100k expenses for tory with 22 homes

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't see where the story is here, the fact he owns some BTL properties is not linked to his expenses claim. Or have I missed something?

Just a labour leaning paper using some Journalism el desperado

cleanmycleats

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just a labour leaning paper using some Journalism el desperado

I think the point is that while most of these mps haven't broken any rules, they don't have any moral justification for taking our money, especially if they are rich enough to fund their own second home? Personally, I'm seething at some of these examples, and this is no different.

Graham_Devon

cleanmycleats wrote: »

I think the point is that while most of these mps haven't broken any rules, they don't have any moral justification for taking our money, especially if they are rich enough to fund their own second home? Personally, I'm seething at some of these examples, and this is no different.

Oh come on! Would you expect a bus driver to pay for the fuel for the bus because he's got outside incomes nothing to do with being a bus driver?

Would you expect a pilot who owns several mansions to pay for his accomodation in another country because he has had to fly to australia, sleep over and then fly back the next day?

It's nothing to do with morals here. This story has been designed to bring out these pathetic thoughtpaths.

If they had to pay for their own second homes, they would basically be paying to go to work. Get a grip.

cleanmycleats

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh come on! Would you expect a bus driver to pay for the fuel for the bus because he's got outside incomes nothing to do with being a bus driver?

Would you expect a pilot who owns several mansions to pay for his accomodation in another country because he has had to fly to australia, sleep over and then fly back the next day?

It's nothing to do with morals here. This story has been designed to bring out these pathetic thoughtpaths.

If they had to pay for their own second homes, they would basically be paying to go to work. Get a grip.

what a load of sloblock.

if its ok for a tory, its ok for all of them. why the hell should struggling working people on sod all money subsidise people who don't NEED our money? you get a grip.

kennyboy66_2

I would think a sizeable portion of MP's of all sides have broken the spirit of the rules rather than the rules itself to gouge money out of the taxpayer.

What is laughable is Tories on here dancing on the head of a pin trying to justify this one. I know plenty of people who commute further than this guy lives from Westminster.

Graham_Devon

cleanmycleats wrote: »

what a load of sloblock.

if its ok for a tory, its ok for all of them. why the hell should struggling working people on sod all money subsidise people who don't NEED our money? you get a grip.

It's ok for this tory, because he really isn't doing anything wrong, even morally, not that the article can pin point. Its just saying he's basically rich, but claims expenses he's entitled to to do his job.

You are getting very confused between the difference of being personally wealthy, and using the expenses systems for personal gain and twisting rules to do so.

cleanmycleats

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's ok for this tory, because he really isn't doing anything wrong, even morally, not that the article can pin point. Its just saying he's basically rich, but claims expenses he's entitled to to do his job.

You are getting very confused between the difference of being personally wealthy, and using the expenses systems for personal gain and twisting rules to do so.

no I'm not confused in the slightest. The whole point is that the amount of money these mps claim is way above what we (taxpayers) should reasonably expect. you defend tories, but would you also defend a labour mp in the same position? i don't think so - you need to remove your blue-lensed spectacles.

Graham_Devon

cleanmycleats wrote: »

no I'm not confused in the slightest. The whole point is that the amount of money these mps claim is way above what we (taxpayers) should reasonably expect. you defend tories, but would you also defend a labour mp in the same position? i don't think so - you need to remove your blue-lensed spectacles.

I'm not defending the tories.

But I'm not blindly making false comparisons with other MP's who are doing totally different things.

I have already slammed Eric Pickles, so this is nothing to do with me defending any party.

chewmylegoff

cleanmycleats wrote: »

no I'm not confused in the slightest. The whole point is that the amount of money these mps claim is way above what we (taxpayers) should reasonably expect. you defend tories, but would you also defend a labour mp in the same position? i don't think so - you need to remove your blue-lensed spectacles.

what should taxpayers reasonably expect? that an MP should use their own money to pay for a home that they only need to maintain in order to do their job?

how far should someone be prepared to commute - perhaps draw a line across the country, maybe through the watford gap, and anything north of that you're allowed a second home allowance, but only if you're not independently wealthy?

and by the way, if you're independently wealthy, you cannot claim your travel costs to and from westminster, or in fact for anything. means testing for MPs? utterly ridiculous.

might as well just get rid of the commons and have unpaid hereditary peers with no salary or expenses.

cleanmycleats

you're defending this tory. why do you think it is acceptable for him to claim so much money from us, when he clearly doesn't need it? there are enough calls on the public purse as it is without mps draining it unnecessarily.