MP Expenses, why do they get them?
Discussion
Why should someone get thousands in expenses to do their job?
They know what the job entails, so if they cant do it then why should they get huge expenses to do it?
I dont in my job, if I cant do my job from the location I live I either a) move, or b) dont take the job.
expenses should be a max of £25 a day for food and all book in to the local hotel/government owned flat instead of dining at the ritz and claiming several hundred in taxi fees, plus staying at a house we pay for...
They know what the job entails, so if they cant do it then why should they get huge expenses to do it?
I dont in my job, if I cant do my job from the location I live I either a) move, or b) dont take the job.
expenses should be a max of £25 a day for food and all book in to the local hotel/government owned flat instead of dining at the ritz and claiming several hundred in taxi fees, plus staying at a house we pay for...
To pay for out of pocket expenses relating to their work, even with the piss taking thats been going on, it may well have been cheaper than having everything simply ordered out of a Westminster catalogue or sourced and billed centrally, also allows some MP's to use local businesses to supply them.
Travel is a little more contentious IMHO as I doubt they use the cheapest option and mileage claims / car running costs are as abused as the second home allowance.
IMHO, if they want to reduce the money speny by MP's encouraging them to use technology rather than travel to London, would be a good place to start
Travel is a little more contentious IMHO as I doubt they use the cheapest option and mileage claims / car running costs are as abused as the second home allowance.
IMHO, if they want to reduce the money speny by MP's encouraging them to use technology rather than travel to London, would be a good place to start
I disagree slightly. I think that MP's should all get a London allowance after all it's an expensive place to live as we all know.
The one proviso is that it should be no more or less than a teacher or nurse gets.
As for the other "expenses" like gardening or kitchens or furniture, refer to the above. If a nurse or teacher doesn't get any then neither should they, bone idle, self serving troughers that they are.
Also, what is this nonsense about the expenses monitoring board costing £6m. I mean how, it must take all of 6 people to go over the expenses for 646 people. So can I have a job for a reduced £750,000 pa? (plus expenses of course!)
The one proviso is that it should be no more or less than a teacher or nurse gets.
As for the other "expenses" like gardening or kitchens or furniture, refer to the above. If a nurse or teacher doesn't get any then neither should they, bone idle, self serving troughers that they are.
Also, what is this nonsense about the expenses monitoring board costing £6m. I mean how, it must take all of 6 people to go over the expenses for 646 people. So can I have a job for a reduced £750,000 pa? (plus expenses of course!)
The problems are:
1. There are too many MPs.
2. They're underpaid.
The whole expenses thing was just a way of paying MPs a decent wage commensurate with their level of responsibility but in a way that a) made their wages look low in the eyes of the public and b) neatly got around any tax increases foisted on the public.
What we should do is:
1. Reduce the number of MPs by 30-40%.
2. Double their salaries to encourage a higher quality of candidate.
3. Offer MPs outside of London accommodation in government owned flats.
4. Offer a fixed expense allowance to cover offices, taxis, trains etc.
Any overspend of the allowance would have to be covered from their own pocket.
Any underspend would be well publicised and returned to the coffers.
1. There are too many MPs.
2. They're underpaid.
The whole expenses thing was just a way of paying MPs a decent wage commensurate with their level of responsibility but in a way that a) made their wages look low in the eyes of the public and b) neatly got around any tax increases foisted on the public.
What we should do is:
1. Reduce the number of MPs by 30-40%.
2. Double their salaries to encourage a higher quality of candidate.
3. Offer MPs outside of London accommodation in government owned flats.
4. Offer a fixed expense allowance to cover offices, taxis, trains etc.
Any overspend of the allowance would have to be covered from their own pocket.
Any underspend would be well publicised and returned to the coffers.
It would be cheaper for the government to buy up an old council estate and then kit it out and let them use that as the base for London visiting...
Somethig like the Fenwick estate in clapham would be idea, close enough for them to get into central london to do their job.
No more claiming second homes, have a part of the esate kitted out with a inbuilt canteen/resturant and then they can get their food cooked for them too... maybe even hire some ass wipers for them... god knows they seem to claim for everything else.
Somethig like the Fenwick estate in clapham would be idea, close enough for them to get into central london to do their job.
