Oh our poor MPs

[mattleonard]

Neither. Just that I'd like to know how much it costs to process each claim and whether there should be a minimum value before they're submitted.

 

A minimum value would be unjust though, since one MP could incur huge costs for having to pay out lots of small expenses, whilst another MP could get reimbursed for their larger (but smaller in total) expense.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 13:30 ----------

 

Ronald go back through the fred and you may get the point:hihi:

 

I've just re-read the thread, and your comment still doesn't seem to make any more sense.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 13:34 ----------

 

What I suspect that it comes down to is that people don't like MPs making expense claims. So when they make a massive claim that's a huge scandal; when they make a tiny claim it's now apparently a huge scandal. If the massive claims and the tiny claims didn't exist, would the likes of alchemist suddenly be happy about the middling, "just-right" expense claims? I suspect not.

 

I can understand this to an extent. The way that many MPs abused the system is scandalous, but the current brouhaha is just petty silliness. The only thing that should matter when it comes to expense claims is "was it a legitimate expense?" Everything else is just nonsense.

[L00b]

How much does it cost to process a 9p claim?

That cost will logically depend on whether the travel expense of £0.09 was a single claim, or the travel expense of £0.09 was one entry in a list of travel expenses submitted as a single claim.

 

In either case, a moot point all the same, without knowing why the MP drove rather than walked 352 yards. Having a bit of a clue about MPs' typically "to-the-minute" daily schedules, I suspect that 352 yard travel was part of a 'circuit' of constituency calls with short-and-not-short intervals in-between. Driving to each call saves time relative to walking a few hundred yards and back each time.

 

Not seen so big a storm in so small a teacup in a long time

What I suspect that it comes down to is that people don't like MPs making expense claims.

What I suspect that it comes down to, is that people who do not routinely make expense claims in any capacity (which, I suspect, will be the lion's share of people in the UK) don't like anyone making expense claims Edited July 23, 2015 by L00b

[lazarus]

So who should pay for his travel expenses when he's doing his work?

I had to pay my own travel expenses when I was working.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

I had to pay my own travel expenses when I was working.

And were they incurred wholly/exclusively/necessarily in the course of your employment?

[cuttsie]

I had to pay my own travel expenses when I was working.

Most manual workers did.

[JFKvsNixon]

Most manual workers did.

 

They wouldn't have had to pay for the petrol when the works van was filled up though would they?

[alchemist]

 

I can understand this to an extent. The way that many MPs abused the system is scandalous, but the current brouhaha is just petty silliness. The only thing that should matter when it comes to expense claims is "was it a legitimate expense?" Everything else is just nonsense.

 

OK, I will ask you, as the chief MP apologist on here, how can you justify getting into a car and DRIVING 352 yrds? Was it REALLY legitimate? Whats up with walking or is it OK for MP's to be just lazy sods? Why should the taxpayer be made to pay for pure idleness? Most places have a minimum distance to claim so why should MP's be any different?

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2015 at 19:02 ----------

 

 

In either case, a moot point all the same, without knowing why the MP drove rather than walked 352 yards. Having a bit of a clue about MPs' typically "to-the-minute" daily schedules, I suspect that 352 yard travel was part of a 'circuit' of constituency calls with short-and-not-short intervals in-between. Driving to each call saves time relative to walking a few hundred yards and back each time.

 

Hmm, so how many seconds did he save from unlocking the car getting into the car, putting on his seatbelt, starting the car, driving 352 yds, undoing his seatbelt, getting out of the car and then unlocking it as opposed to merely taking 352 steps? At the rate of a a step every second that is after all only 6 mins

[cuttsie]

They wouldn't have had to pay for the petrol when the works van was filled up though would they?

Back of Acroyd and Abbots lorry 42 blokes would catch it in King Street ,no cover on summer or winter, be a minute late after 7.30 am and it was the sack.

Now for some one to be comparing that with fiddling M.P.'s and their ilk is downright immoral .

These blooody profesional classes don't know the meaning of life and never blinkin will;)

[JFKvsNixon]

Back of Acroyd and Abbots lorry 42 blokes would catch it in King Street ,no cover on summer or winter, be a minute late after 7.30 am and it was the sack.

Now for some one to be comparing that with fiddling M.P.'s and their ilk is downright immoral .

These blooody profesional classes don't know the meaning of life and never blinkin will;)

 

At least you're a balanced chap, you seem to have chips on both shoulders!

[cuttsie]

At least you're a balanced chap, you seem to have chips on both shoulders!

Hods on:hihi: