One rule for them...

[xoggoth]

Then we can say "how disgraceful" and watch it again.

[xoggoth]

Never any end to the special treatments they award themselves. Also in that article they can claim rates! we can't!

Then they have the gall to demand a 66% pay rise when, due to the EU and always obeying orders of whips, they don't actually do the main job we pay them for, which is representing the interests of the voting public. Basically all they do do is now that is remotely useful is little more the sort of thing that volunteers for the Citizens' Advice Bureau do for free.

They should HANG the bloody lot of 'em in a long line stretching from Westminster to Downing street so we can all take videos on our mobiles then we can say "how disgraceful" and watch it again. Then we can say "how disgraceful" and watch it again. Then we can say "how disgraceful" and watch it again. Then we can say "how disgraceful" and watch it again.

[Mailman]

And that is the funny thing...unless contractors are also lumping themselves in with MP's?

Mailman

[Captain Jack]

Up to £250 without a reciept - I'd say the £50 is still too high. Why should they be allowed to claim any expenses (out of our money) without a reciept. Imagine trying that one on with the IR. Along the lines of 'Oh yes I commute between Manchester and London every day but didn't think I needed a reciept'.

A quick glance through business/accounting will reassure you that there are a great many contractors who believe this does apply to them as well.

[BoredBloke]

MPs' watchdog eyes house funding

MPs use allowances to pay for second homes
Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Sir Philip Mawer has reportedly queried ministers' use of housing allowances.
MPs for constituencies outside central London are entitled to up to £22,110 a year to pay for a second home, which most use to fund a London flat.

But some senior ministers have free official residences and use the allowance for their constituency home.

"Any member... ought to pay for at least one house," the Times quoted Sir Philip as saying.



The commissioner told the newspaper: "There has been some concern in the past that, in the case of ministers, they may have a provided home which they are not paying for, they are claiming a parliamentary allowance on a home in the constituency and they are renting out the flat in London which they occupied before they became a minister."



Sir Philip also suggested that the level above which MPs should have to furnish a receipt for expenses should drop to £50 per item from £250 per item.

He told the Times: "That figure is too high. I do think the figure ought to be significantly reduced."

The commissioner, currently investigating allegations that Tory MPs misused House of Commons dining rooms to raise party funds, said the guidelines on such matters should be made clearer.

Sir Philip has made a series of recommendations to the Senior Salaries Review Body, which is undertaking a study of MPs' pay and allowances.

================================================== =======

Up to £250 without a reciept - I'd say the £50 is still too high. Why should they be allowed to claim any expenses (out of our money) without a reciept. Imagine trying that one on with the IR. Along the lines of 'Oh yes I commute between Manchester and London every day but didn't think I needed a reciept'.