To wonder why MPs have cheap bars?

[bigbadshewolf]

Been mentioned in media a lot lately re 'drink fuelled' culture and there being several cheap bars in Houses of Parliament. Why are they there? Why are they cheap? Assuming it's public funds subsidising? Anybody know?

They don't need to pay commercial rents for the property the bar uses? That would allow them to sell beer cheaply without directly subsiding each pint

Ooh I fancy that sponge and custard. I might have that for me sups.

How much would a school canteen charge for similar?

I dunno, Vitology, but my DS's school sells main-meal sandwiches for either £1.25 or £1.75, and a hot meal with a hot pudding included is £2.30, so Parliament is already looking more than twice as expensive as his school.

Used to be common in central government departments years ago (up until 90s) but not anymore. However, MPs managed to retain theres. No place in work place is my view!

Thing is, I'd love a cheap works canteen, and I don't have one. (I've got the rather unattractive contents of my fridge, which I have to cook myself.) But I don't begrudge others a works canteen, either, and I hope the food is good, and the staff well-paid, whichever place of emplyoment it is.

I just see this as an issue trotted out all the time as an example of What Is Wrong With Politics. And it is so far off the mark, I could scream. I could give you a laundry-list of things that are really, truly What Is Wrong With Politics, but a hot meal and a for-cost pint at the end of the day don't qualify.

for the umpteenth time, an MP's working day is really, really unpredictable, and depends on all sorts of things.

Plenty of people have working days that are unpredictable, probably far more than an MP who has a clear time-table to work to most of the time and office staff to help out with admin, some of whom seem to spend their time running shopping errands.

Maybe if they spent less time baying like a bunch of animals in the chamber & trying to score petty points like a bunch of schoolkids, less time following orders from political parties and less time 'entertaining' lobbyists and journalists, they could get on with the role to represent their constituencies and not need to buy a cheap drink throughout the working day?

Every time I come on, someone has popped in to say how disgusting it is that it's subsidised.

I'm doing a bingo sheet of points that have already been irrefutably addressed.

I'm doing a bingo sheet of points that have already been irrefutably addressed

Good for you. Meanwhile, please show us the irrefutably evidence that the cost of running catering in the Palace of Westminster covers all current and projected expenditure to provide the service?
You could start by telling us how much is the contribution on each pint of cheap beer swilled back by MP towards the £4 billion to repair the fabric of the buildings?

Oh have we moved on to criticising them for building repairs now?

Nat West had a subsided bar at the Nat West Tower in London years back. Not sure if there any longer but it was great back in the day!

But I also think we need to be realistic: as citizens, we can strip away the privilege that comes with being an MP

I thought you said we need to be realistic.

I was working in Whitehall (Departments, not Westminster) in the early 90s when there were still cost-price bars in the buildings.Given the prices in outside pubs in SW1, they were very useful for the thousands of workers in Whitehall who were on really low pay. Yes, no-one needs booze, but if you are working long/odd hours in Rejkjavik on Andalucia wages, it seems reasonable for your employers (if they can) to provide somewhere to sit and have a choice of booze or coffee etc with the colleagues they have been working with, and shared experiences with.

Of course it would be preferable for everyone to be paid more fairly. But in particular tourist traps, cost subsidies might still work better than assuming all your staff work in the same cheaper bit of outer London.

Don't forget loads of people actually work there too, and are there til the house rises at whatever stupid time. I'm really happy for a 'subsidised' canteen to stay open for them.

If you knew the area you would know there's very few places to get a meal close by (unless you count the Tesco metro) and you need to be in sprinting distance to vote.

Parliament- parler- to talk. The real work is not done in the chamber. It's done outside.

Incidentally I work for a public sector org that has a 'subsidised' canteen- it's not but we just don't charge them rent so they keep prices low on main meals. Am pretty sure it's the same in the HOC.

I don't see why the tax payer should subsidise civil servants. If your replicate this across the civil service it adds up to millions! I'm a civil servant by the way!

I’m the OP and having read some of the valid points above – I can see there is a good case for there being some on site catering facilities available to politicians and staff at Westminster (for the record , my OP was only relating to drinking, not so much re food).
I can also see a good case for somewhere private and secure to meet people. BUT – I still don’t accept they should be selling booze on site unless there is some way of making sure MPs/Lords are not allowed to drink during working hours – long though they may be. IMO , people voting, discussing laws, making laws, having important meetings with external visitors, internal colleagues etc etc should be doing it SOBER, not too much to ask I think.
Salary – its high compared to most ordinary people and certainly most public-sector people. If having the ability to get alcohol at an ‘at cost’ bar is a deal breaker in whether somebody wants to become an MP then maybe they are not the ideal MP?

Job security – not many of us have that, certainly not in public sector. I’ve been made redundant once (senior public sector role), my husband twice (once in public, one in private sector) – both out of the blue at short notice. MPs in safe seats are probably some of the most secure jobs in the country! My old MP was in for over 20 years (I met him a few times) with a whole host of other business interests on the side too even though pigs would fly before his seat changed colour so can’t really argue he needed it as a fall back for sudden job loss.
Meetings, etc – can all easily be done over food, coffees etc – you don’t need to be drinking as many professional people doing their jobs very well every year (not drinking) at work prove.

