Reply to: Travel & Subsistence in the budget?

[SueEllen]

He is to a certain point right. As the template letter for MPs I'm working on will demonstrate:-

1) A three line whip puts an MP under both supervision and direction. Depending on how ill they are and the importance of the vote taking place they may also be under control.

2) Given that they are subject to supervision, direction or control their place of work has to be the house of Commons. As such their travel expenses to London and their second home allowance is no longer tenable and those costs should be coming from their parliamentary salary...

Yes I am being utterly awkward but given that we now have fixed term 5 year parliaments moving to London is simply a requirement they accepted when standing in May...

What about the point there is no skills shortage e.g. there are so many willing people to stand as the Tory candidate in the Sunderland constituencies.

[TykeMerc]

I know but read my subsequent post. The entire point is to explain what they are doing to us in a easy to digest way that shows how this plan would impact them....

The flaw in your devious plan is that they have always had access to allowable expenses which the business community don't and if we tried to claim would wind up with us being done for tax evasion.
The situation being different is business as usual as far as MP's are concerned and they're happy to bury their snouts as far as possible into that trough. There's no reason to suspect that they will feel any guilt about the additional differences.

[vetran]

I know but read my subsequent post. The entire point is to explain what they are doing to us in a easy to digest way that shows how this plan would impact them....

if its taken up by the papers then it might have an effect.

[eek]

It won't matter - MPs will probably just make themselves exempt by law.

Didn't they insert a clause saying they were exempt from the APN legislation, or was it something else.

I know but read my subsequent post. The entire point is to explain what they are doing to us in a easy to digest way that shows how this plan would impact them....

[centurian]

He is to a certain point right. As the template letter for MPs I'm working on will demonstrate:-

1) A three line whip puts an MP under both supervision and direction. Depending on how ill they are and the importance of the vote taking place they may also be under control.

2) Given that they are subject to supervision, direction or control their place of work has to be the house of Commons. As such their travel expenses to London and their second home allowance is no longer tenable and those costs should be coming from their parliamentary salary...

Yes I am being utterly awkward but given that we now have fixed term 5 year parliaments moving to London is simply a requirement they accepted when standing in May...

It won't matter - MPs will probably just make themselves exempt by law.

Didn't they insert a clause saying they were exempt from the APN legislation, or was it something else.

[vetran]

Don't forget they can't do this either

Karen Danczuk is 'SACKED as her MP husband Simon

I wonder how that will go down with HMRC?

[DaveB]

Cojak is too intelligent and self controlled to stand for parliament she hasn't even been caught being inappropriate with an Orange.

Ukelele's on the other hand.....

[vetran]

Ah so like Cojak explaining the greek debt crisis as somone who has their credit card taken off them after spending it all on shoes, and making promises to be careful next time so they get it back?

Cojak is too intelligent and self controlled to stand for parliament she hasn't even been caught being inappropriate with an Orange.

[SimonMac]

Remember I said I was being utterly awkward but I want to explain things in a way they could clearly understand by demonstrating to them what the impact of this rule change would be if they didn't have privilege and so were subjected to it...

The first bit is to show them that the change in employment definition is so broad they would be impacted by it.
The second bit is to show the financial cost such a change would have on their lifestyle.

when people are thick you need to explain it in ways that they can easily comprehend...

Ah so like Cojak explaining the greek debt crisis as somone who has their credit card taken off them after spending it all on shoes, and making promises to be careful next time so they get it back?

[eek]

Parliamentary Privilege means they can pretty much do what they like, otherwise the two year rule would stop them from day 1 claiming expenses

Remember I said I was being utterly awkward but I want to explain things in a way they could clearly understand by demonstrating to them what the impact of this rule change would be if they didn't have privilege and so were subjected to it...

The first bit is to show them that the change in employment definition is so broad they would be impacted by it.
The second bit is to show the financial cost such a change would have on their lifestyle.

when people are thick you need to explain it in ways that they can easily comprehend...

[SimonMac]

He is to a certain point right. As the template letter for MPs I'm working on will demonstrate:-

1) A three line whip puts an MP under both supervision and direction. Depending on how ill they are and the importance of the vote taking place they may also be under control.

2) Given that they are subject to supervision, direction or control their place of work has to be the house of Commons. As such their travel expenses to London and their second home allowance is no longer tenable and those costs should be coming from their parliamentary salary...

Yes I am being utterly awkward but given that we now have fixed term 5 year parliaments moving to London is simply a requirement they accepted when standing in May...

Parliamentary Privilege means they can pretty much do what they like, otherwise the two year rule would stop them from day 1 claiming expenses

[eek]

I ALWAYS like to see who writes an article and what's in it for them.

As it is, I would imagine that Mr Scott would like all 'doomed' contractors to head for, and sign up to, Liberty Bishop...

He is to a certain point right. As the template letter for MPs I'm working on will demonstrate:-

1) A three line whip puts an MP under both supervision and direction. Depending on how ill they are and the importance of the vote taking place they may also be under control.

2) Given that they are subject to supervision, direction or control their place of work has to be the house of Commons. As such their travel expenses to London and their second home allowance is no longer tenable and those costs should be coming from their parliamentary salary...

Yes I am being utterly awkward but given that we now have fixed term 5 year parliaments moving to London is simply a requirement they accepted when standing in May...

[cojak]

I ALWAYS like to see who writes an article and what's in it for them.

As it is, I would imagine that Mr Scott would like all 'doomed' contractors to head for, and sign up to, Liberty Bishop...

[SimonMac]

Wow, somone is in dire need of a few happy pills

Will ANY contractor pass HMRC's proposed Supervision, Direction and Control test? :: Contractor UK

[eek]

As someone posted on the ipse forum:-

I could join a consultancy on a permanent basis where they use my home as a base and all travel is expensible or doing the exact same job as a contractor potentially as an associate of the same consultancy have to pay the exact same travel costs from taxed drawings...

Yes, I know its possibly not the case for all contractors but the above must be true for any contractor who specialises in 1 or 2 particular products...

The killer will be when you are delivering this on a multi-site project... One option I currently have on the table has visits to Sheffield, Reading and Southampton... Try doing that without expenses...