So, if it's the equivalent of pie and chips at the local pub (which would probably be in the order of £20 in central London I guess) then it's not a big deal, and I would expect your local "Man in the street" isn't going to think it's a big deal.

If it's in the order of a meal at a celeb-shef's resteraunt and around £200 then I think people will rightly question where the tax payer's money is going.

At the end of the day, *everything* should be on the MPs tax return, and the tax man should make the decision if something attracts a personal taxation charge against it for the purposes of a) the job as an MP and b) for the job as a party worker. If something the house of commons pays for would and up attracting a personal charge as far as the IR is concerned, then the party should pay for that BiK.

Would give MPs an incentive to keep the expenses rules that the rest of us have to follow simple

i think really the only way to decide these things as an MP is to base on whether you would feel under some obligation or your constituents would feel you were under some obligation which placed the beneficees in a better position than other constituents or voters.

If political parties weren't such big spenders, then this merry-go-round of fundraising would not be required. They seem to suffering a debilitating strain of dependency culture with billboard advertising we ignore, armies of paid advisers whom the voters distrust, and a reliance on the top people flying all around the country to make really quite ordinary speeches.

Reply: THE ANSWER IS THAT ALL DINING TO RAISE MONEY FOR A POLITICAL PARTY USING PARLIAMENTARY FACILITIES IS WRONG. IT IS ALSO WRONG IN MY VIEW THAT THE DINING FACILITIES ARE SUBSIDISED. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT PARTIES RAISE TOO MUCH MONEY – IT IS BECAUSE THEY SPEND TOO MUCH ON SPIN DOCTORS, POLLLING ETC WHEN IT WOULD BE BETTER IF THEY CUT BACK.

Against Commons rules – 4 (if party did know about the dinner), 7, 9 (as not random) and 12, 13 & 14 (but I'm not sure about these),

Illegal – none, unless additional information indicates unlawful intentions.

Your scenarios indicate that being an MP involves being set down in the centre of a minefield!

Against Commons Rules – if subsidised, 12 & 13, possibly 14. You could make a case for 8, too. Of course, the simple thing to do is to have two rates – with a full commercial rate applicable to 8,9 & 12 -14.

One has to wonder what has happened to the moralities they learned at their mothers' knees. If you were to ask the same questions of most schoolchildren you'd probably get a very clear pattern.

However, your list does give a clear indication as to the machinery….

"Do a commercial, you're off the artistic roll call, every word you say is suspect, you're a corporate whore and eh, end of story."
Bill Hicks. R.I.P.

I think rules should exist for security purposes, to maintain the decorum of the place, and to prevent private gain for the MP or his party. Any scenario where there is an implied exchange of funds between dining guess and an MP or his party is very doubtful to me. I would favour minimal rules to prevent those scenarios, with maximum discretion for the MP beyond that, as the public can always sanction rogues at the ballot box. It seems to me that political parties have the most to lose here as one bad MP will tar the whole parliamentary party. Therefore party rules (and not the criminal law or parliamentary rules) seem appropriate to prevent a party organisation offering dinners with MPs or expecting donations from his/her guests.