Drunk MP's hectoring Jeremy Corbyn in House Of Commons?

[theunfairersex]

I was watching an old episode of Loose Women the other day and they were saying there are eight bars in the houses of parliament and quite often some MP's are so drunk they don't know what they are voting for.

That got me thinking. I showed my friend Prime Ministers questions from 28th October (she had never watched it before, you can find it here starts at 1m 08 secs.)

She was disgusted and said a lot of the MP's looked and sounded drunk and if they are voting on things like sending our servicemen to war and other serious stuff they should be breath tested.

Does anyone else think they should be breath tested before they debate or vote? And is it reasonable to have eight bars in your place of work?

Who else do you know that can go to work drunk and get away with it?

I, like Carol Vorderman, certainly thought they should be breathalysed, so I started a petition on UK Parliament which you can sign here if you agree
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111295

That's just £4,615.38 for each MP.......

.....not including what they've made up for in shortfall by offsetting the subsidy against the sale of souvenirs and gifts......which should surely be going into taxpayer coffers, or at least into the multi billion pound renovation they say is urgently required....

it would be nice if we all got £4000 per person towards food instead of having that taken off us in tax cuts.

hey George, I've got a 3 million pound saving towards your deficit right there

'at least into the multi billion pound renovation they say is urgently required'

I think that is necessary as the Houses of Parliament are a beautiful historic building that belong to the entire country and are nothing to do with the 650.

Cut their alcohol subsidy to help pay for something that is the heritage of the people.

Let's not forget we are in this together
How are those expenses receipts coming along?!?

my favourites are the mp's with second homes in London that live in the likes of Basingstoke, so a shorter commute then the one they are expecting rehoused people to do. In fact a commute thousands do a day.

I can't see why they need second homes, yes serviced apartments / mp hotel. But no not second homes unless they are tax payer owned and used again for the next mp.

'yes serviced apartments / mp hotel'

As long as they are budget ones, yes.

I agree to the repairs of Westminster palace, I think moving the mp's far away will be a huge mistake - imagine the third home bill?! although, I'd question why it's in that state. Surely you do bits as you go along - probably a naive comment.

it would be nice if we all got £4000 per person towards food instead of having that taken off us in tax cuts

We can't take this off them, it's their tucker and booze credits and politics is so very, very, very poorly paid that without this type of perk, politics just wont attract the right type of oiks to take the piss (literally) out of us.

I'd question why it's in that state. Surely you do bits as you go along

Apparently they have had the roofers in but every time they get up there to do a bit it, keeps raining, and so it's off the roof and into one of the eight bars....just for one.....

What they should do is move all the MPs out of parliament, build a new one in the grimiest most deprived city in the country, renovate the Palace of Westminster and turn it into a museum. Moving MPs to grim town is nothing to do with some sort of punishment. It would be cheap to house MPs up north, lots of journalists, lobbyists etc would all follow, maybe even banks and businesses, that would regenerate the north much quicker and more successfully than this northern powerhouse nonsense. Oh, and no subsidised bars on site.

MPs would never vote for it though.

I think moving the mp's far away will be a huge mistake - imagine the third home bill?!

Why would they need a third home? Just one in grimtown (cheap) one in constituency.

Just to add some context, I interned for an MP in their Westminster office many years ago. The bars and restaurants are open to all staff, which is approximately 10,000 people, I think? As I was on a pittance, being able to have a cheap cooked lunch (£1.50 for a jacket potato and filling in Central London) was very helpful. A lot of the staff aren't particularly well paid, so subsidised food and drink is part of their benefits, not just the MPs.

Having worked in and around politics for a number of years, I'm going to stick my neck out and say I've met lots of hardworking dedicated MPs. It's a lot of work, not just sitting braying at the dispatch box, and it's a fairly thankless task, as everyone hates you. I've met lazy twat MPs as well, but no more than any other profession. You couldn't pay me enough to be an MP and I respect those who are prepared to do so.

'I'm going to stick my neck out and say I've met lots of hardworking dedicated MPs'

Apart from Farage can you name another?

Sorry, Farage tragically failed to join the club.

Why are we paying to subsidise empployers paying low wages and why are we paying to subsiise low wages of interns and guests and pals of the 650 in the House of Commons bars.?

Can't the MPs be supplied with a biometric ID card which ensures that they pay the full unsubsidised rate?

I would agree with you Tindel, I'm sure most MPs do work very hard, as they should.

I think whilst it's a nice perk to have subsidised meals for low paid workers at the commons. But I can't see any other business or organisation sustaining that when they are struggling the way the countries books are.

I completely agree mp's should be paid a decent wage - it's the taking the piss I have issue with. The expenses, the second houses, the subsidised booze etc etc.

Claig, private companies offer similar perks and you cover the cost of that when you buy their goods, you just don't know about it. Friends of mine in the private sector get generous maternity pay, company cars, subsidised canteens and creches, extra holiday, all sorts - all subsidised by their customers.

I agree the current system for paying MPs isn't ideal and some do abuse it, but it is so difficult to change it. You are asking them to hold a job with relatively antisocial hours that requires them to often live in two different locations. Any other job would cover reasonable expenses to do that, why should MPs be any different? Otherwise you end up with just the independently wealthy becoming MPs - the balance isn't great at the moment, but restricting expenses would just make it worse ..

Won't name MPs as have met them through work and don't want to out myself, plus whoever I suggest would invariably be torn down for some reason. Like I said, horrible job where no one likes you

'Claig, private companies offer similar perks and you cover the cost of that when you buy their goods'

I agree but they are private companies and risk going bust or losing our business. The 650 are public servants paid by us. Why should we subsidise their alocohol and the alcohol of their SPADs, climbers, greasers, guests and lobbyists?

'You are asking them to hold a job with relatively antisocial hours that requires them to often live in two different locations. Any other job'

It is not any other job. They have the honour and responsibility of serving the people and if they don't like their terms and conditions then let some working class people on low wages do their jobs.

'Otherwise you end up with just the independently wealthy becoming MPs'

Or the working class and committed people. Don't forget the independently wealthy have to be elected by the people and if we prefer committed, dedicated working class people instead then they won't get voted in.

''Otherwise you end up with just the independently wealthy becoming MPs''

At the moment a third of MPs went to private school and most of the top echelons are Oxbridge. It is not representative now and lots of them are aready millionaires or will end up being millionaires by the time they finish serving the people and are appointed to boards due to their supposed skills and knowledge.

But people are already put off by the cost of being an MP - you need a deposit to stand and you'd need a very sympathetic employer who would let you take time off to campaign. I read an interview with Sadiq Khan where he quit his very well paid job to spend 6 months campaigning ahead of his first election. I certainly couldn't afford to do that. Notwithstanding the fact people of more limited means are less likely to even be able to stand as a candidate, I seriously doubt the majority of people consider a candidate's bank balance or social class when casting their vote.

'But people are already put off by the cost of being an MP - you need a deposit to stand and you'd need a very sympathetic employer who would let you take time off to campaign'

Absolutely and that works against the working class and helps all the private school ones. There should be trade union funds etc to cover campaign costs, but not salaries and alcohol subsidies. They have driven a large proportion of the public to drink but we aren't subsidised for it, so why should they be?

Isn't this where the wealthy donors come in?
Businesses greasing the wheels so to speak.

The bars are brilliant - I've had many a fun night on a Westminster Palace bar crawl and the drinks are super cheap for London too

The stories I could tell...

CoolSummer, are you an MP? You have the stye of a senior one, Oxbridge, the lot.