Need Or Greed?

[Just-Jude]

Does poor Tory MP Liam Fox need every penny he can get? Is Camerons cuts forcing him into poverty?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24420681

[Zacs-Master]

£300 a day? Shome mishtake .....Shurely that only just covers their bar bill?

[LazyGun]

@Sqad Your tetchiness is showing, Sqad :)
"No, this is a stupid thread that would be appropriate in Jokes OR Chatterbank."

Its not stupid at all - its a news story and thats what this section is for - to comment on news stories.

MPs and their expenses is an important issue, a principled one. I am anti-tory, true, but I despise any and all politicians, whatever their political hue, that fiddle their claims at the nations expense. The Telegraph article, which was published at around the same time looked at the far more serious issue of nepotism, which is more interesting and serious an abuse,I think.

It's just fascinating that an MP/Cabinet Minister would detail a claim for 3p when they enjoy salaries of around £140K per annum.

The original expose of MPs expenses a year or so ago now, carried in the Telegraph, highlighted the abuse at the different ends of the scale ; On the one hand, Ornate Duckhouses and bills for heating the private swimming pool; On the other, claims of 70p for Mars Bars, or £1 or something for dogfood - and now this, 3p for a nothing distance.

As to why they picked Liam Fox - well, it might be a sign of bias by the BBC; or it might be that he has had form in expenses irregularities.

[Sqad]

LazyGun...once again we disagree.

[FredPuli43]

Don't think you are naïve, Sqad but the thread is not anti-Tory, though the OP has emotive language in that vein. I'm a Tory, and I wonder just how petty and penny-pinching an MP can be to claim 3p on a journey, or approve such a claim. It doesn't speak well of him.

[ludwig]

I don't think it's either. It's just stupidity really. A complete lack of connection with the value of things, and what he should be claiming for and what he shouldn't.

Claiming for a duck house or flipping main residences, that's greed. Claiming 3p for a 100 metre journey, that's just stupidity.

[Quizmonster]

I'm no mathematician, but I calculate that 3p for 100 metres is equivalent to 48p per mile. Is that actually the correct mileage allowance for MPs or is Foxy still gilding the lily...or maybe even not claiming enough? Heaven forfend!
(I did have a brief google, but failed to get an instant straight answer so just gave up in the hope that someone actually knows.)

[factor-fiction]

It's actually 45p a mile, Quizmonster, (presumably the figure was rounded up to nearest penny) which is the HMRC approved rate and is a figure widely used

[OILhead]

HMRC mileage rates

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/payerti/exb/a-z/m/mileage-expenses.htm

[factor-fiction]

Maybe there is some sort of device which records each trip automatically and is used to generate the expense claim.
It does seem silly to claim 3p but maybe he is just trying too hard to show he complies, and maybe everything needs to be claimed in order for figures to reconcile.

[Quizmonster]

So, FF, are you saying that Fox seems to be getting 3p too much for every mile he claims?

[FredPuli43]

The Times said it was 97 metres for 3p . (Why is anyone using metres for mileage claims or reports on them ?)

QM he's entitled to claim for every mile in justified work travel. The puzzle is why he bothered over such trivial particulars. When I claimed for mileage expenses the figure was always approximate and always accepted. My time was too valuable to me to make accurate measurements to even a furlong of, say, chambers to London Sessions , each time I drove it. My car only showed miles anyway.

[Quizmonster]

Fred, I'm not even remotely disputing his entitlement to claim legitimate travel expenses. What I am trying to establish is whether 3p for 100 metres is commensurate with 45p per mile, which - according to my calculations - it isn't. 3p for 97 metres only makes it worse!
Sqad made the point that fussing over a claim for 3p is absurd and I'd agree, but it ceases to be so if such a claim is multiplied and remultiplied over time.