MP's Expenses

[Baron99]

2 hours ago, El Cid said:

Perhaps if every MP was given somewhere to live in London or an allowance?

Wasn't that the idea behind building, (and spending a fortune of tax payers money), on Portcullis House opposite the Hoc, containing both office space & and bedroom? 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Baron99

[hackey lad]

2 hours ago, melthebell said:

as they say, never let somebody who wants to do the job, be an mp, they are in it for themselves generally

or rooms in a hostel

That is a very good idea . When I used to work away  a bed ,a bath and food was all I needed.

Edited November 13, 2021 by hackey lad

[El Cid]

29 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Wasn't that the idea behind building, (and spending a fortune of tax payers money), on Portcullis House opposite the Hoc, containing both office space & and bedroom? 

Its not a bad idea in principle, but dont some MPs choose to live near to London, then commute in to Westminser and travel the 100s of miles to visit their constituency, whilst others live in their constituency.

So it is complex, how can they pay Scottish MPs more, whilst paying London MPs less?

[iansheff]

Just reading that Geoffrey Cox  claimed £1,500 for seven car trips to the House of Commons over three months in 2020, 'but only voted in person three times'.

He must have gone there for the cheap lunches if he only went to vote 3 times out of the 7 trips

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/geoffrey-cox-mp-claimed-1-500-for-seven-car-trips-to-commons/ar-AAQEP5V?ocid=msedgntp

[ECCOnoob]

33 minutes ago, iansheff said:

Just reading that Geoffrey Cox  claimed £1,500 for seven car trips to the House of Commons over three months in 2020, 'but only voted in person three times'.

He must have gone there for the cheap lunches if he only went to vote 3 times out of the 7 trips

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/geoffrey-cox-mp-claimed-1-500-for-seven-car-trips-to-commons/ar-AAQEP5V?ocid=msedgntp

So a little over £200 each return trip then. Hardly earth-shattering considering the distance and locations involved. One-way standard class train fares will not be significantly much cheaper especially if you factor getting from Tavistock to the nearest railway station which is Plymouth.

 

Now I don't know what he was doing there on each of these visits as little as anyone else does but it is obvious that there is more to attendance at the house of commons then just voting. There are committees, there are meetings, there are observations, there are interviews....   the article itself does not suggest there was any rule breaking by undertaking proxy voting.

 

This is the problem with the same knee jerk emotive response. Lay people just look at the headline numbers and immediately go  "....ohhh isn't it all disgraceful..."

 

Take a step back, break it down, think about logically.    Its travel expenditure, that's a perfectly acceptable common amount which multiple  operations, businesses and government departments similarly incur all the time.  Its give or take, travel from constituency to London for some form of in person reason twice a month with one exception over the 3-months period. 

 

What exactly is the shattering scandalous story here?

 

Go get me back to the 80s when there was proper scandal reported and it meant something. MPs claim back 5-star hotel room and prostitutes on expenses. MPs caught  claiming pornography videos as entertainment expenses. MP caught with ASDA bag filled with cocaine during drugs bust. MP caught with bondage handcuffs in office filing cabinet.

 

Now everybody seems to be wetting their knickers over MP claims business mileage for travel from constituency to London parliamentary office.

Edited November 13, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[lazarus]

Den of thieves.

[El Cid]

38 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

This is the problem with the same knee jerk emotive response. Lay people just look at the headline numbers and immediately go  "....ohhh isn't it all disgraceful..."

I am sure many jobs, including mine, could site an instance where it is very wastefull and illogical to outsiders.

[Carbuncle]

3 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

But until such time happens or until one of these politicians is actually categorically proven to have willfully and knowingly broken one of these rules, what right have they got to be shamed, berated and driven out.

You argue that the only meaningful distinction is between things which are forbidden by rule or law and things which are not forbidden and thus beyond reproach but then contradict your own logic by taking aim at shaming, berating and driving out, none of which are forbidden. That is the first inconsistency/ hypocrisy in your argument.

 

The second inconsistency/ hypocrisy is that you are criticising the very act of criticising.

 

In truth tribunals and courts benefit from having clearly written rules or laws and our country is a nation of laws in the sense that that which is not forbidden is allowed in law. But beyond the law we also have social norms and notions of reasonable behaviour and as a democracy, where the public contribute to the development of the law, it is important that we also have public debate ... to which you yourself like to contribute.

[Tony]

The people who make the Law are subject to it just like the rest of us. Grown ups understand that moralistic posturing has no place post hoc unless it is to adjust the Law that affects us all. 

 

Seriously, if you want representatives who are representative we have to accept that they are subject to the same predilections as everyone else. If you don't like what they do you need to get the Law changed. They can't be just like us but treated differently. All these issues arise BECAUSE we expect them to abide by different rules to ourselves. 

[Carbuncle]

32 minutes ago, Tony said:

The people who make the Law are subject to it just like the rest of us. Grown ups understand that moralistic posturing has no place post hoc unless it is to adjust the Law that affects us all. 

 

No. In addition to the law, we are all subject to consequences if we behave in ways those around us dislike or disapprove of. They are just not legal consequences. For example, if your arguments are full of logical slips, errors of fact, intellectual dishonesty, rhetorical devices, insults and so forth the police do not come calling but people do take a dim view.