No more claiming second homes, have a part of the esate kitted out with a inbuilt canteen/resturant and then they can get their food cooked for them too... maybe even hire some ass wipers for them... god knows they seem to claim for everything else.
The problem with expenses is the lack of regulation leaving them open to bending for one's own personal gain - mortgages, etc.
What they should do is strike a deal with a serviced apartment provider or even hotel chain in London to give them accomodation.
This, really, is the only expense apart from travel in the course of work that an MP should receive.
What they should do is strike a deal with a serviced apartment provider or even hotel chain in London to give them accomodation.
This, really, is the only expense apart from travel in the course of work that an MP should receive.
Dupont666 said:
Why should someone get thousands in expenses to do their job?
They know what the job entails, so if they cant do it then why should they get huge expenses to do it?
I dont in my job, if I cant do my job from the location I live I either a) move, or b) dont take the job.
expenses should be a max of £25 a day for food and all book in to the local hotel/government owned flat instead of dining at the ritz and claiming several hundred in taxi fees, plus staying at a house we pay for...
What a completely bizarre post!!!They know what the job entails, so if they cant do it then why should they get huge expenses to do it?
I dont in my job, if I cant do my job from the location I live I either a) move, or b) dont take the job.
expenses should be a max of £25 a day for food and all book in to the local hotel/government owned flat instead of dining at the ritz and claiming several hundred in taxi fees, plus staying at a house we pay for...
I have two homes to do my job, because it can't be done in one location and there are two locations where I spend most of my time.
Why a second home and not just in hotels when away from home base?
Answer:- Because it is cheaper, it really is. For the cost on one week's not at all plush very standard hotel I can run a second place for a couple of months.
Now then the question of expenses and allowances starts to become very difficult when you try and fit this into a business accounting and tax system that assumes the norm to be having one home and living in hotels when away. The problem gets tricky because there are things that the system (and the taxman) readily recognises as justifiable expenses when away from home, such as feeding yourself.
So meals are claimable, and when living in a second home this manifests itself as bills from the supermarket. Yet people such as you would presumably say this is unfair as I'd be buying stuff to feed myself from Sainsbury's when at home so why should I claim for stuff when away from home? Yet probably wouldn't question a restaurant meal?
Yes it's a tricky question, agreed.
Then again, an expense such as, say repairing the shower in the second home, is not considered an allowable expense*, despite this being a genuine expense caused by operating an establishment used for stays away from home on work.
- * Eric MC may say it is an allowable expense as far as HMRC are concerned but it's not allowed in my organisation.
All la bit tricky isn't it?
However I do this because it saves money and everybody accepts that it saves money and I don't take the piss, eg last week away my shopping bill was £11 for the whole week. Less than the cost of one meal out for a pizza. So I'd be real happy with a £25 a day allowance as you propose.
Where MPs failed is that they totally and utterly took the piss.
I'm afraid your view on things is a little insular and naive, if well intentioned.
F i F said:
Why a second home and not just in hotels when away from home base?
Answer:- Because it is cheaper, it really is. For the cost on one week's not at all plush very standard hotel I can run a second place for a couple of months.
So meals are claimable, and when living in a second home this manifests itself as bills from the supermarket. Yet people such as you would presumably say this is unfair as I'd be buying stuff to feed myself from Sainsbury's when at home so why should I claim for stuff when away from home? Yet probably wouldn't question a restaurant meal?
Yes it's a tricky question, agreed.
If we are paying for a second home for them it will have a kitchen etc. If so then they shouldn't get a meal allowance. If they are living in a hotel then they should as they won't have cooking facilities. Answer:- Because it is cheaper, it really is. For the cost on one week's not at all plush very standard hotel I can run a second place for a couple of months.
So meals are claimable, and when living in a second home this manifests itself as bills from the supermarket. Yet people such as you would presumably say this is unfair as I'd be buying stuff to feed myself from Sainsbury's when at home so why should I claim for stuff when away from home? Yet probably wouldn't question a restaurant meal?
Yes it's a tricky question, agreed.
I much prefer the idea of having one large 'hotel' or council estate where all of them can live and turn in over to the next MP when they get voted out. Their constitunecy office should be tax payer owned and passed on from sitting MP to MP rather than being party based. If they don't live in their constitunecy ...tough.
