MP's allowed to claim £160 on groceries a week when DLA is only £77 per week!

[wantstosleepnow]

I think that says it all really. I've always said if MP's were on NMW or similar then things would change very quick in this country.

Cozy9, that is a very literal way of looking at it!

It is the principle of it that sticks in the throat.

It is disgusting, 'groceries' does not imply hospitality so no doubt there's a budget for that on top?

DLA is being cut for those genuinely in need (if you can get yourself from a to b with the equipment DLA pays for then you don't need DLA anymore!). DLA is an adjustment payment to those in and out of work an allowance for the costs and limitations that the disability places on those people, it (very slightly evens the playing field to allow people to purchase equipment they need etc).

George Osborne (and MP's generally) are so removed from the vast majority of people that they have no idea how replusive it is to claim expenses that should come out of their own pocket, like the other 99% of the population.

They don't need 160 a week for groceries. They get wages, thats what they are there for.

Its the fact they are saying we are all in it together when we clearly aren't. They do not have a clue!

Where have you sourced this fact?

£160 is a huge amount to spend on groceries, we spend half that for a family of 4 including two in nappies. It equates to about another £15k of salary before tax on top of the £65k they already receive.

We're in this together? Hardly

I do agree that MP's are extremely generous to themselves. Why do they need that much for groceries. Are they living on caviar.

I don't understand why you are comparing it to DLA!

I get DLA. DH gets paid a wage. Person X gets JSA. Person Y gets ESA. We all pay for our own groceries, MP's don't. That is wrong! Every single part of their expenses should be looked at! They have always had their noses in the trough. Not one party has ever changed it, and they won't, because when all is said and done they are as greedy as fuck and couldn't give a toss about the rest of us!

Yep, confusion about DLA.

DLA is not intended to be an income or liveable - it's to contribute to the additional cost of specific mobility and personal care needs (so David Blunkett is eligible for DLA because being blind he would need some assistance with housework). You don't get it for "being disabled", you have to have specific needs.

The income-replacement benefit, that people unable to work because of disability have to live on, is ESA (formerly Incapacity Benefit).

That varies from £56.25 a week to £105.05 a week (very few get the top amount).

And yes, unlike the MPs' £160 for groceries on top of their salaries, that has to pay for groceries, bills, clothes, bus fares, etc, just like someone on JobSeekers. And for the many people not well enough to work, but not "correctly" disabled for DLA, it has to stretch to all the disability extras as well - heating on during the day, buying a food processor because you can't slice and mash, paying for delivery and missing the marked down stuff because you can't easily shop.

I don't understand why they arec allowed to claim for groceries? Surely they would eat the same amount whichever home they are living in.

Ok... to clarify MP's get a daily allowance of £30 which is a subsistence allowance. It is ONLY for days of parliamentary business when they are effectively away from home. It is to cover food, including eating out and is not to food regular grocery bills and is not done on a weekly basis as far as I am aware.

Like any private company, if you worked away from home you would expect to get meals paid for wouldn't you? Unless I am wrong about this it seems a bit ridiculous to compare it to DLA.

Let's take another industry. If you are an actor and the company go to do a season at a theatre away from your home town in the country, you would also get a subsistence allowance on top the the wage. This is not unique to MP's.

Public opinion has kept MPs' wages at about 66k, which some may think is a handsome amount, but it's not. It's actually pretty low given what people with comparable workloads in the private sector receive. I'm pretty sure my boss was on almost 66k himself.

"Oh, boo bleeding hoo!" some of you might say - but really, only hardcore socialists expect MPs to take an average worker's wage. If you're a hardcore socialist, then fine. But I'm not.

Get rid of the expenses system and increase salaries, I reckon. Having said that, I also think teachers' and nurses' salaries should be double what they are - they work 70+ hour weeks and should be paid accordingly - so perhaps there's just not enough money floating around.

misterwife

exactly!

You would only get paid expenses in a normal job if going away was an unusual occurence.

Going to parliament is part of their job. If they cant fund it themselves on the wages then dont take the job, just as I wouldnt be able to take a job which required large travel costs to get to.

If it truely is impossible to do on the wages then uo the wages.

Its patronizing to think they are bringing in UC to "encourage better budgeting" when it seems the MPs dont have to budget for daily things such as lunch at work

Up the wages that should say.

wannabedomesticgoddess

"You would only get paid expenses in a normal job if going away was an unusual occurence."

I don't believe this is true. I know plenty of people who regularly work away from home as part of the job description but of course get their hotel, food, taxi expenses paid. It makes sense to me anyhow and I don't see there is any link with DLA.

Thanks for clarifying andy. £30/ day subsistence in London sounds reasonable to me

£30 a day is a ridiculous amount to be able to claim for one person to eat per day! They could manage on far less. DH is Forces, and IIRC he can claim about a fiver!

I agree that this all stems from MP's salaries not being high enough. From memory they're on about 60k, which is low for the job they do. I know lots of people are going to say its high, above average etc but for the hours/responsibility it isn't.

I don't think it is an unreasonable amount. If I travel on business I expect to be able to claim £30 for food away from my main home.

For example if they are only there one/two days at a time they are not going to have a fridge full of food are they?

Have you actually looked up how many of them claim it? And how much they claim?

These stats are a few years ago so I would suspect it might be fewer now after the expenses scandal.

"Of the 32 MPs who claimed the full amount (£400) every month last year, 23 were from the Labour party, the paper reported" Telegraph

So 32 MP's claimed the maximum of £400 a month
And the average claim was £154 a month.

"Under the Commons additional costs allowance, MPs were allowed to claim up to £400 for food every month ? £4,800 a year ? without having to submit receipts. This has since been replaced with a flat-rate sum of £25 "for any night which a member spends away from his or her main home on parliamentary business".

telegraph...

This is very different from the OP's suggestion that they get £160 a week to spend on groceries.

Looking [[http://mpsallowancesdb.parliament.uk/Results.aspx here
]]

The total spend on subsistence in 2010-2011 by all MPs was £16048.

As there are 650 MPs the average spend on subsistence per MP was £24.68 FOR THE WHOLE YEAR.

Feel free to check my results as I'm on my phone.

Yes, but other people away on business aren't then telling the public they should be pulling their belts in.
I think the argument is really that people relying on DLA and other benefits are struggling with cuts made to their income while MPs condescendingly tell us times are tough presumably unless you're an MP that is