If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Senior MP expenses revealed
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Senior MPs' expenses claims have been revealed, showing that John Prescott spent £4,000 in a year on food and that Tony Blair claimed for a TV licence.
Gordon Brown and ex-Tory leader Michael Howard had council tax bills for their second home paid for in 2003-04, the figures also show.
Mr Brown claimed £11,826.81 for flights during the period. All six MPs received money to pay mortgages.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7329749.stm
Well, now we know why John Prescott looks so 'healthy'...
You would think that scumbag Tony Blair would have enough money to buy a TV licence himself, wouldn't you... :rolleyes:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Unless the TV licence was for a second property.... I guess...?
If you chose a) and are criticising MPs expenses your a fool, if you choose b) you are a fool
Yep - I was specifically on about the TV licence... I've worked away and am quite used to claiming some fairly hefty expenses.
And council tax bills for their second homes? What other employer pays that???
Thieving cunts, the lot of them.
There are expenses and then there are extravagances. What other employer would pay for you to have your kitchen refitted for example?
Travel, some food, staff, help towards a second home… all that is legit and they should get it.
When you are earning £60K+ you can be reasonably expected to buy your own TV and TV licence.
But get rid of the thieving cunts and then where will we get our quota of acceptable obesity jokes? O how humour will falter when John Prescott disappears. I suppose it's things like Have I Got News For You that help cultivate such attitudes, masquerading as satire while seemingly oblivious to the fact that it is not satire but rather 'Yo momma' gags that are concerned with people's weight. Ad hominem, anyone?
How many people do you know who work away 5 days a week? We're not talking about an overnight stay now and then.
The other alternative is MPs either stay in their constituency and never go to parliament or stay in parliament and never go to their constituency
They already have bought a TV and TV licence for their constituency - this is allowing them to buy a second one for a second home. For an MP, I'd say a TV is a neccessity not a luxury. Now there's a few things where it might need to be tightened up - but the general principle is sound. Otherwise you're penalising all MPs (and by association their constituents) who don;t live within commuting distance of London
edited to say anti-MP
Other than that I cannot see a problem with kitchens/TV licences etc. generally.
Who on earth needs to spend that much on food a year?
It's VERY easy to spend that in a year.
£50 a week x 52 = £2600. There is no way I only spend £50 a week on food. factor in a few meals out, lunch at work and you're WAY over £4000.
I honestly reckon I spend a minimum of £100 a week on food. That is £5200 a year.
It just looks a lot when you see the headline figure. Sure, if you're on a tight budget, it's going to seem a hell of a lot, but it really isn't, cummulatively... Especially if you're eating out often.
My team leader at the time ran up a LOT more as he paid for some of the hotels in one payment, and was picking up the hire cars.
How come help towards buying a second home comes under a work expense anyway
I could understand if they were travelling on work duties and stayed in a hotel and got expenses paid, but a second home is a private thing for their family, might even be a holiday home in devon or something. I don't understand why that's a necessity and not an extravagance. Considering there's tonnes more average joes who don't own even a first home, in some cases don't even have anywhere to stay at all.
I read a book once, an in the course of the story the monarchy was kicked out by the protaganist. It was slightly communist in a way, but the guy opened all the royal palaces as shelters and homes for the homeless. But here we are, 21st century Britain, people homeless (or with no 'good' place to call home, i.e. moving from friends house to friends house) while the leaders have several homes each which they claim as expenses completely necessary to them completing their duties.
All the while, John Prescott dines at fine restaurants while many of the poorest in the UK struggle to get enough to eat to stay healthy, has his fleet of jaguar cars - all paid for by the taxpayers.
I'm not saying they don't have an important job. But I am saying at least to me they seem to abuse their position horrifically by 'taking liberties'.
Because to do they job properly they need a residence in their constintency and one near Parliament. It certainly doesn't cover holiday homes.
Would you like to commute from the Scottish Highlands to London and stay in a hotel every night for twenty years?
It's one of the few jobs where the person has two places of work - Westminster and there constituency. If you don't allow second homes what you are in reality doing is creating a two tier Parliamentary system. London gets MPs who can juggle constituency work and Parliamentary duties - everywhere else someone does one or the other...
I still do think though looking at the distribution of wealth in society etc. that MPs do get a hell of a lot out of us. A lot of it can be justified, but if you asked me whether they got too much or not enough, I would say too much and I think a lot of others would too.
The problem also with expense accounts is the accountability. One MP can buy a two bed flat in london to get to work, another could buy a 5 bedroom house and both could claim expenses, albeit the second would claim much more. Their expenditure should be scrutinised rather than being hidden away and allowing them to be the own judges of what's 'necessary' - as it seems some are taking liberties with it. Bottle of champagne, anyone?
If the Government spent £20m-£30m they could build an all-singing all-dancing apartment block for 630 people. It could be serviced with all mod-cons, a kitchen staff, cleaners, porters, everything. When property prices go up the Government keeps the profit, MPs can be hooked up to the Division Bell system at all times and there can be no arguing about expenses.
Most other large corporations rent out property for their executives working in London and living elsewhere, which is why property prices are so high- the big corporations will sign the cheque for serviced apartments regardless of how expensive they are. If a serviced apartment is good enough for the top CEOs why is it not good enough for MPs?
Compare the cost of building and running serviced apartments to the cost of funding mortgage payments, home improvements and subsistence payments. It would be a good deal.
£4000 a year isn't a lot for food though. My work's expenses are very stingy and I'm entitled to £25 for every day I'm away from home. That adds up to quite a lot.
Of course if we want to talk about large public sector bodies spending large sums of taxpayers money without any sort of accountability, when are we going to find out what Nick Robinson's expenses are? Guido Fawkes asked the BBC six months ago now and they're STILL fobbing him off with bullshit about "journalistic and artistic information being exempt from FOI". I didn't realise senior BBC employees' expenses were of artistic merit. And I'm prepared to bet a lot of money that Nick Robinson earns a damn sight more than the £65,000 the average MP takes home each year.
I note that tony blairs additional expenses were 1/5th of many other MPs.
And as for the £4000 on food, the reason it made me wonder (well, they're entitled to £400 a month on groceries, which is more than the majority of the population, and besides - if they're there 5 days out of 7 then their grocery bill at home will be reduced anyway - and who spends £100 a week on groceries for themselves anyway?) - the reason it made me wonder was because other MPs claimed so much less.
TBH, if I was in their position I would be not much better. If someone is offering expenses or free money, who doesn't jump at the chance. If you had the chance of buying Tesco's £3.99 bottle of wine or a trendy rare vintage for £100, but were by your boss you can just claim back on expenses - most people would probably go for the more expensive variety.
As bong said, what is need and what is want?
It's almost £80 a week. Who on earth needs to spend that much on food?
Have you not been to Waitrose recently dahrling?
And as for people moaning about TV License etc. All private companies do this.
If my company (and my previous one) were to post me away from home (obviously a decent distance) then they would pay full costs.
If it was long term and I needed somewhere to stay, I could either choose a hotel (around 130-150 a night) plus £25 per night evening and £12 breakfast. every day.
Or I could rent, they would pay gas, elec, tv license, council etc
Why wouldn't they? Why should someone pay anything to go away for work?
A fat man :P
Where on earth do you stay that charges that much?
I normally pay close to £100 when I work means I'm away and have stay in a hotel. if I'm giving up my evening they can bloody well put me in a decent hotel.
Even a travelodge/Premier inn costs £60 per night and that doesn't include any food...