These days most public sector staff only stay in hotels if they absolutely have no alternative - and then they tend to be very basic budget hotels or conference centres. Sometimes a buffet lunch will be provided - but where it isn't I would expect people to pay for their own food - they'd have to if they were in the office or at home after all.
Same with any staff in any sector, the only reason why you stop in a hotel is because you have to. I've never worked for a company where constraints aren't put on hotel or food costs. They would have no option but to pay for their own if it wasn't provided. But getting back to my point, you are provided for if you are working away from home, why should MP's be any different.
Same with any staff in any sector, the only reason why you stop in a hotel is because you have to. I've never worked for a company where constraints aren't put on hotel or food costs. They would have no option but to pay for their own if it wasn't provided. But getting back to my point, you are provided for if you are working away from home, why should MP's be any different.
But they are different - they are claiming massive amounts per year for food and drink. I have less issue with accommodation as they have no choice - they have to have a bed for the night.
Personally I don't think anyone should be given free food - it increases the costs of services in both public and private sector - and it isn't necessary, these days you can buy a sandwich or fast food everywhere.
Personally I think the same rules should apply to all staff in either sector but I do think there is , at least in principle, a difference between what profit making organisations do with their money and what public services do. In the first case the accountability is to the shareholder, in the second to the tax payer - so there is a distinct difference in that sense.
I agree but we do owe a duty of care for all of our public servant. But we need to control them costs are ensure they are only for necessities.
Westminster is their normal place of work. If I lived in Leeds and had a job at an office in Manchester I would not expect my meals to be paid by my employer because I was working away from home.
It's not though, Westminster is where they either get called to or go on behalf of their constituents.
They are public servants and everything you've said applies to thousands if not millions of public sector staff who have had their terms and conditions slashed. Why should they be any different? Free meals and booze weren't an issue when the economy was ok - now it's not.
I thought we were all in it together?
Because, to be frank, MPs are different. It's like asking why the board members of McDonalds should get treated better than the people that work in the restaurant. These people are suppose to be the nations elite - the people that manage multi-billion pound budgets and are responsible for the welfare of millions. Yet they get treated as though they are a middle managers.
I'm not saying that MPs should get stock broker pay, or bankers bonuses, or salesmens perks - just that they should at least be given the same rewards as, say, a senior civil servant and not be treated as criminals for wanting their work expenses to be paid. If we did that maybe we would get a better calibre of candidates for office and we would be so disappointed all the time.
And just to add, the pay that MPs receive is completely and utterly irrelevant to the national finances. It's something like 0.0001% of total government spending. I would be surprised if tax payers were paying more than £2-3 a year for parliament, and paying for meals or not is less than pennies each.
Because, to be frank, MPs are different. It's like asking why the board members of McDonalds should get treated better than the people that work in the restaurant. These people are suppose to be the nations elite - the people that manage multi-billion pound budgets and are responsible for the welfare of millions. Yet they get treated as though they are a middle managers.
I'm not saying that MPs should get stock broker pay, or bankers bonuses, or salesmens perks - just that they should at least be given the same rewards as, say, a senior civil servant and not be treated as criminals for wanting their work expenses to be paid. If we did that maybe we would get a better calibre of candidates for office and we would be so disappointed all the time.
And just to add, the pay that MPs receive is completely and utterly irrelevant to the national finances. It's something like 0.0001% of total government spending. I would be surprised if tax payers were paying more than £2-3 a year for parliament, and paying for meals or not is less than pennies each.
I have no difficulty with them being paid commensurate to their responsibilities - by all means increase their pay.
What I am saying is that they should be bound by the same strictures on expenses as other public servants - it's public money. And there is a daily outpouring of anti public sector sentiment about 'waste'. They should be setting an example - and it should not be about status.
At the end of the day they are not 'managing' budgets at all - they are determining public policy - but I agree they should be paid more than they are.
Comments
Same with any staff in any sector, the only reason why you stop in a hotel is because you have to. I've never worked for a company where constraints aren't put on hotel or food costs. They would have no option but to pay for their own if it wasn't provided. But getting back to my point, you are provided for if you are working away from home, why should MP's be any different.
But they are different - they are claiming massive amounts per year for food and drink. I have less issue with accommodation as they have no choice - they have to have a bed for the night.
Personally I don't think anyone should be given free food - it increases the costs of services in both public and private sector - and it isn't necessary, these days you can buy a sandwich or fast food everywhere.
I agree but we do owe a duty of care for all of our public servant. But we need to control them costs are ensure they are only for necessities.
It's not though, Westminster is where they either get called to or go on behalf of their constituents.
Because, to be frank, MPs are different. It's like asking why the board members of McDonalds should get treated better than the people that work in the restaurant. These people are suppose to be the nations elite - the people that manage multi-billion pound budgets and are responsible for the welfare of millions. Yet they get treated as though they are a middle managers.
I'm not saying that MPs should get stock broker pay, or bankers bonuses, or salesmens perks - just that they should at least be given the same rewards as, say, a senior civil servant and not be treated as criminals for wanting their work expenses to be paid. If we did that maybe we would get a better calibre of candidates for office and we would be so disappointed all the time.
And just to add, the pay that MPs receive is completely and utterly irrelevant to the national finances. It's something like 0.0001% of total government spending. I would be surprised if tax payers were paying more than £2-3 a year for parliament, and paying for meals or not is less than pennies each.
I have no difficulty with them being paid commensurate to their responsibilities - by all means increase their pay.
What I am saying is that they should be bound by the same strictures on expenses as other public servants - it's public money. And there is a daily outpouring of anti public sector sentiment about 'waste'. They should be setting an example - and it should not be about status.
At the end of the day they are not 'managing' budgets at all - they are determining public policy - but I agree they should be paid more than they are.