Sir K claims "a budget for Working People", ha!!!

Well said, MayBee. Mass hysteria is right.

MaizieD I've long complained about MPs excessive expenses and perks, I don't care what colour rosette they sport. The last lot had the 'advantage' of Covid to extra line their pal's pockets to an obscene extent and didn't most of us go ballistic about that? I can't relate to the not a word of complaint from those currently in full cry about relatively minor expenditure.

I think many who voted this labour government in, and certainly it was for me, expected a totally different attitude. Expenses etc may be relatively minor, but when ordinary people are being prepared for "difficult decisions", doesn't it behold MPs to hold off from claiming any but the most necessary of expenses? And maybe commit to reassessing this whole area. For example why on earth is their food so heavily subsidised given the salaries they earn when the use of food banks is ever increasing, especially by 'working people'?

The HOC canteen has always been subsidised, but that didn't cause outrage during the last government, and it was they who were in charge when food banks became a 'thing'.

I'm not saying that as 'whataboutery', as it is so hugely irritating when anything these days seems to be met with a 'they did it first', or 'tit for tat' comments, but to point out again that the government has been in power for less than months, and half of that was recess. Who knows - they might stop the subsidies? Do they even have the power to do that?

I am the first to agree that things like the day rate for attendance in the HOL is ridiculous, but I also understand that MPs are paid a salary and expenses in order to allow those without a personal fortune to be able to represent constituencies outside of London. That must be a juggling act at best, particularly for those with families and a working spouse. I would be happy to see a block of flats built near Westminster, so that serving MPs could have a base there, and relinquish it when they lose their seat. Nothing flash, and dependent on attendance. Travel expenses and office expenses are necessary too. Arguably so is subsidised canteen, as they will entertain people as part of their job, and, like most people working away from home, they would otherwise get a subsistence allowance anyway. At least the HOC has security, which would be needed these days if they ate elsewhere.

The point is that what is happening now as regards expenses is exactly what has always happened, regardless of who has been in government. Why do people think that because Labour represent 'the many' they should dress in rags and eat gruel? They are professional people, often from well-paid jobs whatever their backgrounds, and it makes no sense to expect them to 'rough it' any more than Conservatives should.

To be honest Rosie51, I really didn't expect miracles when I "lent" Labour my vote in the last election. My MP is Kemi Badenoch, whom I really detest, and I was hoping she would be beaten (it was closer than I thought it would be). I've been a natural LibDem voter all my adult life and I thought hard about my vote. If I had thought that the LibDem candidate had a stronger chance than Labour, I would have voted for him, but I'm a pragmatist. I wasn't that impressed with Labour, but it seemed to me that they were the best option at the time in the specific circumstances. I'm not going to get hysterical about anything until I know what's in the budget - and even then, I probably won't be hysterical. I've never voted for the winner in any general election, so effectively I'm disenfranchised, which is why I have to be content to sit on the sidelines and be critical. I'm critical of the media-induced hysteria, the childish smearing and the downright twisting of facts because it all makes a mockery of democracy.

Doodledog

The HOC canteen has always been subsidised, but that didn't cause outrage during the last government, and it was they who were in charge when food banks became a 'thing'.

I'm not saying that as 'whataboutery', as it is so hugely irritating when anything these days seems to be met with a 'they did it first', or 'tit for tat' comments, but to point out again that the government has been in power for less than months, and half of that was recess. Who knows - they might stop the subsidies? Do they even have the power to do that?

I am the first to agree that things like the day rate for attendance in the HOL is ridiculous, but I also understand that MPs are paid a salary and expenses in order to allow those without a personal fortune to be able to represent constituencies outside of London. That must be a juggling act at best, particularly for those with families and a working spouse. I would be happy to see a block of flats built near Westminster, so that serving MPs could have a base there, and relinquish it when they lose their seat. Nothing flash, and dependent on attendance. Travel expenses and office expenses are necessary too. Arguably so is subsidised canteen, as they will entertain people as part of their job, and, like most people working away from home, they would otherwise get a subsistence allowance anyway. At least the HOC has security, which would be needed these days if they ate elsewhere.

The point is that what is happening now as regards expenses is exactly what has always happened, regardless of who has been in government. Why do people think that because Labour represent 'the many' they should dress in rags and eat gruel? They are professional people, often from well-paid jobs whatever their backgrounds, and it makes no sense to expect them to 'rough it' any more than Conservatives should.

Schadenfreude?

Calipso

Am I the only one to be completely baffled that someone who in a previous existence was a barrister and QC cannot clearly articulate what he means by a "working person"?

I totally agree.

