Tag Archives: luxury

Tory ministers have been burning public money on expensive luxuries, says Labour

Rich kid Rishi Sunak: if he wants to stay in five-star hotels, why not put some of his own fortune into it, rather than spending on himself the public cash he keeps telling us is in such short supply.

It’s bad enough when the Tories hire private planes at huge expense to visit foreign countries – often for climate crisis summit meetings – but this shows it’s habitual.

And Tory protests that the spending is all on the record do not defend their position.

Here it is:

Labour is launching a campaign accusing government ministers and officials of spending taxpayer-funded credit cards on luxury travel and hotels, claiming they are using public money “like a cash machine”.

It states that [Rishi] Sunak stayed in the five-star Hotel Danieli in Venice when attending the G20 meeting of finance ministers in July 2021 as chancellor, with more than £4,500 spent on accommodation for Sunak and his aides.

[Greg] Hands is also singled out for staying for two nights in the £318 per night five-star Grand Hotel Petersberg in Koenigswinter, Germany, in order to attend a private gathering of European policymakers. Alok Sharma is listed as staying in a series of five-star hotels in Berlin, Saigon, Tianjin and twice in Seoul – at costs of up to £255 per night – during the 66 trips he made as Cop26 president. Labour said it cost at least £220,817 for his travel and hotels.

Under Sunak, the Treasury also hired a £3,600 chauffeur service for ministers and officials visiting Cop26 in November 2021. The same chauffeur service was hired by Nadhim Zahawi’s department for £1,040 during his own trip to Cop26.

Former minister Nigel Adams is named as spending £9,289 on a visit to Japan in July 2022 in order to “confirm the UK’s commitment to the Osaka Expo”, which takes place in 2025. Adams announced he was leaving the government five and a half weeks after the trip. Labour said a late request for an official from the Department for International Trade to accompany him added an extra £8,110 flight to the costs of the trip.

In 2012, the public accounts committee (PAC) criticised the use of five-star hotels and expensive transport costs.

Yes.

This is your money the Tories are spending on themselves – at a time when living costs are tight for you.

Instead of tightening their own belts and sharing your ordeal, they are rubbing your nose in it.

Because these entitled, over-privileged rich kids think they deserve it just for existing – and that you don’t, for the same reason.

Source: Tory ministers accused of five-star lifestyle and using public money ‘like a cash machine’ | Conservatives | The Guardian


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Jeremy Hunt spends £44,000 of your tax money on a shower suite for himself

You have bought a luxury bathroom for Jeremy Hunt, so he won’t have to mix with the plebs who work for him [Image: Evolve Politics].

This is the reason Tories want your healthcare to be provided on the cheap – so they can lavish your tax money on themselves.

The cost of this extravagance could cover the annual wages of 2 nurses, 169 sessions of chemo or 15 delivered babies, This Site is reliably informed.

Meanwhile Jeremy Hunt has cut NHS funding by £22 billion, and nurses’ wages by 14 per cent.

Ask your Tory-voting, NHS-using neighbour why they keep letting people like Mr Hunt do this to them.

Conservative Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is at the centre of a fresh expenses row today after it emerged that he demanded a £44,000 taxpayer funded private bathroom was installed exclusively for his own personal use in his London penthouse office.

Despite demanding massive £22 billion worth of ‘efficiency savings’ from the already overstretched NHS budget, the deeply unpopular Conservative Health Secretary decided to spare absolutely no expense with his very own private taxpayer funded bathroom.

Kitted out with floor to ceiling luxury slate tiles, state of the art motion activated lighting and even a ‘designer toilet’, Hunt’s bathroom, generously paid for by unwitting taxpayers, could have paid the salaries of two full time nurses.

The Conservative minister insisted on having the bathroom installed so he can freshen up after his occasional cycle-rides to work.

The new £25m Department of Health (DoH) offices, located in Central London, already have showers for staff close to the bike racks.

However, according to reports, Jeremy Hunt insisted on having his very own private bathroom installed in his penthouse office so he can freshen up without being disturbed by lower-level colleagues.

Source: Jeremy Hunt spent £44k of YOUR TAX MONEY on a personal luxury private bathroom in his penthouse office | Evolve Politics


Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Bedroom tax condemns homes to demolition because they are too expensive for families

The obvious solution: The government should be helping build new social housing - not forcing the demolition of what little there is.

The obvious solution: The government should be helping build new social housing – not forcing the demolition of what little there is.

If the government really wants to make larger social accommodation available to overcrowded families, why are housing associations knocking them down?

They have to go because the Bedroom Tax has made them too expensive, according to The Guardian.

The story, published yesterday, is another nail in the coffin of Iain Duncan Smith’s credibility. It doesn’t matter how many polls the Conservatives produce to support their claim that people agree with them; in practice, it simply doesn’t work.

Housing associations are finding three-bedroomed properties impossible to maintain. They cannot let them out, sell them or keep up with the costs of keeping them while they are empty.

All of this has serious implications for the Coalition government that voted the Bedroom Tax onto the statute books as part of Mr ‘Returned To Unit’ Smith’s hugely unpopular – and now proving to be unworkable – Welfare Reform Act last year.

On Tuesday, MPs will debate the future of the Tax, when Labour members are expected to vote for its immediate repeal. Senior Liberal Democrats are also believed to have doubts – The Guardian (again) has quoted Danny Alexander’s father as saying it is “particularly unfair”.

Labour’s Rachel Reeves has overcome a shaky start in her role as shadow Work and Pensions Secretary to get right on-message with this. According to The Guardian report, she said: “This incompetent and out of touch government seems oblivious to the perverse and costly consequences of this unjust and unworkable policy.

“Not only is it hitting 660,000 vulnerable households, including 440,000 disabled people; the costs to the taxpayer are mounting as people are pushed into more expensive private rented accommodation while existing social homes are left vacant.”

Of course, Dear Reader, she’s right. You read it here first – all the way back in October last year.

Surely it makes more sense to have someone living in these properties, rather than losing them altogether? Does the government have an answer for this?

Apparently not. A government spokes-robot trotted out the same tired nonsense we’ve all come to despise: “The removal of the spare room subsidy is a necessary reform that will return fairness to housing benefit. We’ve been clear that hardworking people should not be subsidising tenants living in properties that are too large for their requirements.”

Let’s all remember that there never was a spare room subsidy for the government to remove. It never existed. Therefore its removal is not a necessary reform; it can never be vital to remove something that is fictional. Also, the removal of a fictional thing cannot restore fairness anywhere.

Hard-working people probably shouldn’t be subsidising tenants who are under-occupying, but then hard-working people were never the only ones paying for this to happen. Everybody in the UK pays taxes one way or another – even children.

And while we’re on the subject of what hard-working people subsidise, why is it bad for them to help people stay in the social housing that was originally allocated to them, but good for them to help massive corporations keep their payroll costs down by paying tax credits, housing benefit and council tax reduction costs for people earning less than the Living Wage? Why is it good for them to pay the cost of MPs’ energy bills as well as their own?

“Consent from the Homes and Communities Agency is required before any social housing provider can dispose of a site on which social housing stood and will ensure that public investment and the needs of tenants are protected,” the robot continued, but we should all know that this will be no obstacle.

Demolition of social housing means land becomes available for private developers to build new, luxury homes for the very rich.

That’s where the big money is.