£30,525 of payments for food claimed by the DUP couple between 2004 and 2008. It further states that they often claimed the maximum £400 per month each from Parliament for food. Mr Robinson has stated that the combined total works out at “about £73 per week” over the period.
Now then:
30000 divided by 73 equals 418.15 weeks.
There are 52 weeks in a year multiply that by 5 (ie 2004-2008), that equals 260.
Bearing in mind that parliament doesn't sit for 52 weeks every year and when it does sit Mr and Mrs Robinson are not the most regular of attenders...
We can safely day that Mr Robinson's maths do not add up in this case.
Update 1:
The BBC in contrast to the Bele Tele is omitting the highlighted original "combined". It's still unlikely however that the Robinsons attended parliament 52 weeks a year for 5 years.
Update 2:
Chekov, being the whizz with figures that he is, has calculated bearing in mind the number of days parliament sits per year and the Robinsons' average attendance record, they are munching through a combined average of 1050 quid per week.
Update 3:
The DUP are not handling this well:
Defending the food claims for 2004 to 2008, a DUP spokesman said: "During the particular period in question from 2004 onwards Mr Robinson was in London on a regular basis on Parliamentary business, negotiations, meetings with Government ministers and senior officials."
"Commonly, such business spanned between two and four days per week at its most intense."
1. MP's expenses cover, surely, solely costs incurred by MPs doing their parliamentary work?
Did- "Negotiations, meeting with Government ministers and senior officials" have any relevance to Peter Robinson's work as MP for East Belfast?
2."Between two and four days per week at its most intense".
Presumably that 'intense' period pre-dated the restoration of devolution in 2007? His expenses covered the period 2004-2008.
Parliament still does not sit 52 weeks a year.
Robbo's "intense" period" spanned between two and four days per week" (lucky him, my working week covers an "intense" 5 days, sometimes an "intense" 6 every week)- Peter seems now to be admitting that his original defence ("in reality, this equates to an average of about £73 per week") was a load of cobblers.
*Trademarked by Belfast Gonzo.
15 comments:
"We can safely day that Mr Robinson's maths do not add up in this case."
Err no you can't. I am afraid it is your maths that is faulty
30520 / 4 = 7630 per annum
7630 / 52 = £146.73 per week
£146.73 / 2 = £73.36 per person per week
Still high I grant you and don't see why the taxpayer is paying for food bills but the basic maths is sound.
the combined total works out at “about £73 per week” over the periodthe "combined" total?
And parliament doesn't sit for 52 weeks every year. And when it does the Robinsons' attendance is less than 100%.
Apart from the fact that your maths don't add up there's little room for Tory crowing on this issue.
No DUP moats or resignations because of illegality....
Not quite so many posts about Dave's allies resiging... But then you're only a UK unionist when it suits I suppose....
Something wrong with the html on here, that first part was pointing out that Robinson was saying this was a "combined" total, I took thta as meaning both and his wife's amount. Whatever, Chekov's done a much more thorough job:
http://threethousandversts.blogspot.com/2009/05/hungriest-couple-at-westminster.htm
he's an accountant, that's excuse!
Carson's cat,
How would you interpret "combined"?
Regarding the UK party's problems in this regard, Cameron has shown slightly more integrity in dealing with miscreants than the DUP Politburo has ever done. Except if they are "sexually devient" micreants obviously
Oneill
On the combined bit, there may be an issue with your source quote. Over on the BBC he talks about his average weekly claim being for a comprable amount.
"Mr Robinson, NI's first minister, said that over the period his average weekly claim was around £70 which he said was not unreasonable for London."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8051277.stm
FD
Link's now up. David Gordon is saying it's "combined".
Oneill
"Link's now up. David Gordon is saying it's "combined".
Cheers oneill. As the Telegraph has lumped everything together it could be the source of confusion.
"http://threethousandversts.blogspot.com/2009/05/hungriest-couple-at-westminster.htm"
BTW there is a core flaw in Chekov's analysis, these are not claims for the weekly grocery shop but all food costs involved i.e. if you spend a day in parliament and eat your meals there you can get the expense back. I haven't eaten at Westminster what are their prices like? How much would a breakfast, lunch and dinner cost?
I must admit I made the same incorrect assumption as Chekov when I heard of food expenses claims that it was what they were getting from the supermarket but it isn't.
That said I still don't see why the taxpayer is paying for food bills.
"I haven't eaten at Westminster what are their prices like? How much would a breakfast, lunch and dinner cost?"
I'd suspect with them being heavily subsidised, you'd get change out of a hundred quid.
Crucial point here though is their attendance record, you have to be actually there to avail of the Commons' facilties.
I should probably slow down a bit, Chekov's figure takes the attendance record into account. Will give robbo the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant 73 quid per day as opposed to week.
Oneill
Voting isn't attendance as such although it is the only measure publicly available so it is therefore perfectly elgitimate one to use - You can be there and not vote. Also you can be conducting parliamentary business even when it is not sitting.
On the broader topic I still have to check the stats to see if it works but what do you think of the idea of tieing MPs salary to some multiple of the average national salary?
Hi
Interesting stuff. The problem with tying MPs salaries to some multiple of national average wage is that it will (a) encourage them to ramp up the minimum wage more regularly, potentialy forcing excessive costs on to business and (b) encourage them to increase public sector pay elsewhere to carry up their own salaries. IMHO the last thing we need is yet more inflationary public sector pay settlements for no additional productivity (I worked in the local authority and regional sectors for over a decade, and inflationary settlements disconected from productivity have been widespread over the last 10-15 years). Ironically I think they possibly are underpaid for what they do. But there's sooooo much more than that wrong with the system.
Great blog BTW
Yellowplush
yellowplush
I realise this won't solve the minimum wage issue but to address the issue of public sector pay being messed about with you could use the average private sector wage (presuming such data exists).
On the self-interest logic would there not be greater reward focusing on an expanding economy than messing about with the minimum wage?
Hopefully. But you couldn't put anything past them at the moment. I don't know if you're familiar with the work done by various economists on political business cycles - how they deliberately over-inflate economies in the run-up to elections to make people feel better off, then crash and burn said economy after regaining power to combat the innevitable inflation they create. I wouldn't put it past politicians to overheat the private sector labour market (and there are literally LOADS of ways they can do this) in the run-up to their wage settlements, only to over-compensate in pegging back inflation once they've had their settlement. This would work particularly well, say, if they had settlements for the life of a Parliament. Dear me, its sad that I've got so cynical about all this. But who can blame me?
"On the broader topic I still have to check the stats to see if it works but what do you think of the idea of tieing MPs salary to some multiple of the average national salary?"
I'd be extremely tempted to give them a pay -rise and completely abolish the expense regime full-stop. Failing that, tie it in strictly to attendance.
Post a Comment