80k a year chaffuer for MP...

Original post by Mourinho<3

but for the "good of the country" why not get people such as him to live like the vast majority have to and save a literal fortune!

If he does live like the vast majority and, in terms of public money, saves small change, then he loses time where he could be working while he travels, which when you're a MP is a lot of time spent travelling.

Would you rather him working or not working?

And no, I doubt it's because he finds it nicer, it's a Toyota Avensis, not a Bentley, and these days especially you need to have a good reason to claim expenses.

Reply 22

Narcissist

It's 80k a year for the department, not just him. This car will be used throughout the day. We don't know how many people use the car each day. What would be cheaper, paying 80k a year for one driver with car or paying for company cars/rail travel for each employee plus reimbursing fuel. The difference won't be that much. There's much greater wastage elsewhere in the system.

Reply 23

AnonymousPenguin

Big whoop, top jobs come with some perks.

Reply 24

Original post by rmpr97

it's a Toyota Avensis

Well that settles the matter, if there were doubt.

You've got to feel like a complete idiot when you're bitterly complaining about the extravagance displayed by an MP's hitching a lift in a toyota avensis.

At least, if you don't feel like one, you sound like one.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 25

Budgie

The devil is probably in the detail here - where is the £80k figure from? I am suspicious that that is the cost of each car in the pooled departmental car service per year, not the cost of this minister's journeys.

Reply 26

Original post by TimmonaPortella

MPs are busy. I wouldn't want them standing around waiting for trains, being delayed when the trains are delayed, taking ages to get where they're going due to having to swap trains, being unable to work on the trains due to overcrowding/noise/being bothered by the public, etc. It's a public appointment and I'm quite happy for the public to pay relatively insignificant amounts to make the appointee more efficient.

So, in sum, I don't care, and neither should anyone else.

Well that settles the matter, if there were doubt.

You've got to feel like a complete idiot when you're bitterly complaining about the extravagance displayed by an MP's hitching a lift in a toyota avensis.

At least, if you don't feel like one, you sound like one.

Now now, this is the embodiment of style, luxury and class!

Reply 27

Original post by Mourinho<3

Does he get a chauffer because he finds it nicer than a train? Much more likely than your reason that he has sensitive work that has to be done.

Lmao -- I know, right?! How implausible!!1!!11

Original post by Mourinho<3

but for the "good of the country" why not get people such as him to live like the vast majority have to and save a literal fortune!

They're not the vast majority of people. They're running the country. And "perks" like these serve that end.

Reply 28

Original post by rmpr97

Now now, this is the embodiment of style, luxury and class!

I know. It's so decadent. I bet the slimy bastard has champagne and a jacuzzi in the back there, too.

Reply 29

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I know. It's so decadent. I bet the slimy bastard has champagne and a jacuzzi in the back there, too.

I know right. That mellifluous rumble the car makes when it moves. He's probably in there with a mini bar, wrapped up in Egyptian cotton, watching BBC Parliament as he rides in style!

Reply 30

InnerTemple

Original post by rmpr97

Now now, this is the embodiment of style, luxury and class!

Beats this any day...

(although check out the blonde in the foreground.)

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 31

I still fail to see how spending 80k a year on a chauffer is acceptable along with other MP's using their expenses not particuarly fairly (porn in one case lol) is fine. Such behaviour is hardly in the spirit of cutbacks they are making for the country...

EDIT; As for sounding like an idiot I think the general population/majority of the country would generally believe that MP's are on the whole quite cheeky in their use of "expenses"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8039273.stm

Biscuits for example? I know MP's aren't ordinary people, but they can afford their own surely? The rest of the country have to
http://www.leylandguardian.co.uk/news/local/mp-s-biscuit-claim-among-expenses-1-2997388

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 32

Original post by Mourinho<3

EDIT; As for sounding like an idiot I think the general population/majority of the country would generally believe that MP's are on the whole quite cheeky in their use of "expenses"

My response to that would normally be something along the lines of the majority of the country being idiots, but actually in this case I can just point out that biscuits do not substantially increase efficiency. Quick transport, in the course of which work is possible, does.

