How dare the politicians increase their own expenses, especially giving MPs 2.5k per child, when they are cutting child benefit to the rest of us?

[LilyBolero]

Snouts in the trough and all that - they keep saying 'there's no money' - so how are they able to find extra to pay themselves more?

Every single one of them earns far more than our household income (and that's not counting their partner's income), yet they are awarding themselves up to 2.5k per child, whilst taking £3k per year from us. If I was an MP therefore I could claim TEN THOUSAND pounds a year for my children's travelling expenses.

and don't get me started on 2nd home allowances for MPs who live only 45mins from London, when they are capping housing benefit for the poorest in society.

Makes you sick doesn't it.

It's not the politicians (though most of them aren't complaining very loudly).

It's the brainchild of IPSA, a classic Labour quango.

They should abolish it, give each MP a credit card, and put all credit card receipts online in full.

Cheap to administer, totally transparent, and completely accountable. The very antithesis of the way Labour does things.

IPSA costs millions of pounds a year, and employs several people for "communications".

more than the child benefit lockets - if you took someone with 4 kids (as I have) as an example - child benefit lost, £3k, extra 'expenses' from the taxpayer, £10k.

longfingernails, it is IPSA doing it, but it is at the politician's insistence - they have whinged incessantly about the new rules, and David Cameron said he would abolish IPSA unless they made these changes.

Huh?

Where has Cameron said he wants increased allowances for MPs?

That would be a seriously stupid move, and Cameron is too seasoned a politician to fall for it.

He said he wants less IPSA bureaucracy, a less expensive IPSA, etc. - all of which I agree entirely with.

Why do MPs get 2.5k per child? [thick]

2.5k a year travelling expenses. For train rides from London to constituency I suppose.

"David Cameron had threatened to abolish the new regulator if it did not agree to water down the rules.

The decision to relax the rules ? just ten months after they were introduced in the wake of the expenses scandal which led to MPs repaying more than £1 million ? has surprised many observers. "

Telegraph article here

Ok, that doesn't explicitly say he wanted the expenses increased, but 'watering down the rules' is tantamount to the same thing.

Travelling expenses for the kid I meant. On top of their own.

And because the poor impoverished MPs need a bigger 2nd home to accommodate their children. Even those living 45 mins commute from Westminster.

oh i see

If that is true, then it's really disappointing - I have never heard him say anything to that effect in public though, so hopefully it's just media speculation.

I think the way forward is to scrap IPSA, and just put all receipts online. Let MPs constituents judge their expenses claims, after poring over them in gory detail if they feel so inclined - but there is absolutely zero need for this white elephant of a quango.

Mind you, given the way Cameron has sold Britain out on the EU, it wouldn't surprise me to see him make a dodgy deal with MPs to up their expenses.

The cosy "we'll keep your salary down but increase your perks" deal that governments, both Tory and Labour, have colluded in for decades seems to be continuing apace. Plus ca change.

I suppose if you only want independently wealthy, childless men to be MP's then you could have a point. I think, however, if we want good people doing a good job in parliament, and coping with long hours, travel and pressure on personal lives, we should reimburse them fairly for what they do. The expenses scandal emerged from a period where MPs pay was kept down for political reasons and allowances were bumped up to make up the shortfall.

Don't want MPs kipping on their office floor after a late session, ending up in the divorce courts because they never see their families or having to pay their clerical staff out of their own pockets. Maybe you do?

snouts in trough again - how the hell can we ever change this rotten system - they choose to stand for election and i truly believe a lot of them do it just to line their own pockets
and where is all the money to bomb Libya coming from ??

Chil, nobody else gets these concessions in their jobs. Would be lovely if everybody could have 2 homes, paid for by their employer, plus travelling expenses for their kids. But MPs are the only ones who get these perks, whilst we are being hammered with cuts.

In an ideal world, all sorts of things would be possible. But they keep telling us there is no money. Why is there suddenly extra money for MPs?

MPs should be not be getting more perks. They should be losing existing ones, in line with the rest of the bloated public sector.

DH also has to kip on the floor at work when he has been stuck at there late. We can go days without seeing him. He of course gets no concessions. He has had his pay frozen, his hours increased and his work situation squeezed to something beyond uncomfortable though. Still as part of the bloated public sector- squirming homogeneous mass that it is- he probably deserves it.

this explains it all nicely: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12852926

this is really hallarious: "No 10 said the prime minister welcomed what it said was a "significant step" towards a "more family-friendly" system."

and this bit: "Currently MPs with children up to the age of five can claim an extra £2,425 per child for accommodation - and could claim for up to 30 journeys they make between London and the constituency." [cant kids travel for £1 with a family railcard up to age 5 like the rest of us?]

Under the revised scheme, they will be able to make the same claims for children aged up to 16 - or 18 if they are in full time education - and for journeys by spouses or partners accompanying the child." [again, mp's should buy a railcard for their families like the rest of us].

Anyway, actually, just hang on there a minute. Since when did my employer cover travel and expenses for my kids and partner [if i had one] and bend over backwards to be 'family friendly'? Hows about making all our lives a little more 'family friendly' by not cutting tax credits, child benefit, our jobs, our NHS, Our services, our schools, our policeforce, our pensions, our welfare.......

For gods sake they are taking us for a ride, they must laughing their socks off.

Oh fgs. I'd correct my glaring grammatical atrocities but I'm not capable of it today.

hey ho, as long as their kids are ok and thier families are happy

...at the expense of my children.

"Chil, nobody else gets these concessions in their jobs"

You're quite wrong. A good friend who works away from home Mon-Fri in a senior role for an international manufacturer has a flat provided for him at his work location, reasonable living expenses on top, company car, air-faires & railway travel where appropriate and a few other allowances. Also earns considerably more than an MP's salary. All negotiated as part of his remuneration and not untypical in the slightest.

I think if we tell prospective MPs for constituencies more than an hour or two from Westminster that as well as it being a high-pressure, very visible, very responsible job that they shouldn't expect to see their family and that any extras like assistants, travel or accommodation have to be financed out of a salary of £65k, we would end up excluding many good candidates -especially women, younger people and those from poorer backgrounds. Parliament would be the preserve of wealthy childless men only.