Just to get some facts straight, a few people have mentioned the ‘pool’ of special, clever people who are MPs and if we take away some of their privileges (alcohol on site is the only one I’m considering here) we’d have to resort to a lesser calibre of people being MPs. This is total bullshit and I actually can’t believe the snobbery and ignorance of such comments as well as ignoring the facts. The Houses of Parliament (Lords, Commons and Civil Service they work with) ARE a privileged relatively small, non-representative pool of the total population and anybody who says otherwise is ignoring the socially unpalatable truth about our ‘democracy’ and some key facts you can’t argue against.
7% of population are privately educated yet:

• 22% of current shadow cabinet are privately educated
• 36% of the current cabinet are privately educated
• 50% of the current House of Lords are privately educated
• 57% of current Chairs of Commons Select Committees are privately educated. 57%!!!!
• 51% of current MPs went to comprehensive schools - 90% 0f UK children do.
• In 2015 10% of MPs had been to Eton MPs/ Lords are therefore clearly not a representative sample of the smartest, wisest, most eloquent and public-spirited pool of the population, are they? Because those talents and qualities are found in people across ALL our communities, in ALL our regions in ALL our schools, not just those who are wealthy. There is a much bigger pool of talent out there, it just isn’t rich enough to do unpaid London internships and it’s not well connected via Oxbridge and old boy networks. MPs/Lords etc are disproportionally compared to the general population, people of well above average means who mix in privileged circles.
  So to the people who said, ‘Do we really need more ‘ordinary people’ as MPs?’ - YES we bloody well do!! Because ‘ordinary people’ can also be clever, well educated, eloquent and hardworking MPs and I’m sure many wouldn’t need the perk of availability of ‘at cost’, work place drinking to do a fantastic job.

I agree that we need more 'ordinary' mps. Isn't the current crop the most ordinary and diverse we've ever had? So I guess a positive person might say we're moving in the right direction.

Expenses and concessions make being an MP viable to ordinary people who do not have independent wealth.

Ok, so I am a Civil Servant. I work for the UK govt. I work incredibly odd hours as the job dictates. I do not work regular shifts and do not know when I will finish on a operationall day. However it can and does mean that I can work M-F 9-5 but also 3am- 2am the next morning.... do I get a bar provided for me at work ? Is it reasonable that there is a restaurant in my workplace ? There used to be . The same that there used to be bars and canteens in a police station. However, quite rightly the powers on high reasoned it was a good place to start when looking to make savings - as everyone has to eat, and everyone is capable of buying their own to make at home and bring with them. Or buying whilst at work and paying for it.
Crucially, whilst I may claim up to £20 (receipts always required) for an evening meal if I’m away/out over night - I will NOT be reimbursed for any alcohol on the bill.

I can only claim for my lunch if I am 5 miles or more away from my normal place of work. (£5 max receipts required) I think even this rule is ridiculous and only claim when I genuinely hadn’t been home to make myself a sandwich. Why does the public have to buy my lunch when I know I am going on a training course for the day. ?
The system still needs overhauling starting with Westminster. A place that doesn’t seem to be able to ‘handle’ alcohol and behave like adults. It has no place at a centre of legislation.

Kitty, exactly what you've said. I'm a civil servant too and work long hours. I don't think the tax payer should subsidise me especially not for alcohol. Whilst this has changed in the civil service, it seems Westminster still retains these perks. Yes, cause this is exactly what they are. I know exactly what happens when you try to make a case to reduce these. Also, really the days of drinking alcohol at work are over, is just totally unprofessional in my view.

The thing about getting 'ordinary' people to be MPs- like doctors & teachers & postmen & people who work in shops etc etc is this-
To win an election, you need to be willing to spend an enormous amount of time in your constituency- hours & hours knocking on doors, delivering leaflets, doing casework, meeting people, meeting businesses & charities. This work might start a couple of years before an election.
You need to fit this in alongside your job. And then, when an election is called, you are pretty much expected to do this full time. So you need to be able to have a n employer who gives you unpaid leave, with the knowledge that you might not come back. Or give up your job & live off your partner/spouse.
How many people can afford to give up work for months?

Because campaigning is not paid. I'm not complaining- it is just a fact that to become an MP takes hours of unpaid work, which is difficult for many many people. And how many people with families want to spend every spare hour doing that, rather than being with their family, with the reward being spending half your week living away from home, getting death threats & constant abuse.
And slightly cheaper alcohol.
(My DH doesn't drink so don't worry you're not subsidising his alcohol!)

Parliament is already looking more than twice as expensive as his school.

I suspect portion size and quality are world's apart!

Because ‘ordinary people’ can also be clever, well educated, eloquent and hardworking MPs

And far more likely to have the most important quality of common sense which is severely lacking in Westminster.

Many MPs were ordinary people before they get elected to westminster. And the Lords has one third cross benchers who aren’t politically affiliated and are given peerages due to successful careers as medics/academics/lawyers/social workers etc.

The issue is that power goes to people’s heads and changes them. Many MPs believe that the very fact they were elected gives them the right to do as they please and they are answerable to nobody. I’m not convinced the same wouldn’t happen to other “ordinary” people if they were given a high profile and powerful job with no boss and huge pressure. Some would use that power for good, as some MPs do, and some would start saying “do you know who I am?” and lording it about. Just like in all our places of work we find quite a few people are just jerks. Luckily they have contacts and HR procedures to control their behaviour and hopefully the worst of them won’t get promoted. But an MPs election is like a huge promotion with no real board (people vote for their national party and often aren’t even aware what their local MP is like). And just like in any other office you often see that as a person gets more senior they get more confident and the jerk in them is more visible.

I guess what I’m saying is MPs are often ordinary people, but sadly many ordinary people don’t handle power well.

Many MPs and top civil servant all come from the same places and very similar backgrounds. They all know each other and network. Just look at the names, the same men (mostly) hoping from one department to another. They're not as "ordinary" as they should be. I think this has actually got worse.