Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rmpr97)
    Wow, big woop. MP uses chauffeur so he can work, and not have any sensitive information released, while he travels when MP's already do quite a lot already.

    If he's working, on top of working, can't he be spared a little luxury, instead of working for the good of the country in a cramped train where he can't maximise his time as he'll only be able to work on non-sensitive information.
    80k a year is not a little luxury. Not when that is several times many people's entire salary! Let alone disposable income. 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. Do that at home, at work, and use the train like everyone else has to!
    Maybe its just me but I hope your being sarcastic and I am just too silly to see it 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!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mourinho<3)
    80k a year is not a little luxury. Not when that is several times many people's entire salary! Let alone disposable income. 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. Do that at home, at work, and use the train like everyone else has to!
    Maybe its just me but I hope your being sarcastic and I am just too silly to see it 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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Big whoop, top jobs come with some perks.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    (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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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!

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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 ******* has champagne and a jacuzzi in the back there, too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I know. It's so decadent. I bet the slimy ******* 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!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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/new...nses-1-2997388
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.
    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!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    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/arti...back-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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mourinho<3)
    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

    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/arti...back-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?
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.
    The only question originally asked was "For how many years have MP's under both Labour and Conservative been doing things like this?" So their expenses ARE relavant. His car service is not the only issue. The original point was that the morality of MP's seems to be a bit off. I did say YEARS! in my post.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.