On 14 May 2009 at 7:46am Nosher wrote:
I see our MP has been dipping a little bit of his trotter in the trough. 'Mr Bakers claims show that he claimed hundreds of pounds for food at his second home at a time when Parliament was not sitting. The claims included £287 between July and September 2004, 307 between July and September 2005, 178 in August and September 2006 and 157 in August and September 2007...The MP for Lewes said he had to claim for food during the summer recess because he often came to London during MPs holidays for meetings and press conferences.'
I can understand why MPs need a second home (though London is only an hour from Lewes) but why do we have to pay for their food as well?
On 14 May 2009 at 8:38am enid wrote:
Is that it? A non story then.
On 14 May 2009 at 8:54am No Pot Pourri wrote:
This averages about twenty five quid a week. Hardly slap-up feasts at top London eateries. Will you get back to us soon to let us know he has spent a fiver last month on pencils and paperclips?
On 14 May 2009 at 8:56am sashimi wrote:
Nosher, I didn't know Norman had a second home. What's all this then? I am sure that he has stayed within the rules and also within the spirit of the rules - or he wouldn't have been so upfront in campaigning to ensure that MPs were not exempted from the FOI legislation. But for that reason, we need to scrutinise his expenses very carefully.
On 14 May 2009 at 8:58am sashimi wrote:
(Reposted)Nosher, I didn't know Norman had a second home. What's all this then? I am sure that he has stayed within the rules and also within the spirit of the rules - or he wouldn't have been so upfront in campaigning to ensure that MPs were not exempted from the FOI legislation. But for that reason, we need to scrutinise his expenses very carefully.
On 14 May 2009 at 9:47am colin wrote:
I think this is crazy allowing Mps to claim some of these expenses
when I go on site to london im expected to go by the cheapest means claim only for essential items and the accounts team pick up on every minor discrepancy. I travel to and from london almost daily I dont need a second home nor a cleaner yet I earn a dam site less than these mp's
think I might become a mp I need a new patio
On 14 May 2009 at 10:23am marian wrote:
MPs should have a good wage if not we will end up with a government full of people who can afford to govern and not people who are commited to improving standards for the poplis.
On 14 May 2009 at 11:16am Frak wrote:
Well said Marian. As for a second home, I think Mr Baker rents - so is not making any profit from that. Also considering the amount of time needed to be spent in london (and not just during normal working hours) I don't begrudge any MP based outside the need for accomodation.
On 14 May 2009 at 11:19am Nosher wrote:
I think Norman Baker is a good MP. But that's a separate issue from why he and his colleagues need a £4,700 a year food allowance. I know it sounds strange, but most people have to pay for their food out of their pay. As I said, if he believes he needs a second home in London to do his job properly, that's fair enough. But I can't see why it shouldn't be in publicly-owned hotel accommodation.
On 14 May 2009 at 11:21am Nosher wrote:
My post seems to have got squeezed away on the thread so I'll send it again:
I think Norman Baker is a good MP and I hope he is re-elected. But that's a separate issue from why he and his colleagues need a £4,700 a year food allowance. I know it sounds strange, but most people have to pay for their food out of their pay. If he believes he needs a second home in London to do his job properly, that's fair enough. But I can't see why MPs shouldn't be put in publicly-owned hotel accommodation.
On 14 May 2009 at 5:23pm apple pie wrote:
I personally wouldnt do his job for £65,000 per annum - sounds like alot of grief and stress for that!!!!
On 14 May 2009 at 5:32pm man of the world wrote:
65000 and the rest all you do is pop up to london 2 or 3 times a week .
theres lots of people go up and down from london each day ( 12hrs day )
and no second home
On 14 May 2009 at 5:42pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Man of the world (sic). I suggest that you do a bit more investigation as to what MPs do, rather than what "the Sun says" type of ill-informed comments.
Perhaps pop into Norman's or any other MP's office and ask to see a typical weeks schedule, then relay to us your informed comments.
On 14 May 2009 at 8:32pm ltr wrote:
The reason you can claim for some meals, if away from home for work, is the pressumption that you are carrying a cost nthat you would not do, if at home. I have no problem with this perk of the job, and Mr Baker has not been abusing it. I do think they should cap it at a daily allowance, but that is a different matter. Self employed people can also claim similar costs.
If MP's don't like the pay so much then they should rsign, because it is what it is. The decent MP;s who haven't fiddled expenses, have rubbished the arguement that if you don't pay high wages you don't get good MP's. We have the reverse, the dodgiest, most immoral ones, are those who have 'earned the highest wage!
These people are trusted to create fair, and robust laws, and look what they have been caught doing, when they thought no one would have the right to find out!.
On 14 May 2009 at 9:25pm Agony Aunt wrote:
Norman is a beautiful and unique snowflake.
He is not the same decaying organic matter as other MP's.
On 15 May 2009 at 7:47am Sick wrote:
mystic mog, yes do pop into Norman Bakers office that he owns then rents out to himself at the tax payers expense. Nothing wrong in that as long as it is totally transparent. There seems to be an awful lot of people on this site [rich?] that are flippant with councillors expense claims and pay, saying £65,000 before you start with expenses and the rest, oooh thats nothing, thats peanuts, they have it so hard.
Im trying hard not to throw up.
On 15 May 2009 at 7:59am Dave wrote:
Baker doesn't own the property where his current office is. It's rented to him at market rate by the architect's practice in the same building.
On 15 May 2009 at 8:02am Sick wrote:
Sorry Question Time got it wrong then?
On 15 May 2009 at 8:05am Sick wrote:
Norman didn't say otherwise
On 15 May 2009 at 9:59am sashimi wrote:
Mystic Mog's sycophancy knows no bounds! I don't mind Norman making £65k plus expenses, but let's not pretend that this is a pauper's wages. It's a very decent amount for which we have a right to expect and get a lot of effective hard work. In Norman's case, we certainly seem to do so and to be fair he doesn't seem to be claiming he's hard done by. But you can't expect any great sympathy from people on state pensions or benefits and putting up with some ill informed criticism is just part of the job.
On 16 May 2009 at 2:30pm David Hall wrote:
Norman is a hard working, honest and decent man. He will win at the next election with ease.
On 16 May 2009 at 5:12pm Mystic Mog wrote:
'Sashimi' - pot and kettle???
I made no reference to his pay just the level of work that he does and the crass Sun says type of comments from so called "man of the world".
'Sick', he moved his constituency office out of the ground floor of the High street building some time ago. Do not believe everything that the press / media says.
On 16 May 2009 at 7:34pm demon 2 wrote:
dont vote for any of them they r all crooks
On 17 May 2009 at 10:11am JohnP wrote:
There's a story on the Worthing Herald website dated the 14th that clarifies this.
It looks like he bought the building his previous office was in, after having rented the office for a while.
He then claimed a (reduced rent) for a while, on the advice of the fees office, then for another 2 years didn't (looks like the fees office reversed their previous advice).
He then moved to his current office, which he doesn't own but does claim rent for.
On 17 May 2009 at 10:25am Sick wrote:
Just want to point out, I don't believe everything the press says.
But when given the choice of the press or someone called "Mystic Mog"...well.
He may of moved his office, but he still rented it to himself.
As I said Norman was asked about this, and yes, he didn't deny it.
I'm not necessarily having a go at him.