42.9p per mile council expenses for..... WALKING!!!!!!!

[Nobody You Know]

Just been passed a paper clipping by my Grandparents and my blood is quickly boiling as was theres,

The green party in our local council (Stroud District Council) is offering the same travel expenses to councillers who walk to meetings as those who drive?!?!?!

Quoted from clipping:

Newspaper said:

42.9p a mile for walking
A town is to offer councillorstravel expenses for walking to meetings.
The 42.9p per mile rate will now be the same if a councillor walks, cycles, drives or travels by bus.
Mayor John Marjoram a green councillor in Stroud Glos, said; "The aim is to encourage peopleto walk rather than go by car."
But he thought members striding instead of ridingprobably wouldn't claim.

Madness.

And yes I do appreciate that people will only walk small distances (maybe 1-5 miles) and so the costs will be fairly low but what the fk do they need the money for? The 42.9p has been calculated from fuel/maintainence/depreciation and also I was under the impression that in the real world (non-public sector) that the expenses for cycling were lower due to the lower costs.

wkers. Green bandwagon, self serving, public sector wkers.

[Silent1]

I thought cycling had this kind of stupidity attached as well, to incentivise people to cycle?

IMHO motorbikes and travel expenses are brilliant, there's more profit than cost in it

[andy-xr]

It's not like people will actually do it, but imagine the claim form.

Please submit receipts for

- Meals from Tuesday
- Phone Bill for this month
- Walking

[deckster]

Silent1 said:

I thought cycling had this kind of stupidity attached as well, to incentivise people to cycle?

It's 20p/mile and actually it's not that ridiculous. I cycle maybe 2000 miles a year and can easily spend a few hundred quid on clothing, replacement parts, chains, brakes, oils etc. etc.

Silent1 said:

IMHO motorbikes and travel expenses are brilliant, there's more profit than cost in it

Eh? So it's OK for you to profit out of expenses policies, but not for people on bikes?

[Allanv]

Funny how the gov can say 49ppm even for walking yet we can only claim 40ppm which is then reduced after 10000 miles to 25ppm

One rule for them springs to mind

[cqueen]

You say its making your piss boil but why? no one is actually going to walk anymore than 1 mile. And so what if they do? its the same price as driving and yet there's one less car on the road.

I sugguest you put your piss in the freezer.

[Mrs Fish]

James here:

I fundamentally don't have a problem, except..... THey will decide to walk to meeting and spend half their over paid wages walking rathering than doing anything..

[jammy_basturd]

I work it out to be roughly £675 per year, based on 6 miles a day. £50 a month to afford a few pairs of shoes/trainers in a year, maybe some reflective stuff, and quite possibly health insurance if walking around the streets in my town is anything to go by.

[Alfa_75_Steve]

Silent1 said:

I thought cycling had this kind of stupidity attached as well, to incentivise people to cycle?

IMHO motorbikes and travel expenses are brilliant, there's more profit than cost in it

I've never found that, although I appreciate that it all depends on the rate your company pays.

I reckon my bikes cost roughly double what a car costs to run, per mile.

[esselte]

Mrs Fish said:

James here:

I fundamentally don't have a problem, except..... THey will decide to walk to meeting and spend half their over paid wages walking rathering than doing anything..

^^ I agree with this...

[Jasandjules]

Surely if you are walking then

1. You save the world so you get the self satisfaction of that
2. You get fitter.

So, why pay the feckers?

[cqueen]

Jasandjules said:

So, why pay the feckers?

Coz otherwise they will just drive instead and still claim the money.

Its stupid anyway because like people have already said, no one is going to walk anywhere because it takes too long and their being paid to work not walk. Storm in a teacup.

[Nobody You Know]

cqueen said:

You say its making your piss boil but why? no one is actually going to walk anymore than 1 mile. And so what if they do? its the same price as driving and yet there's one less car on the road.

I sugguest you put your piss in the freezer.

The 42.9p per mile is based on the fuel/maintainence/depreciation cost for driving a car which you need to do if you live more than a few mile away. Why do walkers need this? It's just pissing money away.

More public sector waste of taxpayers money, in the private sector it's 40p per mile for driving, upto 10,000 miles then it's 25p per mile and 20p per mile for cycling to cover bike wear/maintainence.

Whats making my piss boil is that in this time of economic hardship we are pissing money onto knobheads who don't need it.

[Jasandjules]

cqueen said:

Coz otherwise they will just drive instead and still claim the money.

So? When they drive they are being paid for fuel and running costs of the vehicle.

When they walk are they being paid for new trainers/shoes and a ham sandwhich?

[fatboy b]

Well I found out yesterday that 55% of my Council tax goes in housing & council tax benefits.

[jjones]

Nobody You Know said:

The green party in our local council (Stroud District Council) is offering the same travel expenses to councillers who walk to meetings as those who drive?!?!?!

if they want to be green then surely the best thing for the green party is to make their workers walk where possible with no monetary insentive. they are supposed to be working for a green party so the yoghurt weavers should be trying to encourage others to walk to work/meetings by leading by example and not profiteering from something so fundamental to their policies.

[Adrian W]

A far more important point that you all seem to have missed is, it takes a lot longer to walk or cycle (except London & Oxford) we are already paying them. If someone took two hours to get to a meeting just down the road I would sack them.

[Jasandjules]

Adrian W said:

A far more important point that you all seem to have missed is, it takes a lot longer to walk or cycle (except London & Oxford) we are already paying them. If someone took two hours to get to a meeting just down the road I would sack them.

Why? They are not paid travelling time are they?

So if the meeting is at 9am and it takes them an hour to walk, then they have to leave before 8am. Just the same as if it took them 20 mins to drive then they'd have to leave before 8.40am.

[Adrian W]

Jasandjules said:

Adrian W said:

A far more important point that you all seem to have missed is, it takes a lot longer to walk or cycle (except London & Oxford) we are already paying them. If someone took two hours to get to a meeting just down the road I would sack them.

Why? They are not paid travelling time are they?

So if the meeting is at 9am and it takes them an hour to walk, then they have to leave before 8am. Just the same as if it took them 20 mins to drive then they'd have to leave before 8.40am.

Err, and if the meeting is at 11 so they go to the office first.

Or they have three or four meetings that day, or does that now mean that they have to attend fewer meetings, i.e site meetings etc. therefore capacity will be reduced, so they will have to employ more people.........maybe its some sort of secret job creation scheme.

Edited by Adrian W on Saturday 21st March 09:49

[Jasandjules]

Adrian W said:

Err, and if the meeting is at 11 so they go to the office first.

Well, if they are at the office first then I assume the meeting won't be held in another office 200 miles away soooo they could probably waddle along to the meeting room on another floor could they not?