McNulty defends £ 60,000 housing expenses claims
24 March 2009, 02:28 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They haven't been 'exposed' .... as they are doing something legal and within the rules.
However, it stinks and discredits the whole house of cards ...... greed applies in most businesses, and most would 'milk' it to their benefit if they could (and they do the world over).
They are actually only earning something like £60,000 a year ..... that's just the same as a Deputy Headteacher at a Secondary School - I would hazard a guess that the MP deserves much more?
So, pay them £100,000 and do away with ALL allowances!
However, it stinks and discredits the whole house of cards ...... greed applies in most businesses, and most would 'milk' it to their benefit if they could (and they do the world over).
They are actually only earning something like £60,000 a year ..... that's just the same as a Deputy Headteacher at a Secondary School - I would hazard a guess that the MP deserves much more?
So, pay them £100,000 and do away with ALL allowances!
24 March 2009, 02:42 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
If the law says its allowed f*ck whether its morally right. If there was a cap or an independent body to review each case and act purely independently then it wouldn't happen.
Government are a bunch of greedy f*ckwits and in the election all we will do is change the colour - most certainly not the tone.
24 March 2009, 02:53 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
if you are the CEO of a footsie 100 company, who use every legal technicality to avoid UK tax
you must be sitting with a wry smile at the hubris of the government, who's defence seems to rest on the "if its within the letter of the law and i can get away with it i will" defence
just because you can, doesn't mean you should
you must be sitting with a wry smile at the hubris of the government, who's defence seems to rest on the "if its within the letter of the law and i can get away with it i will" defence
just because you can, doesn't mean you should
24 March 2009, 06:51 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: use the Marauder's Map to find out.
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only problem with this is what would happen in a couple of years. MPs representing constituencies outside the south east would then be saying "But we only get paid the same as MPs who can live in their constituency and attend Westminster from that address. We incur extra expenses to pay for our midweek accommodation, so we need a housing allowance to keep things fair........"
25 March 2009, 12:07 AM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh look. Another one ... MP with two homes minutes from Commons claims £37,000 expenses | News
" ... A GOVERNMENT whip was today embroiled in the growing expenses row after claiming thousands of pounds for a second London home despite already having one within 10 miles of Westminster.
Assistant government whip Dawn Butler has claimed £37,245 in taxpayers' cash in two years to pay for a second property. The Labour MP for Brent South has a house in Wembley, aboutnine miles or a 32-minute Tube journey to Westminster, and a home in Stratford, about eight miles or a 24-minute Tube ride.
She was today facing questions over why she needed the two homes, which are almost exactly the same distance from the Houses of Parliament. Her office has stressed in the past that she moved into the Wembley house after being elected in 2005 to allow her to serve her constituents .... "
She obviously deserves all that extra cash. I mean, just think of the stress of having to clean two houses .......
Dave
" ... A GOVERNMENT whip was today embroiled in the growing expenses row after claiming thousands of pounds for a second London home despite already having one within 10 miles of Westminster.
Assistant government whip Dawn Butler has claimed £37,245 in taxpayers' cash in two years to pay for a second property. The Labour MP for Brent South has a house in Wembley, aboutnine miles or a 32-minute Tube journey to Westminster, and a home in Stratford, about eight miles or a 24-minute Tube ride.
She was today facing questions over why she needed the two homes, which are almost exactly the same distance from the Houses of Parliament. Her office has stressed in the past that she moved into the Wembley house after being elected in 2005 to allow her to serve her constituents .... "
She obviously deserves all that extra cash. I mean, just think of the stress of having to clean two houses .......
Dave
25 March 2009, 10:01 AM
#36
working in the public sector, I get increasingly p*ssed off with these stories, as many people rope the entire public sector together.]
MPs live in a different world. They get travel expenses, card and drivers if th're minsters. We can't even use our own cars because it looks bad if we do. We have to use second / third hand stationary for god sake.
Even the much publised final salary pension really isn't worth much when most people earn less than the national average (much less in Yorkshire), and you pay 7% into it. I believe the PMs get a guaranteed £3m pension pot as soon as they get the job. Which is nice...
There's an arguement that you have to give MPs expenses so that the average bloke in the street can be one, and not being loaded doesn't become an obstacle. In realty though most MPs seem to have pretty well off families anyway.
Put them on the national average wage (or better still the minimum wage), and see how social policies change then.
MPs live in a different world. They get travel expenses, card and drivers if th're minsters. We can't even use our own cars because it looks bad if we do. We have to use second / third hand stationary for god sake.
Even the much publised final salary pension really isn't worth much when most people earn less than the national average (much less in Yorkshire), and you pay 7% into it. I believe the PMs get a guaranteed £3m pension pot as soon as they get the job. Which is nice...
There's an arguement that you have to give MPs expenses so that the average bloke in the street can be one, and not being loaded doesn't become an obstacle. In realty though most MPs seem to have pretty well off families anyway.
Put them on the national average wage (or better still the minimum wage), and see how social policies change then.
25 March 2009, 10:32 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should an MP expect top get paid more when he is getting such enormous tax free expenses anyway? Does not seem to be a shortage of applicants for the job either!
Most backbenchers only have to turn up for a 3 line whip in any case and just have to vote the way their party orders them to.
Les
Most backbenchers only have to turn up for a 3 line whip in any case and just have to vote the way their party orders them to.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM