Tory complains at high prices in parliamentary dining rooms

[Tony]

I'm pretty certain that it is tendered. Subsidy aside, maybe they have better catering contract buyers in Parliament than in Town Halls?

[eckerslike]

Here's a thought, why don't we drop the subsidy, and MPs who all earn a minimum of £65k a year, plus expenses plus any other jobs they might also have CAN PAY FULL MONEY and the low paid serving these arseholes can keep their jobs ? Let's try that.

 

Besides, won't they just claim it back anyway ??

 

That seems like a sensible approach to me. It seems like the restaurant is only catering for a handful of Tories who are prepared to pay even the subsidised rates. The rest are happy to take sandwiches or whatever. The House of Commons would save a fortune if it sacked all the staff who clearly don't have enough work to do. Perhaps they should roll it out through the entire public sector and get rid of all those subsidised canteens and car parks that the rest of the country would pay tax on if we enjoyed such perks.

[alchemist]

I'm surprised he doesn't want to re-introduce rotten boroughs

 

it might BE a rotten borough

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2013 at 14:46 ----------

 

But isn't the point that most of the cost of a meal is the wages of staff who prepare it and serve it. So if no MPs whatsoever used the canteens they would still have the same wage costs.

If you read the MPs comments it was that there were 3 staff for every diner. Perhaps rather than reduce the prices to attract in more customers the House of Commons should simply sack 3/4 of the catering staff and that would make everyone happy. Except perhaps the catering staff.

 

Better still sack the entire catering staff. They are probably not members of Unison anyhow.

 

But if we are spending 6 mill a year subsidising their jollies would it not be better to either get rid of the subsidies or even better, the MP's

[eckerslike]

But as I understand it, from reading the article, MPs get a subsidy on average, of 66k a year on their dining, but hasn't the subsidy been removed for schoolkids? Perhaps if the the commons dining experience was put out to private tender and had to make a profit, as in the case of school meals, then the Tories would learn first hand that privatisation means you pay the premium but don't get the goods and service as it goes in profits.

 

No it is the salary of £66K per year paid to MPs who then benefit from a subsidised restaurant, but only if they choose to dine there.

 

---------- Post added 21-01-2013 at 14:51 ----------

 

 

But if we are spending 6 mill a year subsidising their jollies would it not be better to either get rid of the subsidies or even better, the MP's

 

Well you could get rid of the MPs if you wanted to live in a dictatorship, but I'm not sure that would save much or benefit anyone apart from the dictator.

 

But I'm all for removing the subsidy and if that makes the catering non viable getting rid of the entire catering staff.

[Plain Talker]

I can't understand why that Daily Fail article doesn't tell us what the prices actually are for these "Far too expensive" meals, that he is griping about.

 

We could have made up our own minds about whether he's talking utter bullslop then, rather than inferring he's talking cobblers simply because he's an MP. (and a Tory one at that )

 

I mean, what's "expensive"? It's all relative, really, isn't it? a £100 bottle of wine, and a three course meal costing £250 might be pocket change to someone on his level of salary and expenses claims.

 

To someone on minimum wage, like my father was, when I was growing up; a fish-and-chips takeaway was a very rare treat. (well it was usually a fishCAKE and chips, not even a fish!) Perhaps on our once yearly holiday, borrowing my uncle's caravan.

 

I remember going to Davy's near the castle market with my uncle once, as a child of about 2 1/2. My mother's brother had come up on a visit from Birmingham.

[Mr Bloom]

I'm pretty certain that it is tendered. Subsidy aside, maybe they have better catering contract buyers in Parliament than in Town Halls?

 

That's key though isn't it? If kids school meals have had the subsidy removed then of course someone getting a subsidy can expect a better quality meal pound for pound for what they're paying.

[eckerslike]

I can't understand why that Daily Fail article doesn't tell us what the prices actually are for these "Far too expensive" meals, that he is griping about.

 

We could have made up our own minds about whether he's talking utter bullslop then, rather than inferring he's talking cobblers simply because he's an MP. (and a Tory one at that )

 

I mean, what's "expensive"? It's all relative, really, isn't it? a £100 bottle of wine, and a three course meal costing £250 might be pocket change to someone on his level of salary and expenses claims.

 

To someone on minimum wage, like my father was, when I was growing up; a fish-and-chips takeaway was a very rare treat. (well it was usually a fishCAKE and chips, not even a fish!) Perhaps on our once yearly holiday, borrowing my uncle's caravan.

 

I remember going to Davy's near the castle market with my uncle once, as a child of about 2 1/2. My mother's brother had come up on a visit from Birmingham.

 

 

I think the point that the MP is making (and a Tory one at that) is that hardly anyone dines in the restaurants. So far from not being prepared to pay the prices charged, it appears he is one of the few who does so and suggests others might if the prices were lower.

 

So it might be more constructive to take issue with folk who don't use the facility because of the prices rather than someone who does but mentions it.

[Tony]

That's key though isn't it? If kids school meals have had the subsidy removed then of course someone getting a subsidy can expect a better quality meal pound for pound for what they're paying.

 

Of course! Though the evidence presented by Jamie Oliver's campaign is that school meal buyers are just rubbish anyway, which is why I mentioned it. If Parliament has seemingly better contract buyers, is that a reason to drag them down to the level of school meal buyers?

[Manlinose]

am i missing a point, or is it being argued that the market economy should not apply here

 

i know MPs of all persuasions often seem to believe that the real world shouldn't be applied to them, but here we have a business which doesn't appear to have much demand for its services, is losing money and only surviving due to public subsidy

 

i must have misunderstood conservative party policy

[eckerslike]

am i missing a point, or is it being argued that the market economy should not apply here

 

i know MPs of all persuasions often seem to believe that the real world shouldn't be applied to them, but here we have a business which doesn't appear to have much demand for its services, is losing money and only surviving due to public subsidy

 

i must have misunderstood conservative party policy

 

I've not seen anyone on here claiming market economics shouldn't apply here. Interestingly Cameron recently stated Conservative policy on the very matter when he called for an end all dining subsidies within the Palace of Westminster. So perhaps an MP pointing out that the restaurants are hardly used despite the subsidies will allow him to carry this through without the opposition condemning the job losses that will result from the removal of dining subsidies withing Parliament.