intention of making a profit by ‘flipping’ it under the second home allowances system.		The practice of flipping came to prominence with the so-called ‘expenses scandal’ that broke in 2009. The Daily Telegraph first brought the expenses scandal into the public eye and in doing so, focussed heavily on flipping as one of the most financially significant and unethical abuses of the parliamentary expenses system (Daily Telegraph 2009)<ref>The Daily Telepgraph. 2009. ‘MPs’ Expenses: Six Figure Profits from Sale of Taxpayer-Subsidised Homes’. December 13. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6797620/MPs-expenses-six-figure-profits-from-sale-of-taxpayer-subsidised-homes.html.</ref>. As the expenses scandal gained public notoriety by mid-2009, particular attention was placed on flipping as one of the most deviant abuses of the expenses system. Many high-profile MPs including cabinet ministers were accused of flipping. Perhaps the most high-profile resignation to result from the scandal was that of the Secretary for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears. Blears brought a property in Kensington, London that was sold after four months at a profit of £45,000 (BBC 2009)<ref>BBC. 2009. ‘Blears Will Pay Tax on Flat Sale’, May 12, sec. Politics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8047005.stm.</ref>. Because the property was designated as a second home, it was exempt from capital gains tax and mortgage repayments, leading to widespread criticism that the property had been bought with the intention of making a profit by ‘flipping’ it under the second home allowances system.

Admin at 17:59, 13 August 2016

2016-08-13T17:59:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 13 August 2016
Line 33:		Line 33:
	<references />		<references />

			[[Category:Informal Practices]]
	[[Category:UK]]		[[Category:UK]]
	[[Category:EU]]		[[Category:EU]]

Admin at 11:49, 13 August 2016

2016-08-13T11:49:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 13 August 2016
Line 22:		Line 22:
	As the allowance system relied heavily on trust and was subject to light auditing, it became easy to systematically abuse the system. A weak system of auditing in combination with the comparatively low rate of pay offered to MPs resulted in many MPs viewing the expenses system as a supplement to their salary. Consequently, allowances were understood as an entitlement and MPs sought to gain financially from practices such as flipping. While the media has widely represented flipping as a ‘corrupt’ practice, many MPs believed their behaviour was legitimate within the context of Parliamentary culture (Kelso 2009: 330–331)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>.		As the allowance system relied heavily on trust and was subject to light auditing, it became easy to systematically abuse the system. A weak system of auditing in combination with the comparatively low rate of pay offered to MPs resulted in many MPs viewing the expenses system as a supplement to their salary. Consequently, allowances were understood as an entitlement and MPs sought to gain financially from practices such as flipping. While the media has widely represented flipping as a ‘corrupt’ practice, many MPs believed their behaviour was legitimate within the context of Parliamentary culture (Kelso 2009: 330–331)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>.

	In spite of the complex systemic origin of flipping, the British media has overwhelmingly portrayed the practice as unethical and even immoral, with little attention given to the institutional mechanisms that have allowed MPs to take advantage of the system. Although the practice is technically legal and within Parliamentary rules, it is commonly presented as a form of corruption. The issue of flipping has further been problematised in the context of a perceived decline in the integrity of British politics (see also entry on ''[[~~cash~~ for access]]'' in this volume). In 2015 public trust in politicians stood at just 22 per cent and at the height of the expenses scandal it reached an all-time low of 13 per cent (IPSOS Mori 2015a)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015a. ‘Politicians Trusted Less than Estate Agents, Bankers and Journalists’, 5 January, https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3504/Politicians-trusted-less-than-estate-agents-bankers-and-journalists.aspx</ref>.		In spite of the complex systemic origin of flipping, the British media has overwhelmingly portrayed the practice as unethical and even immoral, with little attention given to the institutional mechanisms that have allowed MPs to take advantage of the system. Although the practice is technically legal and within Parliamentary rules, it is commonly presented as a form of corruption. The issue of flipping has further been problematised in the context of a perceived decline in the integrity of British politics (see also entry on ''[[Cash-for-access]]'' in this volume). In 2015 public trust in politicians stood at just 22 per cent and at the height of the expenses scandal it reached an all-time low of 13 per cent (IPSOS Mori 2015a)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015a. ‘Politicians Trusted Less than Estate Agents, Bankers and Journalists’, 5 January, https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3504/Politicians-trusted-less-than-estate-agents-bankers-and-journalists.aspx</ref>.

	Few solutions to eliminate the practice of flipping have been presented, despite an extensive review of the Parliamentary expenses system being promised. To reduce the occurrence of flipping, one solution may lie in recognising the resources needed by MPs to serve in a modern democracy, as well as the salaries typically available to such individuals in other professions. By failing to significantly provide these resources on a personal level through a competitive salary and attempting to supplement pay through a poorly regulated expenses scheme, flipping became a parliamentary norm (Kelso 2009: 335)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>. As a consequence, a review has recommended that the salaries of MPs increase whilst the existing expenses system is much more tightly regulated (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 2015)<ref>Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. 2015. ‘MPs' pay in the 2015 Parliament. Final report’. http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Pages/default.aspx.</ref>. However, increasing MPs’ salaries is also unpopular with the public. In 2015, 72 per cent of people thought that MPs should refuse the 10 per cent pay increase that had been recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSOS Mori 2015b)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015b. 'Most believe MPs should refuse 10% pay rise recommended by IPSA', 22 June, https://www.ipsosmori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3590/Most-believe-MPs-should-refuse-10-pay-rise-recommended-by-IPSA.aspx</ref>.		Few solutions to eliminate the practice of flipping have been presented, despite an extensive review of the Parliamentary expenses system being promised. To reduce the occurrence of flipping, one solution may lie in recognising the resources needed by MPs to serve in a modern democracy, as well as the salaries typically available to such individuals in other professions. By failing to significantly provide these resources on a personal level through a competitive salary and attempting to supplement pay through a poorly regulated expenses scheme, flipping became a parliamentary norm (Kelso 2009: 335)<ref>Kelso, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Parliament on Its Knees: MPs’ Expenses and the Crisis of Transparency at Westminster’. The Political Quarterly 80 (3): 329–38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02005.x.</ref>. As a consequence, a review has recommended that the salaries of MPs increase whilst the existing expenses system is much more tightly regulated (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 2015)<ref>Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. 2015. ‘MPs' pay in the 2015 Parliament. Final report’. http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Pages/default.aspx.</ref>. However, increasing MPs’ salaries is also unpopular with the public. In 2015, 72 per cent of people thought that MPs should refuse the 10 per cent pay increase that had been recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSOS Mori 2015b)<ref>IPSOS Mori. 2015b. 'Most believe MPs should refuse 10% pay rise recommended by IPSA', 22 June, https://www.ipsosmori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3590/Most-believe-MPs-should-refuse-10-pay-rise-recommended-by-IPSA.aspx</ref>.