To be honest I really don't get how Blair and Brown have any expenses claims for second homes- for the whole of the last 13 years they've been living in tax payer provided second homes in downing street which as far as I understand it cost them nothing.
All I'm trying to do is to point out that it's not a straightforward situation.
I'd suggest that almost all the people moaning and saying that they should live in a hostel or a hotel have never themselves had to spend significant times away from home in one place, year after year after year. A business trip for a week or two a few times a year just doesn't count as relevant experience frankly.
Having said all that, I do think that when the GLC was abolished then a trick WAS missed in how to deal with the old GLC building on the other side of the Thames from Westminster, as that site would have been an opportunity for the makings of an ideal set up.
The other downside of some of the suggestions made by various people would mean that MPS would only be either independantly wealthy or directly sponsored by individuals or organisations. Do we want that?
I'd suggest that almost all the people moaning and saying that they should live in a hostel or a hotel have never themselves had to spend significant times away from home in one place, year after year after year. A business trip for a week or two a few times a year just doesn't count as relevant experience frankly.
Having said all that, I do think that when the GLC was abolished then a trick WAS missed in how to deal with the old GLC building on the other side of the Thames from Westminster, as that site would have been an opportunity for the makings of an ideal set up.
The other downside of some of the suggestions made by various people would mean that MPS would only be either independantly wealthy or directly sponsored by individuals or organisations. Do we want that?
For constituency offices and staff, why not have them provided by the local authority?
Authority bills westminster a set ammount for providing MP with an office and staff in a LA run building (plenty of One Stop Shops around) MP has equipment / stationary / services (post, IT support, telephony etc) supplied by LA, no need for any dodgy staff allowances, or thousands on un traceable stamps etc
Authority bills westminster a set ammount for providing MP with an office and staff in a LA run building (plenty of One Stop Shops around) MP has equipment / stationary / services (post, IT support, telephony etc) supplied by LA, no need for any dodgy staff allowances, or thousands on un traceable stamps etc
AndrewW-G said:
For constituency offices and staff, why not have them provided by the local authority?
Authority bills westminster a set ammount for providing MP with an office and staff in a LA run building (plenty of One Stop Shops around) MP has equipment / stationary / services (post, IT support, telephony etc) supplied by LA, no need for any dodgy staff allowances, or thousands on un traceable stamps etc
But then how would the MP get their family and friends on the payroll at inflated salaries if the local authroity provieded staff?Authority bills westminster a set ammount for providing MP with an office and staff in a LA run building (plenty of One Stop Shops around) MP has equipment / stationary / services (post, IT support, telephony etc) supplied by LA, no need for any dodgy staff allowances, or thousands on un traceable stamps etc
Afterall a friend/Family member on £45k as a research assitant is hard to come by.
AndrewW-G said:
For constituency offices and staff, why not have them provided by the local authority?
Authority bills westminster a set ammount for providing MP with an office and staff in a LA run building (plenty of One Stop Shops around) MP has equipment / stationary / services (post, IT support, telephony etc) supplied by LA, no need for any dodgy staff allowances, or thousands on un traceable stamps etc
Sounds like a good idea!Authority bills westminster a set ammount for providing MP with an office and staff in a LA run building (plenty of One Stop Shops around) MP has equipment / stationary / services (post, IT support, telephony etc) supplied by LA, no need for any dodgy staff allowances, or thousands on un traceable stamps etc
theaxe said:
The problems are:
1. There are too many MPs.
2. They're underpaid.
The whole expenses thing was just a way of paying MPs a decent wage commensurate with their level of responsibility but in a way that a) made their wages look low in the eyes of the public and b) neatly got around any tax increases foisted on the public.
What we should do is:
1. Reduce the number of MPs by 30-40%.
2. Double their salaries to encourage a higher quality of candidate.
3. Offer MPs outside of London accommodation in government owned flats.
4. Offer a fixed expense allowance to cover offices, taxis, trains etc.
Any overspend of the allowance would have to be covered from their own pocket.
Any underspend would be well publicised and returned to the coffers.
I agree with most of your points, possibly with the exception of reducing parliaments size.1. There are too many MPs.
