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.

is there any way to find out which MPs actually claim?
Would be very interesting if Osborne and Ian Duncan Smith claimed it.

If anyone wants to see detail of individual MPs expenses, they are here

As far as I can see, neither Osborne nor Duncan Smith claim for food.

This is a crap title as it clearly does not reflect the real situation. In essence they are paid a subsistence allowance, not an unreasonable amount and certainly common across most work places when away from home. The reality is that if we don't make the job affordable for people whose families are not based in London, then we will only ever get wealthy people who want to be MPs as no one else will be able to afford to do the job. Surely that is not what we want?

Its laughable that people are saying the MPs jobs should be made affordable while the MPs are pushing people into unpaid work or "apprenticeships" at £2 per hour.

DLA isn't for groceries.

Why are they getting extra for groceries?
Isn't that what their wage is for?

MPs receive a groceries allowance as part of their compensation package.

But MP's have voted to have their pay frozen and they are claiming less. So what is the problem?

this is very misleading as a thread so climb off those high horses. Yes domesticgoddess they need to get to parliament as part of their job, but they also have to run their constituency office and be there as part of their job. THerefore, a substantial part of their job is being away from home while parliament is in session - for those who have non-London / home counties constituencies.

I also feel very strongly that MPs of any party do a lot of work for what is realistically a low wage as ranked against their achievement / talent. If we want decent people representing us, then we have to pay them (out of our taxes) a decent amount to do so otherwise you will significantly diminish the talent pool. There's been an utter disgraceful approach historically by a small number with their duck houses and non existent mortgages etc but I am naive / hopeful enough that seeing others end up in jail / losing their political careers and any respect for doing so will mean that there's no more wholesale taking advantage. £30 / day subsistence is not much and if I go away on work, I get similar (fyi £30 / day is only fractionally more as a per diem than most roadies get and WEstminster is hardly awash with cheap transport caf type establishments for bargain meals)

They have had their pay frozen because it looks good.

The expenses can pick up the shortfall and they know it.

Lets not forget many MPs have personal fortunes and second jobs. So they dont claim a few hundred pounds, which really means nothing to them and we all say "but their pay is frozen and they dont claim" so they look good.

Right well if £30 a day is 'subsistence' then by the same token JSA, ESA, income support and careers allowance should be a minimum of £210 a week.

That won't happen though.

It won't happen because it's ridiculous. MPs have to be able to meet contacts over lunch in prestigous restaurants. Or do you think they should do business in McDonalds?

"many mps have personal fortunes" - i think you're confusing the 600 serving MPs with a handful of front bench tories. And let's try and diversify that, shall we? which drawing parallels between their salaries and unemployment benefits isn't going to do.

Spot on Bobbi

Domestic goddess if we don't pay a reasonable sum they will continue to be rich with personal wealth and or second jobs. Don't you get it? Pay them appropriately, recognising that many come from outside of London and don't have trust funds (note Osborne and Cameron ) to rely on

Im not saying dont pay them appropriatly.

But if we extend that to them, shouldnt we expect it in return?

Why?
Why are 'prestigious restaurants' necessary in times of austerity?

They have perfectly good offices to meet in. Business lunches are fine in the private sector but why on earth should the taxpayer fund MP's jollies?

One place I worked used to ship folks over for projects. They had their rent paid, fair enough, tickets home three times a year and 'living expenses' which covered food. I never did understand the food expenses - you have to eat anyway don't you?

YANBU to be cross that they are claiming money which could be used to help everyone in society not just those with disabilities. I am a life long wheelchair user with many additional needs and the it drives me made when people talk about the benefits for people with disabilities like this. It makes me feel as if the general population see those with disabilities as 'poor unfortunate souls' who need to be cosseted and by the state as they would never achieve anything, thus meaning they require financial help. Why is so disgusting that this is so much more than DLA? What about the OAP, CB, WTCs? Why do you believe those with disabilities should be protected from the cuts at the expense of others.

I agree with the principle of DLA entirely, in the intention that it helps a person to live their lives, which it does in someways but not in others. I will welcome the reforms that are coming with open arms as it will rebrand it and remove the negative connotations it now has, as well as increasing the ability of it to help people to live their lives. The new system will blend all existing support elements together so that those who need it will be able to recieve a mixture of support methods to be used in any context. Whereas at the moment you have to apply for support in specific areas, which can take a long time in terms of intitial application, and any alterations required later should your needs change. I am glad that this change is coming as it will make access to support in the workplace (I need help with paper management and access to resources) much easier to obtain for the younger generation. This will in turn raise their and society's aspirations and therefore reduce parental anxiety re what the future may hold for their children.

I think we should all be angry on behalf of all the DCs in this country who are going to have to make sacrifices thanks to the over indulgence of their forebears.
OK speech over. YADNBU in your anger at the MP claims, but YABU only to talk about how shameful it in comparison with DLA.

"They have had their pay frozen because it looks good."

So you are condemning them for having frozen their pay? They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If I'm away for work, I'm not allowed to claim anything for food. I can claim accommodation, but my employer says that I'd be expected to feed myself on a nor al working day so I should be responsible for it when away. This is ignoring the fact that it does cost a lot more to feed yourself when away for a few days (because you're in a hotel and have to eat out), but it doesn't seem like something I should kick up a fuss about.

On the other hand, MPs do get an allowance so that they can have proper accommodate with cooking facilities while they need to be in London. In which case, it would be reasonable to expect them to pay for their own groceries. If its for eating out at official engagements, that's a different thing entirely.

It isn't necessarily a red herring to compare it to benefits levels, as it is (presumably) someone's idea of an acceptable amount for a single person to spend on food a week. It's noteworthy how different this is to the amount that's seen as acceptable if you are on benefits. The thing is, it has no relationship to that because for many years expenses and allowances have been a means for increasing MP's salaries without upsetting the public (or at least an attempt to do this).

I don't really believe the needing to pay to get good people line either. £66k is a good salary. It doesn't seem to attract all that much in the way of 'talent' but I don't think paying them more will. Perhaps paying the buggers less would attract better people...

They have frozen JSA and ESA.

Some public sector workers have had their pay frozen.

So? Why are the MPs so special?

I don't think that the levels of pay really are what affects the kind of people that we end up with for MPs. Party selection processes do, and these seem to select the sort of people who claim they could make so much more in the private sector.

All those posters who think they could do so much better, then why don't you stand as an MP? If you think it is all about expenses and lunches, I think you might find it a bit of a shock.
Our MPs earn around £65k but most council directors, senior police officers and certainly senior managers in the private sector are on more than that. Let's get this into perspective. MPs have rightly taken a battering after expenses scandal but we now need to get the package right so we get people from all walks of life wanting to represent us and take the right decisions.

"They have frozen JSA and ESA. Some public sector workers have had their pay frozen. So? Why are the MPs so special?"

But MP's have frozen pay too and the expenses have gone down. I really don't understand what you are saying.

But most MPs have much less responsibility than all those people. They're more the equivalent of the person manning the payments desk at my local council office than the council director.

I don't want to be an MP. I wouldn't enjoy it. It's not an either/or choice. You can think the MPs we have are currently crap (by and large) and still not want to be one (or even claim that you could do better).