MP - Allowances

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Gun_Empty, Oct 26, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Who on earth authorises claims by MPs? It seems to me that in recent years there has been a real clampdown in terms of what you can claim for. Civ Sec bear down on claims that 'go against the spirit they were intended'.

    These claims are basically an excuse for a second income. Quite indefensible. But they don't have to do they? :evil:
  2. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
  3. quote on sky...MPs think they are good value for money....Ha Ha going off into the garden to scream obsenities to the great blue yonder............
  4. Spanish_Dave

    Spanish_Dave LE Good Egg (charities)

    Absolutley disgusting, every year is worse :x they think that everything should be paid for :x
  5. Their spending doesn't strike me as excessive really. Here are their guidelines which I've added some notes in red as my immediate reaction:

  6. What about dear old Gerry Adams & Martin McGuiness? As far as I'm aware, they don't set foot in Parliament yet they managed to run up nearly quarter of a million in expenses last year. That's in addition to their MP's salaries. They also draw over £171,000 in wages in expenses from the non-functioning Northern Ireland assembly. Over half a million quid from the public purse for doing feck all. Nice work if you can get it.

    Or indeed David Blunkett who managed to claim £75,363 in mortgage expenses despite only having a £10,000 mortgage. LINK

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear certain MPs complaining about 'fat cat bosses'.
  7. Fair comment and there's always those who go off the scale and need gripping. I scanned down the list and thought the vast majority were within reasonable limits. Since they're 7% above last year I'd cap or reduce their allocation this year so their two year average equals inflation. I would be peed off if they don't have to submit chits for every expense.

    Their constituency should be aware of their value-for-money in terms of activity. And their whips hopefully monitor their activity closely. I'm not a great fan of other draconian measures.
  8. JPA the lot of them.
  9. I think that's a speciality of the European Parliament, who are in a different league when it comes to expenses.

    IIRC there was a scandal last year when some of the MEPs got caught. Standard practice was to claim a full fair BA business class flight for every trip to Brussels then fly in on Ryanair. Some of them were trousering well over £1,000 a week on that little scam. It wasn't even illegal.
  10. Just been round Tescos and managed to read today's Guardian report in between being daylight-robbed by the price of British beef (£20 for a kilo of fillet for tomorrow's Beef Wellington!).

    They highlighted that MPs don't submit chits below £250 claims and their spending isn't published. It is a matter of trust surely, that this country's members of parliament can spend wisely, but it was pointed out also that the Scottish MP's expense claims dramatically reduced when their accounts went public.

    If your the CEO or tea lady, you should be required to submit a chit for every expense. That's no hardship. I'm not sure every expense should be published though as trust has to enter in somewhere.

    V. nice to see the Guardian's inch high banner headline say MP's staff expenses "£48bn" instead of million. Wince.
  11. MP's demand chazzer's tax returns..when will thye release their tax returns??

    MP's suck,or blow.but never repay the vlaue...
  12. This is the same as here, here, here and here

    But it's not a breakdown of their expenses which I don't believe are published for Westminster e.g. £1.75 for turkey sandwhich on Virgin West Coast line etc
  13. Having looked at the Lord's expenses youcan see why The Labour Party are determined to democratise the upper house in order to corrupt them and save the embarrassment of the Lords being in the house as often as the Commons for a fraction of the cost.