One rule for some and another for others

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Carlton green
Posts: 3626
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

One rule for some and another for others

Post by Carlton green »

Maybe I’m late to the party but I came across this BBC report by chance and then found a clarification in the Independent newspaper.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65736601
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 42174.html

So let’s all understand this. If you as an individual go off into London to earn a crust then if you drive you’ll (typically) have to pay congestion charges out of your own pocket. However MP’s, and perhaps others too, can reclaim the charge as a business expense!? Surely such a facility is not equitable and fails to both discourage the use of polluting vehicles and to improve air quality.
The spokesman added that the congestion charge can be claimed by MPs from outside London who drive into central London for work.
Clean air groups have written to parliament’s expenses watchdog asking it to stop MPs avoiding the anti-pollution charges, which are supposed to deter people from driving into central London and adding to its illegal levels of air pollution .
Is this yet another example of do as I say rather than do as I do? One rule for some and another for others …
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
bikepacker
Posts: 2273
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:08pm
Location: Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by bikepacker »

This is rehash of something I brought up with my local MP in at a meeting in 2017. She stated she never drove to London always travelling by train. She also stated to being unaware of any of the other MPs in the county that travelled to London by car.
There is your way. There is my way. But there is no "the way".
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by Psamathe »

Reported on Radio 4 this morning 4 MPs have claimed (and been paid) driving related fines on MP expenses. One MP (Conservative) claimed 4 seperate offences).

Ian
bikepacker
Posts: 2273
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:08pm
Location: Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by bikepacker »

As you may have forgotten to add: Also reported on Radio 4 the MPs in question have all been requested to repay the money.
There is your way. There is my way. But there is no "the way".
axel_knutt
Posts: 2869
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by axel_knutt »

T'was ever thus.

Whenever you create any form of discrimination in legislation there will always be people who complain (sometimes quite reasonably, even) that they're on the wrong side of it, so then exceptions get made, and codified, and slowly the legislation grows like little orphan Annie. Sooner or later it becomes so complicated that nobody understands it any more, at which point someone shouts 'Enough!', and sweeps it aside, then the whole process starts all over again.

Devolution vs centralisation is another one. If you have the former, people complain about postcode lotteries, and if it's the latter, people don't want what the other lot have.

There was a bit on the radio this morning which is a case in point: private jets. They're about 10 times more damaging than scheduled flights apparently, and a pundit was agreeing that they should be banned except for those that are 'reasonable and necessary'. Good luck with that one. :lol: Presumably he has in mind a ministry that vets applications and issues permits to travel?

There's a well known adage that applies to legislators more than most: You can please some of the people all of the time....
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Carlton green
Posts: 3626
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by Carlton green »

axel_knutt wrote: 28 May 2023, 11:46am T'was ever thus.

Whenever you create any form of discrimination in legislation there will always be people who complain (sometimes quite reasonably, even) that they're on the wrong side of it, so then exceptions get made, and codified, and slowly the legislation grows like little orphan Annie. Sooner or later it becomes so complicated that nobody understands it any more, at which point someone shouts 'Enough!', and sweeps it aside, then the whole process starts all over again.

Devolution vs centralisation is another one. If you have the former, people complain about postcode lotteries, and if it's the latter, people don't want what the other lot have.

There was a bit on the radio this morning which is a case in point: private jets. They're about 10 times more damaging than scheduled flights apparently, and a pundit was agreeing that they should be banned except for those that are 'reasonable and necessary'. Good luck with that one. :lol: Presumably he has in mind a ministry that vets applications and issues permits to travel?

There's a well known adage that applies to legislators more than most: You can please some of the people all of the time....
Yes, life is imperfect. However, this (payment of congestion charges) did strike me as totally absurd and of a mindset that says the rules don’t apply to us.

Private jets and aviation in general is an interesting one. If I can’t have a new petrol powered car in 2030 then it’s inequitable that someone else can buy or travel in a new fossil fuelled aircraft. There will always be special cases, the practical need to fly to off-shore structures and islands comes to mind, but as a generality a blind eye is turned towards aircraft emissions.

Boris and his pals showed, during the Covid restrictions, that rules apply to other people.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by Psamathe »

bikepacker wrote: 28 May 2023, 11:12am As you may have forgotten to add: Also reported on Radio 4 the MPs in question have all been requested to repay the money.
For me the significant aspect of the report is that they thought the taxpayer should pay for their fines. The amount is negligable on the scale of what Westminster costs us, but the attitude claiming such things shows an "attitude".

Ian
reohn2
Posts: 45143
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by reohn2 »

Psamathe wrote: 28 May 2023, 12:56pm ........The amount is negligable on the scale of what Westminster costs us, but the attitude claiming such things shows an "attitude".

