MP's Expenses - Page 3

WHISTLED · 30-05-2008, 16:05

Quote:

That's why I suggested a large hotel ( already existing) where only MPs and MP supervised guests would get in. After all, this is work related.

Have you ever had to travel for work? 9 suspect yes but only for an odd day so you see it as a bit of an adventure..

I work away a lot because of my role with VM, every week - Its crap, I only have to go for 1-2 days you would have to pay me more than an MP's pay to spend weeks at a time in a hotel.

They do have wives and partners (and both) you cant LIVE in a hotel.

Quote:

Why should we have to pay for it then, they take what's on offer or they fend for themselves imo

Well considered argument/discussion there.. 50K to maintain 2 homes one of which is in London? Dont be so silly and try and have a degree of objectivity.

Some of you people do make me laugh.

foreverwar · 30-05-2008, 16:07

Have to agree with you, Mr W - I have spent over half my working life living out of hotels, and it stinks (which is why I have now taken a job one mile / five miles from my house (I have two offices, which I divide my time between0).

TheDaddy · 30-05-2008, 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHISTLED

Well considered argument/discussion there.. 50K to maintain 2 homes one of which is in London? Dont be so silly and try and have a degree of objectivity.

Some of you people do make me laugh.

Yawn, perhaps if you stopped laughing long enough you might actually read what is written rather than what you think is written

WHISTLED · 30-05-2008, 16:54

Ok lets buy them all a house in London (which remain property of the state as suggested) lets say within 15 miles of Westminster as that seems reasonable, 3 bedrooms?

So thats just shy of a million each - 646 MP's adds up to a good outlay.

I can see the headlines and subsequesnt threads now!!

frogstamper · 30-05-2008, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHISTLED

Ok lets buy them all a house in London (which remain property of the state as suggested) lets say within 15 miles of Westminster as that seems reasonable, 3 bedrooms?

So thats just shy of a million each - 646 MP's adds up to a good outlay.

I can see the headlines and subsequesnt threads now!!

Something along the lines of, "Greedy MPs spend over half a billion of your money to live life of luxury"

I've said this earlier, MPs pay should be transparent and set at around the 100k mark, we are talking here of the people who run our country and I personally don't resent that amount being paid.

TheDaddy · 30-05-2008, 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHISTLED

Ok lets buy them all a house in London (which remain property of the state as suggested) lets say within 15 miles of Westminster as that seems reasonable, 3 bedrooms?

So thats just shy of a million each - 646 MP's adds up to a good outlay.

I can see the headlines and subsequesnt threads now!!

Err no it doesn't, try Stratford, West Ham, Plaistow, Walthamstow and Leytonstone for instance, 3 bedroom properties there don't cost a million for a start and why does it have to be three bedroom, it's some where for them to stay in the week not a family home.

danielf · 30-05-2008, 22:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Err no it doesn't, try Stratford, West Ham, Plaistow, Walthamstow and Leytonstone for instance, 3 bedroom properties there don't cost a million for a start and why does it have to be three bedroom, it's some where for them to stay in the week not a family home.

Actually, three 'bedrooms' sounds about right. One bedroom, a study/office, and a guestroom doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Chrysalis · 05-06-2008, 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntluser

What do forum members think of the proposal that MPs get a bigger salary in place of expenses?

As per usual, it's all about looking after themselves and less accountability to the paying public.

the only good proposal they can offer is cutting down their expenses. I have yet to hear an MP explain why they should live in london when their job is to look after the people that vote for them.

danielf · 05-06-2008, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

the only good proposal they can offer is cutting down their expenses. I have yet to hear an MP explain why they should live in london when their job is to look after the people that vote for them.

Hm, MP... Member of Parliament, might give you a clue.

foreverwar · 05-06-2008, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Hm, MP... Member of Parliament, might give you a clue.

Where are the Houses of Parliament again?

Chrysalis · 05-06-2008, 17:50

most MPs are not actually there every day.

danielf · 05-06-2008, 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

most MPs are not actually there every day.

No, because they divide their time between attending parliament and their constituency (well, that's the idea anyway), so they need a residence in both places. And as has been pointed out, staying in a hotel is not really an option.

Enuff · 08-06-2008, 00:38

They finally know we're on to them?

Quote:

THE House of Commons has shredded more than 1m documents detailing expenses claims by MPs that were due to be revealed to the public.

The Commons authorities said last week they had destroyed all documents for MPs up to April 2004, even though official guidelines state that such records should be kept for six years.

Link

Chrysalis · 13-06-2008, 21:01

Perhaps they should be means tested before able to claim additional expenses like all benefit claimants, so if they have 16k of saving etc. then no expense claims allowed.