There is a very wide range of expenses you can claim if you are self employed and work from home. Because your home is your base you can also claim travel expenses and subsistance to attend a variety of events such as conferences and trades association meetings. visiting clients and so on. You may be sure that I take full advantage of these.

biglouis

There is a very wide range of expenses you can claim if you are self employed and work from home. Because your home is your base you can also claim travel expenses and subsistance to attend a variety of events such as conferences and trades association meetings. visiting clients and so on. You may be sure that I take full advantage of these.

I'm obviously wrong. I thought you were housebound.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Doodledog I don't think MPs should dress in rags and eat gruel. I don't think anybody should be reduced to that! I would think anyone on an MP's salary would be able to afford to clothe and feed themselves to an acceptable standard.
I understand the reasoning for MPs getting travel expenses to facilitate those who serve constituencies outside London, and I too would support a purpose built block of flats near Westminster for their free accommodation. When it comes to food At least the HOC has security, which would be needed these days if they ate elsewhere. Do you honestly think they only ever eat in the HOC or their own home? Never go out for a meal in a normal public restaurant? What happens if they go on holiday? I have long criticised the huge subsidy on the restaurants at the HOC, I have a friend who works there so have known the extent for some years. Because it's always been done is no reason to keep on doing it.

I'm well aware that the use of food banks grew horrendously during the last 14 years, and I don't expect the government to be able to effectively reverse that any time soon. I would hope a Labour government would at least be committed to doing so.

They are professional people, often from well-paid jobs whatever their backgrounds, and it makes no sense to expect them to 'rough it' any more than Conservatives should. As I've said I don't expect any of them to 'rough it', but I also keep hoping that some will see the light and not be so divorced from the reality of life for huge swathes of the population. Lessons could definitely be learned by them studying the Swedish example.

Rosie, my post was not made to suggest that you (or anyone else) is not aware of things, but to give another perspective as to why they are happening, and to question why it causes so much resentment all of a sudden. The new government is criticised (although that’s not strong enough a word, really - it’s pathological hatred at times) for living within the system that has held sway for many years (centuries?).

Why? All I can think of is that it is because they represent so-called ‘working people’ and there is some strange idea that ‘working people’ should live basic lives and not ‘get above themselves’ (eg AR was criticised for going to the Opera). At the same time, we constantly hear how hard posters have worked to become millionaires. It doesn’t make sense.

Maybe if someone who is puzzled by the idea of a working person liking ‘nice things’ would like to give their own opinion as to what it means we would be clearer about the source of the anger.

I consider myself to be a working person (as a simple soul I define it as a person who goes to work) and I like to eat in good restaurants and treat myself with the money I earn. I also vote Labour, and see no contradiction there.

Anyone?

The new government is criticised (although that’s not strong enough a word, really - it’s pathological hatred..

Criticism yes, hatred no.
It is contempt. The result of the discovery that Labour has been indulging in all the practices they so roundly, and at such length, decried in the Conservatives.

eazybee even Sir Lindsay Hoyle is asking the government to confine the Budget to the House of Commons. He sounded well put out. If the Speaker is aggrieved then we can be too.

ronib

eazybee even Sir Lindsay Hoyle is asking the government to confine the Budget to the House of Commons. He sounded well put out. If the Speaker is aggrieved then we can be too.

As opposed to what? Discussing it in advance?

I'm away just now and not seeing/hearing much news. If so, LH has a point. The amount of speculation and attempt to analyse things that haven't happened yet is insane. I sort of understand the announcement that the WFP is to be restricted to those on PC (it gave people time to apply for PC before the winter set in), but it was don badly. I guess the 'no extra taxes on working people' was said to try to dampen the media fires about what the budget might hold, but it would have been better to say nothing and wait until the day.

People like Laura Kuennsberg have concentrated on insisting on definitions of 'working people' rather than asking about policies, so the things the new government have actually done are buried under the questioning. Bridget Phillipson couldn't answer the question without giving away the content of the budget, but LK was like a dog with a bone, and the chance to discuss BP's area of responsibility (education) was missed.

I'm not in favour of blanket bans on what can be discussed, and anyway, in the current climate such a ban would just lead to interminable rants 'debates' about whether someone's brooch was a hint at X, or a comment about whether Y meant Z, but maybe a 'gentleman's agreement' (do such things still exist?) that there can be no questions about a budget after the date has been announced would be useful?

Having the election just before the recess was a master stroke by Sunak. So much of the speculation could have been avoided if the government had been able to 'hit the ground running'. They haven't helped matters by trying to quell speculation and fear-mongering, though (although I understand why they have tried to do it) - in many ways they have encouraged the media agenda to flourish.

As a matter of interest, how would people feel if KS advertised for a Comms Advisor at a salary of £150k a year plus expenses?

ronib

eazybee even Sir Lindsay Hoyle is asking the government to confine the Budget to the House of Commons. He sounded well put out. If the Speaker is aggrieved then we can be too.

It was discussed on the BBC News last night, the number of advance leaks that have been let out about the Budget by the Government themselves.

but LK was like a dog with a bone
That's her job.
Not nearly as fierce as Paxman though.