Ian
And that "attitude" is far from healthy by some,who after all,are supposed to be the servants of the people!
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by Stevek76 »

I don't think this is unusual, at least for larger companies. I can expense such things (charges, not speeding fines obviously!) incurred in the course of my work.

Although my employer's travel policy is that a car should not be used where viable public transport options exist so, practically, claiming the London charge is rather unlikely.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by Psamathe »

Stevek76 wrote: 28 May 2023, 3:14pm I don't think this is unusual, at least for larger companies. I can expense such things (charges, not speeding fines obviously!) incurred in the course of my work.

Although my employer's travel policy is that a car should not be used where viable public transport options exist so, practically, claiming the London charge is rather unlikely.
The reports I've seen and heard describe them as "driving fines" e.g.
"The Derby North MP, who is also a government whip, claimed back an £80 fixed penalty notice issued by Transport for London in July 2020."

Ian
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by Stevek76 »

Yes well that is obviously taking the Michael. Perhaps some investment bankers/accountants might get away with that. Even then I'd can't see that being considered legitimate travel expense and therefore a benefit in kind and taxable.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Biospace
Posts: 1990
Joined: 24 Jun 2019, 12:23pm

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by Biospace »

Carlton green wrote: 28 May 2023, 12:19pm
axel_knutt wrote: 28 May 2023, 11:46am T'was ever thus.
Yes, life is imperfect. However, this (payment of congestion charges) did strike me as totally absurd and of a mindset that says the rules don’t apply to us.

Private jets and aviation in general is an interesting one. If I can’t have a new petrol powered car in 2030 then it’s inequitable that someone else can buy or travel in a new fossil fuelled aircraft. There will always be special cases, the practical need to fly to off-shore structures and islands comes to mind, but as a generality a blind eye is turned towards aircraft emissions.

Boris and his pals showed, during the Covid restrictions, that rules apply to other people.

Boris was a fool not to realise that the civil servants and the rest were involved in socialising in No10 should have been stopped, completely and immediately given that the general public were being forced to let their husbands and wives, parents and close friends die alone, such was the draconian response. It signifies his unsuitability for the job, but doesn't it also prompt the consideration that these were the people 'running the country' and they knew that Covid-19 wasn't anywhere near as dangerous as the government propaganda suggested?

How crazy is it that we encourage larger and faster vehicles for personal transport then invent laws to limit their impact, marginally? Efficient transport should be ubiquitous, affordable, practical, easy and satisfying to use, the desire shouldn't exist to own something as crazy as a Range Rover or similar in anywhere more built up than rural Romania or Sweden, perhaps except for those with borderline personality disorders.

Having celebrities using personal jet and massive cars should be discouraged - these people are often very vocal on 'Net Zero' and 'saving the planet'. Given they don't seem to appreciate how daft they look perhaps this should be made a little more clear to the public, examples should be set by political and business leaders.

Where is the satire ridiculing our leaders as they fly in to 'climate summits' in private planes? It seems the big business whose executives move about exclusively by Range Rover and private jet have increasing control over everyone.
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by Psamathe »

Biospace wrote: 29 May 2023, 1:27pm ...
Having celebrities using personal jet and massive cars should be discouraged - these people are often very vocal on 'Net Zero' and 'saving the planet'. Given they don't seem to appreciate how daft they look perhaps this should be made a little more clear to the public, examples should be set by political and business leaders.

Where is the satire ridiculing our leaders as they fly in to 'climate summits' in private planes? It seems the big business whose executives move about exclusively by Range Rover and private jet have increasing control over everyone.
Or Prime Ministers who seem addicted to private helicopter trips (normally taxpayer funded) even when there are more that adequate, practical trains running (where security is not an issue given that other PMs haven't had to make such extensive use of private helicopter trips).

But I guess once a PM gets used to a multi-millionaire lifestyle it becomes easy to expect everybody else to make the sacrifices to address climate change and one's multiple millions exempt you from needing to even consider Climate Change (or taxpayer money).

Ian
briansnail
Posts: 805
Joined: 1 Sep 2019, 3:07pm

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by briansnail »

What stops everyone from getting zero emitting electric vehicles? Cost.MP'S are rich .A lot of them will be driving electric cars as seen as cool.Zero congestion charge.
*************************************
I ride Brompton and a 100% British Vintage.
PH
Posts: 13099
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: One rule for some and another for others

Post by PH »

When I was for a short while a sales rep, I had all my vehicle costs reimbursed but not my driving ones, so if it'd been in the days of the congestion charges, I'd have had those paid but not any penalties for poor driving or admin. I'm not sure what the story is here? Many people who are required to work in multiple places have their expenses between them paid, I see nothing wrong with that, though encouraging them to do it in a better way ought to happen. The handful who thought it OK to claim the costs of their errors ought to be penalised for it.
Post Reply