No chance of winning for MPs here – if we buy tea cheaply in bulk to stock the House of Commons “NOW TAXPAYERS PAY FOR MPs TEA”. Or if we make them go and buy their own tea with their salaries/expenses “NOW TAXPAYERS PAY FOR MPs TEA”. The only possible answer is to have MPs sponsored by the private sector – that’ll make things a lot more robust and open I’m sure.
Surely food, above anything else, is a legitimate expense?? The Express’ attempts to dig further into scoops by other papers are always so desperate its cringeworthy car-crash journalism.
Reading the article, it appears to be based on a 5% rise in prices in the HoC, compared with a mythical “up to 18 per cent faced by the public in supermarkets and other stores across the country.” I guess this is the same ‘What is the real Inflation Rate for our Readers’ rant, where we were promised an un-biased assessment in conjunction with some insurance supermarket website, that initially showed that their inflation rate was pretty similar to the governments, and all has gone quiet recently.
So what is the betting that they have applied a made-up 18% increase in food costs across the entire (estimated) HoC food budget, and then removed the 5% increase agreed on March 19th, to come up with a very made-up £5m that “Taxpayers will be forced to pay”?
But I cannot confirm, because the DE isn’t open enough to explain their calculation. Are they covered by Freedom of Information?
There’s a reasonable case for saying that MPs need to have somewhere to live in both the places they work, and given that, they should be allowed a spot of furniture and perhaps a television. But fod should only be allowed on expenses if it’s an additional cost they they would not have had to shoulder should they have stayed living in the sticks. If for example all Northern MPs could sustain themselves through grazing were they still living in Rotherham, but needed to buy fodder in solely because they were forced to live with their sisters in London for some of the year, then expenses would be justified.
I’d wager the people who ignored the warnings are also the same types of people who are suspicious and scoffing towards science, the same people the Express influence and pander towards.
No chance of winning for MPs here – if we buy tea cheaply in bulk to stock the House of Commons “NOW TAXPAYERS PAY FOR MPs TEA”. Or if we make them go and buy their own tea with their salaries/expenses “NOW TAXPAYERS PAY FOR MPs TEA”. The only possible answer is to have MPs sponsored by the private sector – that’ll make things a lot more robust and open I’m sure.
Crikey, Express gives a toss about a disaster not in Britain. What’s going on there?
Surely food, above anything else, is a legitimate expense?? The Express’ attempts to dig further into scoops by other papers are always so desperate its cringeworthy car-crash journalism.
Reading the article, it appears to be based on a 5% rise in prices in the HoC, compared with a mythical “up to 18 per cent faced by the public in supermarkets and other stores across the country.” I guess this is the same ‘What is the real Inflation Rate for our Readers’ rant, where we were promised an un-biased assessment in conjunction with some insurance supermarket website, that initially showed that their inflation rate was pretty similar to the governments, and all has gone quiet recently.
So what is the betting that they have applied a made-up 18% increase in food costs across the entire (estimated) HoC food budget, and then removed the 5% increase agreed on March 19th, to come up with a very made-up £5m that “Taxpayers will be forced to pay”?
But I cannot confirm, because the DE isn’t open enough to explain their calculation. Are they covered by Freedom of Information?
I bet we didn’t subsidise MPs’ cuppas before 1997…
I’m glad there is so few problems in the world that the price of a cuppa in the commons is headline “news”
Food a legitimate expense? I disagree.
There’s a reasonable case for saying that MPs need to have somewhere to live in both the places they work, and given that, they should be allowed a spot of furniture and perhaps a television. But fod should only be allowed on expenses if it’s an additional cost they they would not have had to shoulder should they have stayed living in the sticks. If for example all Northern MPs could sustain themselves through grazing were they still living in Rotherham, but needed to buy fodder in solely because they were forced to live with their sisters in London for some of the year, then expenses would be justified.
Is that the point the Express are trying to make?
We pay for it anyway.. where to they think the MPs salaries come from.
And subsidised tea in a workplace isn’t exactly unprecendented. Where’s the story here?
30p, that’s pretty cheap at London prices.
“30p, that’s pretty cheap at London prices.”
“Corrupt MPs Knock Back Cut Price Tea While Rest of London Resorts to Milk and Hot Water in a Mug – String ‘em up!”
I predict there is going to be another earthquake, ignore me at your peril.
I’d wager the people who ignored the warnings are also the same types of people who are suspicious and scoffing towards science, the same people the Express influence and pander towards.
I wonder who pays for the Queen’s tea?