100k expenses for tory with 22 homes

Graham_Devon

cleanmycleats wrote: »

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.

Yes I'm defending this tory. Does that mean I'm defending the whole party in your book?

I'm defending him quite simply because you are expecting him to go to work and pay all the expenses required for him to do his job. Which means, he would be actually paying to go to work and be at a loss each time he gets a wage packet. Whcih is frankly pathetic, and would have knock on effects to so many expenses claims in so many different companies that I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about here.

What next? Footballers pay for the footballs, pitches etc and pay for their own flights around the world to get to games?

chewmylegoff

how do you know he doesn't need it? he might have 22 highly leveraged BTLs that are all making a loss.

cleanmycleats

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes I'm defending this tory. Does that mean I'm defending the whole party in your book?

I'm defending him quite simply because you are expecting him to go to work and pay all the expenses required for him to do his job. Which means, he would be actually paying to go to work and be at a loss each time he gets a wage packet. Whcih is frankly pathetic, and would have knock on effects to so many expenses claims in so many different companies that I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about here.

What next? Footballers pay for the footballs, pitches etc and pay for their own flights around the world to get to games?

no i'm no expecting him to pay for ALL his expenses, you seem to be rather confused. My issue with mps is that they have clearly been claiming far in excess of WHAT THEY ACTUALLY NEED. It really isn't difficult. As others have pointed out, this isn't a privilege that the rest of us get on this scale, and it urgently needs cutting back.

re: defending tories: i've observed that you are far more likely to defend tories, presumably because you are one - why not just admit to the bias?

cleanmycleats

chewmylegoff wrote: »

how do you know he doesn't need it? he might have 22 highly leveraged BTLs that are all making a loss.

£100,000? yeah right.

chewmylegoff

cleanmycleats wrote: »

re: defending tories: i've observed that you are far more likely to defend tories, presumably because you are one - why not just admit to the bias?

why not just post under you usual username than make up a new one just to post in this thread?

chewmylegoff

cleanmycleats wrote: »

£100,000? yeah right.

over 7 years, so £14k a year - would barely cover rent and utilities.

cleanmycleats

chewmylegoff wrote: »

why not just post under you usual username than make up a new one just to post in this thread?

i didn't. you really should check your facts before you post this kind of nonsense

kborom

Come on boys and girls, this is a story from the Mirror, the labour party's newspaper, it's hardly going to state the facts!

nickmason

Two different debates:
1) Is the expense system for MPs fatally holed below the waterline? Yes.
2) Is there a difference between claiming within the spirit of a fatally holed system, and working the system to your advantage? Yes.

The Mirror is trying to deflect the sh*t from Labour ministers who - and let's remember what they are doing - are living in grace and favour houses in London and claiming that their constituency home is their second home that the expenses system is supposed to fund; and - now comfortably being funded for two homes by the people/state, then rent out their primary London home. In other words they are expecting to have two homes funded because of the grace and favour home, rather than seeing the g'n'f home as a perk INSTEAD of the expensed second home. This is manifestly different from the Mirror story of someone - who happens to have some investments somewhere - claiming for a second home that is necessary to their job, while paying for their first home.

Debate 1 is should MPs have cake? Seems not, anymore, they've abused it.
Debate 2 is should MPs have the cake and eat it. Certainly not.

PS - I have no doubt that this abuse is not just by members of the Labour party.
PPS - Yes, I am a Tory.

ukcarper

kborom wrote: »

Come on boys and girls, this is a story from the Mirror, the labour party's newspaper, it's hardly going to state the facts!

Like the mail