Reply 33

Original post by TimmonaPortella

For me, personally, over the years MP's have had enough dubious expenses (countless examples could be given) and it is somewhat worrying. I said before those who disagree with my original post I welcome your opinions, but I still do agree with those that find it slightly worrying. I may be an "idiot" like the majority of the population then sadly!

Reply 34

Original post by Mourinho<3

I may be an "idiot" like the majority of the population then sadly!

Quite possibly, if you've managed to miss my distinction between a business expense and biscuits/porn.

Reply 35

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Quite possibly, if you've managed to miss my distinction between a business expense and biscuits/porn.

The fact is expenses are NOT supposed to be for what many MP's have been claiming them for. Not by a long way. That is my point essentially and can be seen in the first post. If you disagree then fair enough :smile:

I just find floating duck ponds and the like being claimed on expenses ridiculous. I mean politicans aren't fond of benefit cheats but isn't such example quite similar? Some may not think so but I do. Its plain dishonest.

EDIT;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247503/Have-shame-Duck-house-moat-MPs-fought-expenses-payback-call.html

According to this article examples of what has been claimed under expenses are; A floating duck house, a moat to be cleaned, second homes, hanging a chandalier, gardening, reparing a swimming pool boiler,

First class travel being allowed on expenses is a recent issue. I may be wrong but I don't think NHS workers could claim taxpayers money for that...but some MP's can?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 36

Original post by InnerTemple

Beats this any day...

(although check out the blonde in the foreground.)

Exactly, yet how's an MP supposed to be efficient and do some work in between travelling in a train? And MP's do a lot of travelling. £80k for a chauffeur is nothing, it's worth it with all the work he'd do in it.

Plus he's running the country, and to be fair, for what they do, MP's are underpaid, it has to come with some perks.

Reply 37

Original post by Mourinho<3

First class travel is another argument.

Nothing else you've said remotely bears upon the question in this thread. I'm actually baffled that you're still talking about duck houses. Duck houses are not the issue. I shall repeat one more time: duck houses do not contribute to efficiency. This car service does.

I'd be happy to receive a further reponse upon the appropriateness of this car service. If you're going to reply and talk about things that aren't this car service, please save your pixels.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 38

MagicNMedicine

Original post by Budgie

Exactly. The real question that these newspapers, and the Labour MP raising it as an issue, should be asking is:

- How much has the decision for the Minister to use the departmental car, rather than take the train to work, meant an extra cost to the taxpayer?

or looking at it the other way, if the Minister went on the train to work every day, how much would it save the taxpayer?

Now I suspect the Labour MP knows the actual answer to this question, which is why this isn't an issue that will be pursued to the point of resignation. If he actually was ripping the taxpayer off, this is something that could be driven on to force him out - like it did those that were fiddling their expenses. More than likely though this was just a cheap opportunity to get a headline and create some bad feeling around the "we're all suffering while the Tory toffs enjoy luxury" argument.

Having said this, I have no special sympathy for the Tories, and I expect a lot of the Conservative supporters that are rushing to his defence on this thread, would have been eager to put the boot in had this been a Labour minister, as would the Tory tabloid press....

The other important issue here is the one about having classified documentation. It is not secure to have somebody carrying classfied and sensitive documents on public transport. If we scrapped all these cars in the departmental pool and said everyone that works for government has to use public transport at their own expense, it might get some good populist grunts of approval at first, but it wouldn't be long before stuff started going missing on trains. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the nuclear codes to be damaging - a lot of the things ministers will have on them will be market sensitive information, stuff that they are on a very restricted 'pre-access list' because of their position, and if it leaked could give some people huge insider trading advantages in the markets, and conversely do a lot of damage to some businesses. You can't take risks with sensitive documents so it is right to use departmental cars.

Reply 39