It's her job to discuss politics, not to waste half an interview asking questions she knows can't be answered, as answering would disclose the detail of a budget that hasn't happened yet. It was particularly galling as the interview was 3 days before the actual budget, and (to me) because I am interested in education and was looking forward to hearing what BP had to say.

Grunty

Thanks MaizieD that's interesting. But alters nothing. At the same time that WFA has been withdrawn (just as energy costs increases by 10%) and pensioners with a sole income of SP being pulled into fiscal drag; Reeves claimed £17,544, plus £19,201 accommodation expenses, in addition to her salary of circa £90,000.
I wonder if Starmer is confused about her being a "working person"? In addition to the above, her Register of Interest declared "Land and property portfolio with a value over £100,000 and where indicated, the portfolio provides a rental income of over £10,000 a year".

I don't care how much or little the MPs expenses are out of the national purse; I care that everyone else is being warned that there is very little money left in the piggy bank; but there's always just enough for another snout in the trough.

On which she will be paying tax. Don't forget that she worked at the B of E, no doubt on a higher salary than she receives now.

Allira

ronib

eazybee even Sir Lindsay Hoyle is asking the government to confine the Budget to the House of Commons. He sounded well put out. If the Speaker is aggrieved then we can be too.

It was discussed on the BBC News last night, the number of advance leaks that have been let out about the Budget by the Government themselves.

but LK was like a dog with a bone
That's her job.
Not nearly as fierce as Paxman though.

I switched over to Sky News on Sunday mornings. Trevor Phillips is not a dog with a bone and yet he gets the answers. As did Sophie Ridge before she moved to weekday early evening

silverlining48

Wait til Wednesday

Absolutely. My dad used to say "Don't trouble trouble till trouble troubles you." That's what I'm trying to do about this budget. I can't remember any other when there's been so much speculation and leakage.

I am in favour of interviewers asking tough questions, but not ones that can't be answered, and not to the level of making the programme more about them than their guests. The point is to draw out information, not to browbeat interviewees into submission. The interviewers know full well that there are some questions that the guests are just not allowed to answer at certain times, and leaks about the budget three days ahead of it is so obviously one of them that LK just looked unprofessional.

I usually watch LK on Sunday, but may switch channels after the last one. I'd been looking forward to listening to an interview about how Education will be dealt with under the new government, but instead got yet more of the 'what is a working person?' drivel, for at least half of the few minutes devoted to the interview.

If the budget shows that election promises have been broken then it is fine to call the government to account, which happened on the numerous occasions promises have been broken previously, but until then it comes across as hectoring, and the worst thing is that it prevents discussion of actual policies and actions.

Doodledog

It's her job to discuss politics, not to waste half an interview asking questions she knows can't be answered, as answering would disclose the detail of a budget that hasn't happened yet. It was particularly galling as the interview was 3 days before the actual budget, and (to me) because I am interested in education and was looking forward to hearing what BP had to say.

I can’t think of any good interviewers away from those on Ch4 News but then I admit to being biased towards them. None of them seem to ask the questions that need to be asked; constantly interrupt when the interviewee is answering the question etc etc. Perhaps the worst one is Trevor Phillips on Sky News on Sundays ( and it seems wrong to me that he has a newspaper column in the right wing Times). If only some of them had constantly asked about the money for the NHS on the side of ‘that’ bus or asked more about how Bexit would affect N Ireland. As for Beth Rigby, I’m totally disappointed in her these days. I’ll be relieved when we know what is in the budget. It was so much easier when all the government had to do was offer tax cuts ( even if they had to borrow to do so or promise them knowing they were going to be out of office before they were implemented).

Retroladywriting

silverlining48

Wait til Wednesday

Absolutely. My dad used to say "Don't trouble trouble till trouble troubles you." That's what I'm trying to do about this budget. I can't remember any other when there's been so much speculation and leakage.

I blame most on our press, those determined day after day to criticise becuase they are basically anti the government politically.

Nearly everyday all summer "they might do this or that" in the budget scaring/piling on ideas getting one or other possibility out and demanding answers now.

And GN picked up the speculation and ran with them as if they were bound to happen......

It looks like there will be an above inflation rise to the minimum wage, which if it is the case will help 1.6 million workers who struggle. I’m pleased about that.

I've just read that too. Yes, that's the sort of thing that I was hoping for - it makes far more sense to ensure that 'working people' can earn enough not to need benefits or foodbanks than it does to give payments to pensioners with tens of thousands in the bank.

As it is necessary to jump through hoops in every post these days, I will state the obvious and point out that yes, I am aware of those on the threshold of PC, and agree that they should have been better catered for. Let's hope there will be an announcement to that effect in tomorrow's budget, too.

Yes hoping for that too, Doodledog.