2. They're underpaid.
The whole expenses thing was just a way of paying MPs a decent wage commensurate with their level of responsibility but in a way that a) made their wages look low in the eyes of the public and b) neatly got around any tax increases foisted on the public.
What we should do is:
1. Reduce the number of MPs by 30-40%.
2. Double their salaries to encourage a higher quality of candidate.
3. Offer MPs outside of London accommodation in government owned flats.
4. Offer a fixed expense allowance to cover offices, taxis, trains etc.
Any overspend of the allowance would have to be covered from their own pocket.
Any underspend would be well publicised and returned to the coffers.
To do this constituencies would have to be larger and thus further increase an already pretty hefty workload. The Government would also have less people with which to hire ministers and such from and therefore decrease the (already pretty shonky) quality of ministers.
If you want to save money on Politicians wages and/or numbers I suggest first looking at the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly, bodies which are unnecessary in my eyes and then possibly look at local government.
Parliament is in central London, so shouldn't you say this is a london based job and you're paid expenses on the same way as anyone else with a London based job who travels for their work, i.e. they have to have somewhere to live within commuting distance of the houses of parliament and get there at their own cost, but get expenses when they travel to their constituency or anywhere else at a similar sort of rate as someone who works for a large company on the same sort of salary.
If it's cheaper to own or rent a house in the constituency than stay in a modest hotel they should be able to do so but the expenses should be capped at the rate to stay at a modest hotel for the time they need to be in the constituency.
If it's cheaper to own or rent a house in the constituency than stay in a modest hotel they should be able to do so but the expenses should be capped at the rate to stay at a modest hotel for the time they need to be in the constituency.
theaxe said:
The problems are:
1. There are too many MPs.
2. They're underpaid.
The whole expenses thing was just a way of paying MPs a decent wage commensurate with their level of responsibility but in a way that a) made their wages look low in the eyes of the public and b) neatly got around any tax increases foisted on the public.
What we should do is:
1. Reduce the number of MPs by 30-40%.
2. Double their salaries to encourage a higher quality of candidate.
3. Offer MPs outside of London accommodation in government owned flats.
4. Offer a fixed expense allowance to cover offices, taxis, trains etc.
Any overspend of the allowance would have to be covered from their own pocket.
Any underspend would be well publicised and returned to the coffers.
I agree with all of that other than the statement that doubling their pay will increase the quality of candidate.1. There are too many MPs.
2. They're underpaid.
The whole expenses thing was just a way of paying MPs a decent wage commensurate with their level of responsibility but in a way that a) made their wages look low in the eyes of the public and b) neatly got around any tax increases foisted on the public.
What we should do is:
1. Reduce the number of MPs by 30-40%.
2. Double their salaries to encourage a higher quality of candidate.
3. Offer MPs outside of London accommodation in government owned flats.
4. Offer a fixed expense allowance to cover offices, taxis, trains etc.
Any overspend of the allowance would have to be covered from their own pocket.
Any underspend would be well publicised and returned to the coffers.
Busa_Rush said:
I agree with all of that other than the statement that doubling their pay will increase the quality of candidate.
I think it will. If you're a professional, say a doctor or lawyer on £120k+ but would like to help improve the country I think a drop in salary to £64766 would really put you off.theaxe said:
Busa_Rush said:
I agree with all of that other than the statement that doubling their pay will increase the quality of candidate.
I think it will. If you're a professional, say a doctor or lawyer on £120k+ but would like to help improve the country I think a drop in salary to £64766 would really put you off.theaxe said:
Busa_Rush said:
I agree with all of that other than the statement that doubling their pay will increase the quality of candidate.
I think it will. If you're a professional, say a doctor or lawyer on £120k+ but would like to help improve the country I think a drop in salary to £64766 would really put you off.
t, a shop keeper, a grass roots police officer, a bin man, a teacher in a middle England school in Hertfordshire, a computer programmer working for a car parts manufacturer, a Banker, maybe somebody who is into politics.We need a broad spread of skills, opinions and attitudes. The biggest problem with politics these days is it's full of professional politicians . . . who are gravy train riders the lot of them, regardless of how good or bad they may be.
We need a whole new approach to politics, not based on party politics but based on issues and policy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff